Mishnah - Mishnah Berakhot 1:3 - Sheet 6

Finally in Mishnah 3 the Biblical source for the mitzvah of reading the Shema is presented and discussed. This knowledge was assumed by the text in Mishnayot 1 and 2. The verses in Deuteronomy 6:5-9 paint an all-consuming picture. As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, this faith/belief statement about God’s unique oneness in the world should take up one’s entire emotional and physical strength. One must impress it on oneself and on the next generation. The faith statement should be always on your lips – at home and when traveling, lying down and arising; it should be bound to your body and mark your homes. According to the Torah, the appropriate time to recite the Shema is ALL the time, and it should be all consuming as well. In Mishnah 3, the Rabbis limit the time period in which one is required to read the Shema to twice a day – in the morning and in the evening – the two periods discussed in the first two mishnayot.

The School of Shammai says - בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: This school of thought originated with Shammai the Elder, who lived from about 50 BCE to 30 CE. The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel presents an older stratum of law then the views of the tannaim cited in the first two mishnayot of the chapter, who are from the generation of Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh.

In the evening every person should recline and read - בָּעֶרֶב כָּל אָדָם יַטּוּ וְיִקְרְאוּ: Beit Shammai requires the individual reading the Shema to not only use their voice and mouth but to also move their body into the lying down position. In the Kaufmann manuscript the words “every person” are added by the hand of the scribe vocalizing the text (representing the babylonian tradition) and does not appear in the original.

and in the morning they should stand - וּבַבֹּקֶר יַעַמְדוּ: And read the Shema. By positioning one’s body distinctly in the evening and the morning, the experience of reading the Shema will feel different depending on the time of day. The person will first feel more acutely aware of the time and the feeling on their body in the experience, so that such an awareness imbues the reading with a different perspective and makes one more conscious of the two different times.

“when you lie down and when you get up” - שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו) וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ: Beit Shammai prioritizes these two words from the whole verse which lists a number of different times and places where these words should be said. They then understand this clause literally – when you the individual, in the singular, do the action of either lying down or getting up, you must “speak them” by reading the Shema. They learn two different things from this verse. One, the required physical position; and two, the general time of day that this positioning should happen – in the evening and in the morning. On this second point Beit Hillel will agree with them.

The School of Hillel says - וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: This school of thought originated with Hillel the Elder, who was the Nasi for about 40 years covering the period from about 30 BCE to 10 CE.

Every person reads in his way - כָּל אָדָם קוֹרֵא כְדַרְכּוֹ: Beit Hillel disagrees with Beit Shammai’s understanding of the text. From the structure of the mishnah, it seems that their view is a response to Beit Shammai’s pre-existing practice. They do not think that one must specifically position one’s body in a particular manner to read the Shema. Rather every person is an individual and may read the Shema in whatever way, i.e., position, they happen to be at the moment. The moment does not need to be choreographed. According to the Kaufmann manuscript, it is only Beit Hillel and not Beit Shammai who uses the language “every person” in presenting their view. However, that text cites Beit Hillel as speaking in the plural - כל אד(ן)[ם] קורין כדרכן all people read in their way. This emphasizes Beit Hillel’s desire to create a unified law for all, that still incorporates each person’s individual bodily experience when it comes to reading the Shema. This tension between uniform law and different human experience was seen in the first two mishnayot from a slightly different angle.

The use of the word “adam” here echoes the end of the previous Mishnah where the Rabbis ruled that since one of the ways a person interacts with the Shema is to simply read it from the Torah (Kaufmann Manuscript: כאדם שהוא קורא בתורה), one may thus do so outside of the day’s limit.

as it says (ibid.), “And when you walk along the way” - שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ: Beit Hillel choose to focus on a different clause in the same verse which Beit Shammai interpreted. These words, which come directly after the clause “when you stay home,” literally refer to a physical way, i.e., a path or road; yet Beit Hillel uses them metaphorically as a response to Beit Shammai. A specific physical position is not required to read the Shema; rather each person can do it in their own way, i.e., manner. Taking this view to its extreme, one could also understand “kedarko” to also include a flexibility about what time one may read the Shema. This understanding and the fact that they disagree with what seems to be the straightforward reading of the clause which Beit Shammai prioritized causes the mishnah to ask the following question:

