Mishnah - Mishnah Berakhot 1:1 - Sheet 4

As will be seen, Mishnah 1 and 2 are clearly a unit. They both open with a similarly worded question of time.

From when do we read the Shema in the evening - מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע בְּעַרְבִית: This question and the answers to follow assume knowledge of Mishnah 3. There the Rabbis interpret the word in Deuteronomy 6:7, “ou’veshokhbekha, וּֽבְשׇׁכְבְּךָ,” when you lie down, as meaning that one is required to read the Shema in the evening/night at the time when people go to sleep.

we read Shema - קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע: Although in colloquial English it is more common to state that one recites the Shema, the more exact translation is, to read. This action of reading reflects one of the unique aspects of the Shema that distinguishes it from other blessings or prayers. The Shema consists of verses from the written Torah; and written texts are read. (The Rabbis refer to the written Torah as mikra, see for example M. Avot 5:21, and the Talmud will refer to a verse as kra, see for example BT Berakhot 4a.) This unique duality of the Shema, being both a section of verses from the Torah, which is read as part of a larger narrative, and also a specific commandment read daily will be referenced at the end of Mishnah 1:2, as well as in 2:1. The specific verses which are read are only stated in Mishnah 2:2.

we read Shema - קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע: The mishnah speaks using a plural verb. (In Mishnaic Hebrew, the ending mem and nun are interchangeable.) As opposed to the second person singular used by the verse in Deuteronomy 6:7, which would imply a personal individual behavior, the Rabbis are creating and implementing a unified practice of ritual for the collective group.

in the evening, b’arvit - בְּעַרְבִית: The Kaufmann manuscript reads b’aravim, בערבים in the evenings: During the time of the Mishnah, the reading of the Shema was a distinct and separate ritual from the evening prayer liturgy; they had not yet been joined into a service called arvit. The Mishnah opens by discussing the evening Shema both because the Rabbinic day begins in the evening as well as that the verse in Deuteronomy 6:7 states “when you lie down” before it states, “when you get up” (see BT Berakhot 2a).

From the time when the Kohanim (priests) enter to eat their terumah - מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִים לֶאֱכֹל בִּתְרוּמָתָן: Terumah is tithed produce which the nation donates to the priest (see Numbers 18:11-13) and may only be eaten by the priestly household in a state of ritual purity. As will be seen from the continuation of this mishnah, this start time is agreed upon by all without challenge or question. Yet, as it is presented here, the wording opens up a number of questions that must be answered in order to understand the meaning of the mishnah.

Presumably, from the context of the mishnah, this "entering" occurs in the evening. Leviticus 22:6-7, after listing a number of things which make one ritual impure, explains what is required of the priest to become pure. The verses state:

After immersing in a mikveh, it is sunset which changes the priests’ status. Thus, it must be after sunset when they enter to eat the ritually pure holy tithes. In his additional notes on this mishnah, Hanoch Albeck quotes his father. He writes that since the text of the mishnah did not specify that the priests were impure but rather spoke of priests in general, this text is referencing a general custom amongst priests that they would all immerse in the mikveh before eating terumah – regardless of their purity status. Support for this idea can be found in other tannaitic statements (see Albeck) such as Tosefta Yoma 4:7, which states:

This text testifies to the regular practice of all priests to enter the mikveh at the start of the evening before eating terumah. This practice was possibly an outgrowth of the priests taking on a higher standard of behavior after the destruction of the Temple, such that they would not even pass a ritually pure item to any other individual (see BT Bekhorot 30b). Thus, to ensure uniform behavior in their households, they kept terumah in concealed places (see Terumot 8:8) until nightfall and only ate it then, at this specified time, after all had immersed.

Tosefta Berakhot 1:1 presents a slightly different phrasing than the Mishnah and adds a more precise time reference for the priests’ regular practice:

Once the sun has set and the first stars appear in the sky, the priests eat their terumah and one may read the evening Shema. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael cites a text from Sefrei Zuta L’Devarim 11:19 (p.160) that identifies the phrasing linked to the priests’ immersion and eating with the view of the House of Shammai, and the marker of the night sky with the House of Hillel:

ספרי זוטא לדברים יא:יט

משיטהרו הכהנים לאכול בתרומתן כדברי בית שמאי ובית הלל אומרים משתחשך

From when the priests will become ritually pure to eat their terumah like the words of the House of Shammai and the house of Hillel says from when it becomes dark.

It is interesting to note that in this opening mishnah on the topic of reading the Shema, the mishnah alludes to the need to immerse in the mikveh and the last mishnah in the subunit focused on the Shema, Mishnah 3:6, outright discusses the topic of immersion. This arrangement creates an envelope structure to the entire three-chapter section discussing the laws of the Shema. By doing so the Mishnah creates an association in the learners’ minds between the reading of the Shema and immersing in the mikveh. Although, in practice, one does not need to immerse before reading the Shema, the Mishnah’s thematic link conjures up such an image. Just as one ritually elevates oneself by immersing before entering the Temple to encounter the Divine, so too the reading of the Shema is a daily way for people to connect and focus as they enter the Divine domain with its recitation.

Tosefta 1:1 also offers a description of another type of behavior which marks the start of nightfall:

Here, as opposed to the line concerning the priests cited above which uses the word “entitled”, the Tosefta uses the word “enter.” Similar to the Mishnah, the location into which the people enter is not stated, however, in this case there is no lack of clarity. The reader can easily deduce that the Shabbat meal is eaten in the home, such that the home is the place the people are entering. So too in the Mishnah, the priests were most likely entering their homes after immersing, to eat the food that is unique to their households. Many priests most likely had mikvaot within their personal living compounds in the courtyards.

However, there is another layer of meaning achieved when the Mishnah, unlike the Tosefta, choses to use the verb, “enter,” when describing the priests’ actions. The word, “enter,” is also used in the last mishnah of the entire tractate, thus creating an envelope structure linking the first and last mishnayot of Tractate Berakhot. There in 9:5 it states:

In this last mishnah, the location which is linked to the verb, “enter,” is the Temple Mount. This language of entering also reminds one of M. Yoma 3:3, which states that a person cannot enter the Temple courtyard without immersing, even if he is ritually pure. It continues to state that the high priest would immerse before doing each section of the service on Yom Kippur. Regular priests would also immerse before performing any of the regular Temple service (see Gemara Yoma 30a). The practice of all priests, even those who are already ritually pure, immersing before eating terumah mirrors this practice of immersion before service in the Temple. By using the word, “enter,” without a direct object after it and leaving that space empty, the Mishnah enables the learner to fill that space with thoughts of the Temple. That empty gap both allows the reader to feel the loss of the Temple and remember it simultaneously.

This case is a prime example of the Mishnah not being “merely” a code of law but rather a vehicle to convey the worldview of the tannaim. If the purpose of the Mishnah was just to present a code of law to instruct proper behavior, it should have used precise and clear wording. The text could have stated that the start time for reading the Shema is “from when the stars appear,” and instruct humans to use nature’s clock of the sky, as Mishnah 2 will do. What is added to our understanding by telling time with the “clock” used by the priests to ritually purify themselves before eating kodshim, sanctified food?

In the introduction to the chapter (Sheet 3), we mentioned that Tractate Berakhot does not easily fit into the order of Zeraim, which discusses the laws of agriculture. From a structural perspective, the mention of terumah, tithes on produce – here at the opening of the tractate – tangentially links this chapter to what is to come in the order, given that there is a whole tractate dedicated to terumot later on. (The order of Zeraim is also linked to the last tractate of all of the six orders, Ukzim, which also deals with things that grow from the ground.) However, this small structural connection is not the full story of why the Mishnah chose to open with this “timepiece” of the priests.