If so, why does it say “when you lie down and when you get up” - אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ: Since Beit Hillel directly disagrees with Beit Shammai’s interpretation of these words the text asks how do they understand the phrase – which so clearly speaks about lying down and standing up.

at the time when people lie down - בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם שׁוֹכְבִים and at the time when people get up - וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִים: Beit Hillel actually partially agrees with Beit Shammai’s interpretation. They think the entire verse should be limited to twice a day in the morning and evening. For them, this clause teaches the timeframe for the reading, but it does not indicate a required position for doing so.

In both of these clauses, the Kaufmann Manuscript has an additional word added

- בשעה שדרך שבני אדם שוכבים ובשעה שדרך שבני אדם עומדים

at the time that it is the way that people lie down and at the time that it is the way that people get up. Although the general meaning of the rule does not change that much from that which appears in the printed text, the use of the word derekh, way, emphasizes that Beit Hillel is prioritizing their initial interpretation. It is the natural behaviors and ways of humans which determined these specific times of the required reading. They point out to Beit Shammai that even their interpretation of evening and morning is predicated on the way in which people regularly conducted their day. Mishnah 1 and 2 were based on this view of Beit Hillel. All the opinions cited there agreed that the time of the reading should be when it is the norm for people to go to sleep or awake – it is just that they disagreed about when exactly that norm was and whose way or behavior should define it for all.

Rabbi Tarfon said - אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: A third generation tanna. He was a priest from Yavneh and seems to follow the rulings of Beit Shammai in some other cases as well. (See for instance BT Yevamot 15a; and see JT Sheviit 4:2, 35b for another instance where R. Tarfon endangered his life while following the view of Beit Shammai.)

I was coming on the road/way - אֲנִי הָיִיתִי בָא בַדֶּרֶךְ: In the first section of the mishnah, Beit Hillel was explicitly asked how they, who disagreed with Beit Shammai, explain their rivals’ prooftext. The text does not explicitly ask Beit Shammai, “If so, why does it say, ‘And when you walk along the way,’” however this story of R. Tarfon directly addresses that issue as he is physically traveling on the way.

and I reclined to read [Shema] - וְהִטֵּתִי לִקְרוֹת: Although Beit Shammai presumably ruled that one must recline in the evening because that was the normative behavior for people each night as one laid down to sleep, this example pushes the limits of that view. They require one to physically position one’s body in all locations and situations. From this story, one sees that Beit Shammai did not just require a symbolic lean but rather a full-blown lying down. Just as Beit Hillel prioritized their original proof text and read the rest of the verse in light of its message; so too Beit Shammai does the same with their interpretation.

in accordance with the words of the school of Shammai - כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי: Either R. Tarfon is explicitly from the school of Shammai, or he thought that an individual had the option of choosing to follow their opinion whenever they deemed it correct.

and I endangered myself due to [attack by] highway robbers - וְסִכַּנְתִּי בְעַצְמִי מִפְּנֵי הַלִּסְטִים: The road, presumably between towns, is a dangerous place especially at night. One might encounter wild animals or bandits. Not surprisingly if one stops, gets off the horse or donkey and lies down, one is making oneself an easy target for attack. It is unclear from his words if he just put himself at risk for assault or if he was actually robbed. Presumably R. Tarfon thought such a risk was required of him and maybe even a testament to how much he was willing to sacrifice for the important faith statement of reading the Shema properly.

They (the Sages) said to him - אָמְרוּ לוֹ: This story would be all the more dramatic if R. Tarfon had just arrived in the beit midrash directly from his journey, recounting what had befallen him and possibly expecting sympathy and concern from his peers.