When the Temple was standing, its daily, monthly and holiday rituals were the Jewish timepiece, the main clock of connection to the Divine. With the Temple’s destruction, this constant relationship was severed (see also the introduction Sheet 2). When modeling a new way forward, the Mishnah chose to frame it in the context of the Temple’s sanctity. One of the few rituals remaining with a direct connection to the Temple service was the eating of tithes by the priest, something which they continued after the destruction. This practice took on great significance and was equated with the actual Temple service. Sefrei Bamidbar #116, commenting on the verse which proceeds the commandment of the tithes, presents this view that eating tithes outside of the boundaries of the Temple is comparable to duties of the Temple service (see also BT Pesahim 73a):

R. Tarfon, a priest, sees eating the terumah as equivalent to the service of offerings done in the Temple when it was standing. Rebbi explains that the custom of priests immersing before eating terumah is to mirror the sanctification of the body and the washing of the hands and the feet that was done before they served in the Temple itself. Sefrei Zuta 18 echoes this view and cites another statement of R. Tarfon:

R. Tarfon experiences the eating of terumah twice daily as echoing the constant sacrificial offering which opened and closed the day in the Temple. After its destruction, the priests’ ritualized eating of terumah was the last vestige of the practices which had shaped the Jews’ lives and given them a clear connection to the Divine when the Temple was standing. When the Mishnah chooses this “timeclock” of the priests eating terumah to open the structure of the twice daily personal reading of the Shema, over a marker found in nature or in the average person’s Shabbat evening meal – as presented in the Tosefta – it does so intentionally. Using the rubric of kodshim, sacred tithes, seamlessly links the learner to the past, while at the same time modeling the new central way of experiencing the Divine – the reading of the Shema, an experience not of God’s reign in the Temple on earth, but rather of Malkhut Shamayim, the acceptance of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mishnah 2:2). Service turns from the priests using their mouth for eating sacrifices and tithes to the average person using their mouth to read the Shema and find direct connection despite the loss of the Temple.

until - עַד: The mishnah opened by asking about the start time for reading, but the rest of the text’s focus is actually on the end time. There will be a three-way dispute regarding the end limit for reading the evening Shema.

the end of the first watch - סוֹף הָאַשְׁמוּרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה: The Kaufmann manuscript reads אשמורת, which more closely reflects the spelling of the word as it appears in the Torah. See for example Exodus 14:24. It is much more difficult to precisely tell time at night than it is during the day when the sun is shining. Presumably, at night people could read the sky and tell the general passage of time by the shifts in constellations and the moon (or the behaviors of animals, see BT Berakhot 3a). That said, it is unclear how common such proficiency was (and in any case it would be inconvenient, since one would need to leave one’s bed).

According to the Tanakh the night has three watches: 1) רֹאשׁ אַשְׁמֻרוֹת, the beginning or first watch (Lamentations 2:19); 2) הָאַשְׁמֹרֶת הַתִּיכוֹנָה, the middle watch (a middle has something before and after it, signifying a total of three watches) (Judges 7:19) and 3) בְּאַשְׁמֹרֶת הַבֹּקֶר, the morning watch (1 Samuel 11:11). However, the Romans split the night into four watches – vigilia prima, vigilia secunda, vigilia tertia, and vigilia quarta – and used a water clock that had been calibrated by the sundial to tell time at night. The wealthy Jewish elite class may have had water or sand clocks like the Romans; however, common people surely did not. The concept of “four watches” was well known in Mishnaic times as something used by the Roman military guards. Although the word, “watches,” clearly has ancient Biblical origins; when used by the Mishnah, it refers to a specific reference point based once again upon the time clock of the Temple. Normally there is little human activity at night. It is the time when people go to sleep. Likewise, the Temple service ceases at night and no sacrifices are offered. However, since there is much wealth in the Temple, and also out of respect, the priests and Levites kept guard throughout the night – dividing this work into shifts over the span of the entire night. According to R. Eliezer, one is required to have completed reading the evening Shema by the end of the first shift of guards. (See M. Tamid 1:1, which lists the three locations in the Temple where the priests would stand guard. See also M. Middot 1:1-2, which lists the additional twenty-one places where the Levites would guard and describes the checks and punishments they would receive if found to be sleeping on the job.) M. Yoma 1:8, mentions that on festivals the altar was cleaned of ashes and prepared for the new day from as early as the first watch. This mishnah uses nighttime references of, “the first watch,” “midnight” and the “cock crowing” – all of which echo the language used by the Romans to tell time (vigilia prima, mediae noctis inclination, and gallicinium). BT Berakhot 3b (Tosefta Berakhot 1:1) brings a baraita which records a dispute as to whether R. Eliezer is referring to a night which is divided into three (as in the Tanakh) or four watches (similar to the Romans). Rebbi Natan, from Babylonia, says it is three, whereas Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi, final codifier of the Mishnah, says it is four. Although the medieval commentaries (Rashi, Bartenura) assume R. Eliezer thinks that the night has three watches; from the mishnah in Yoma, it seems more likely that our mishnah, here in Berakhot, was using the four-watch structure of the surrounding culture. Also, the term, “midnight,” which the Sages will use in this mishnah only has significance in a four-unit night – wherein the watches can be split evenly, thereby creating a precise middle point. In a three-unit formation, the entire middle watch may be of significance, but it does not constitute a dividing middle point. Thus, most likely R. Eliezer holds that one must read the Shema by the end of the first quarter of the night. Here in mishnah 1, a quarter of the night will be the shortest window of time to read the Shema at night; whereas in mishnah 2, a quarter of the day will be the longest period suggested for the daytime Shema.

these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer - דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a student of R. Yohanan ben Zakkai and a colleague and brother-in-law of Rabban Gamliel. He, himself, is a priest (JT Sotah 3:4 19a) and thus naturally might use the practices of priests to set his time clock.

The entire corpus of the Mishnah opens not with the general anonymous voice of the majority of the Sages but rather with the lone voice of R. Eliezer. This choice seems intentional given that in the continuation of the text, the Sages’ view is presented explicitly using the phrase “the Sages say.” The mishnah could have easily been crafted according to the norm, by which the Sages’ view presented as the “tanna kamma,” the first anonymous statement, would have been first, followed by R. Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel’s opposing views. R. Eliezer is known as a supporter of Beit Shammai (BT Niddah 7b) and was famously excommunicated by the Sanhedrin for his unwillingness to accept the rule of the majority in the case of the oven of akhnai (BT Baba Metziah 59a-b). Thus, it is significant that the mishnah chooses to present his voice first. Although, as will be indicated in Mishnah 3, there was a strong movement to establish the law according to Beit Hillel, the Mishnah in its final codification also wants to unify and reconcile important voices that had been shunned in the past. R. Eliezer, whose great memory and commitment to preserving past traditions (see M. Avot 2:8) helped shape the tannaitic time period, has some of his honor restored here, by opening the code with his words.

and the Sages say - וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: In the majority of mishnayot, the Sages’ view is brought as the anonymous collective first voice, without citing them by name. This mishnah is one of only five mishnayot in this tractate where the order is switched. As such, there is then a need to mention them explicitly, as dissenting from R. Eliezer’s view. When this occurs, one must ask what the editor gains by switching the order and choosing not to present the Sages’ view first? (See the previous entry about R. Eliezer for explanation.)

until midnight i.e., the first half of night - עַד חֲצוֹת: As the text does not cite a start time, one deduces that the Sages agree with the start time brought by R. Eliezer. For their end point the Sages do not speak in imagery but instead use a very specific quantifiable point as their end time; by the end of the first half of the night one must read the Shema. (See note above on “the end of the first watch”)

Rabban Gamliel says - רבן גמליאל אומר: Rabban Gamliel was the Nasi, the head of the Sanhedrin in Yavneh and leader of the Jewish community after the Temple’s destruction. The title Rabban, our teacher, reflects this special status. He was a young child at the time when his father died, towards the end of the Second Temple period; and Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai filled the void until he was able to take over the leadership in Yavneh sometime around the year 100.

Until the pillar of dawn rises - עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר: When a pillar of light emerges across the eastern part of the sky before the sun crests over the horizon. Perhaps the imagery is that of a pillar lying on its side. As mentioned regarding the Sages, since the text does not give a start time for R. Gamliel, one deduces that he agrees with R. Eliezer’s position. As for his end point, he selects a clear sign in nature to be his time clock: One must read the Shema before the entire night ends and the first signs of the sun – signaling the start of the day – appear in the sky.