You deserved to be liable for your own fate - כְּדַי הָיִיתָ לָחוּב בְּעַצְמְךָ: The Rabbis say to him that his own behavior is responsible for the danger. If injury or even death had happened to him, it would be his own fault. BT Berakhot 11a cites Rav Nahman b.Yitzhak who understands the Rabbis to be making an even stronger statement – that R. Tarfon deserved death for his actions.

since you transgressed the words of the school of Hillel - שֶׁעָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל: According to Beit Hillel’s guiding principle that everyone reads in the way they are – kedarko – R. Tarfon should have stayed on his mount, kept riding, and read the Shema while doing so. In theory, according to Beit Hillel, one might do whatever they want while reading. Thus, even getting off the mount and lying down should be fine, also according to their opinion. However, since R. Tarfon stated explicitly that he did so to follow Beit Shammai, the Rabbis found his behavior problematic. Although there existed a time where the Rabbis of the Academy/Sanhedrin could choose to follow either camp, during the time of R. Tarfon, there was a major move under the leadership of Rabban Gamliel to unify and solidify the law according to Beit Hillel. However, that process was not completed until the generation of Usha, after the Sanhedrin moved there following the Bar Kokhvah revolt. See Sifrei Devarim #34 and the baraita brought in BT Berakhot 11a where other tannaim actively change their body position for Shema, despite Beit Hillel permitting reading in any manner, just so that the law should not be affixed according to Beit Shammai. Anyone trying to simultaneously fulfill both the view of the houses of Hillel and Shammai, had the verse from Ecclesiastes 2:14, “fool walking in darkness,” applied to them (T. Sukkah 2:3, T. Ediyot 2:3, T. Yevamot 1:3, T. Hagigah 2:1, T. Berakhot 5:25 T. Pesahim 10:3). The story of the bat kol, the prophetic voice stating the law is according to Beit Hillel (BT Eruvin 13b) is not found in tannaitic literature and is brought by the amora Shmuel in the Gemara.

since you transgressed - שֶׁעָבַרְתָּ: The use of the root .ע.ב.ר in this line is interesting and echoes the word averah, transgression, used in the first mishnah of the chapter. However, whereas in Mishnah 1, it was the Biblical commandment of Shema that the Rabbis were trying to protect the individual from transgressing, here the transgression is against a particular Rabbinic interpretation. This usage of similar words elevates the power of Rabbinic Torah and the Rabbinic consensus favoring Beit Hillel and, to some extent, equates it with Biblical law. The Talmud Yerushalmi makes an even stronger assertion about the relationship between Rabbinic and Biblical law based on a different point:

Not reading the Biblical commandment of Shema at all has no punishment, yet the Rabbis feel that disregarding Beit Hillel’s view is deserving of death. This breach of Rabbinic authority is so grave because of how beloved the words of the Rabbis are. (Or more practically because things that lack natural authority need a boost for people to listen to them.)

*Reasoning Behind the Dispute [makhloket]* – What are Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreeing about? What reasoning stands behind their differing interpretations? Is their argument solely over which part of the verse to prioritize or is it something deeper about the fundamental essence of the commandment? Why in this case is it so terrible to follow Beit Shammai over Beit Hillel?

The Mishnah values a plethora of voices and opinions. We see that it records disputes everywhere. However, this mishnah also seems to emphatically state that vastly divergent rulings are unacceptable, especially for core ritual behaviors. Without a physical location to unify the Jewish people, uniform law becomes more important; though it is ironic that the uniformity here places a premium on difference in individual behavior. This text is the first time the Mishnah mentions the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel and it, in no uncertain terms, teaches that the practical halakha follows Beit Hillel. Nevertheless, Beit Shammai’s view is still preserved and offers a counterpoint to better understand Beit Hillel. Relationship with God, as presented by Beit Hillel, is no longer a formal ritualized service but rather accessible to all people in their normal ways of living life. Specifically in R. Tarfon’s generation, after the Temple’s destruction, Beit Hillel’s idea that one can experience Malkhut Shamayim, the Kingdom of Heaven, as encapsulated in the reading of the Shema (see Mishnah 2:2) – anywhere in any situation on whatever path one may be, b’lekhtekha baderekh, – was an important, unifying and sustaining factor as the nation continued on a journey fraught with danger that felt more and more distant from the experience of the Temple.