*Reasoning Behind this three-way Dispute [makhloket]: R. Eliezer, the Sages and Rabban Gamliel all agree on the start time for the reading of the evening Shema - from the beginning of nightfall when the priests enter to eat their tithes. It is the end point about which they disagree. What is the reasoning that stands behind their dispute? In Mishnah 3, both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel interpret the word in Deuteronomy 6:7, “ou’veshokhbekha וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ,” when you lie down, as meaning that one is required to read the Shema in the evening, and Beit Hillel states further that this is the time when people go to sleep. Possibly, these three Sages are arguing about when exactly that happens. What is defined as the time when people “lie down?”

It once happened that his [Rabban Gamliel’s] sons came from a house of celebration - מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ בָנָיו מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה: Literally translated, it would be a house of wine or feasting (see Rambam’s commentary). It appears that the sons had gotten so caught up in the festivities that they only arrived home after midnight and were going to bed extremely late, well after the time most people did so. Mishnah 2 will present the view that “princes” sleep much later than the average person. The closest thing to royalty in the period of the tannaim would be the sons of the Nasi. If they are out so late “partying,” it makes sense that they would then sleep late the next morning.

They said to him: We have not read Shema - אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא קָרִינוּ אֶת שְׁמַע: From the fact that the sons do not immediately assume that they could read, it seems that they generally followed the majority opinion of the Sages, that the end point for reading is midnight. It seems they understood that after that time, one may no longer read, since its time period is over.

He said to them: If the pillar of dawn has not arisen you are obligated to read it - אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם לֹא עָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, חַיָּבִין אַתֶּם לִקְרוֹת: Rabban Gamliel explains that one may actually read the Shema anytime throughout the night – from its beginning to its end. The Kaufman manuscript reads מותרין אתם ליקרות – “you are permitted to read it.” This language reflects that his sons thought that it would be forbidden to read it at this time; that they had made a mistake and missed out on performing the mitzvah. It seems that R. Gamliel and his household generally followed the rule of the Sages – in this case, that one should read the Shema before midnight. However, this story teaches that he understood the Rabbis’ view to only be the ideal; but when one had no other option but to otherwise miss the reading, one could rely on the fact that the Shema can legally be read all night. This point will be explicitly articulated in the continuation of the mishnah.

And not only in this [case]; rather, in all [cases] where the Sages said that [a mitzvah can be performed only] until midnight — the commandment is [still in force] until the pillar of dawn - וְלֹא זוֹ בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר: This line until the end of the mishnah is either the continuation of R. Gamliel speaking to his sons (BT Berakhot 9a) or the general voice of the Mishnah. A few versions of this mishnah and BT Berakhot 9a add the word, “ אמרו they said,” as follows: “And not only this, they said.” This wording could support the idea that it is the anonymous majority of the Mishnah speaking, or that R. Gamliel wants to show his sons that the Sages agree with his explanation.

rather, in all [cases] where the Sages said that [a mitzvah can be performed only] until midnight — the commandment is [still in force] until the pillar of dawn - אֶלָּא כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר: The use of the phrase, “where they said,” possibly implies that there was some sort of codified tannaitic material which was already in existence when this mishnah was crafted. This would mean that the codification of the laws surrounding the Temple was earlier than Tractate Berakhot. (Tractate Berakhot more generally contains names of Rabbis that span the Tannaitic period, which seems to indicate a later final codification date.) This idea is stronger if it is understood that this line is being stated by the anonymous voice of the Mishnah and not R. Gamliel. See also M. Megillah 2:6 where a similar principle of using the whole night for commandments is taught.

Burning the fats and limbs [of the sacrifices, on the Temple altar] — their mitzvah [can be performed] until the pillar of dawn - הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר: Sacrifices were only offered during the day and not at night. However, many different types of sacrifices, which had their blood sprinkled during the day, had fats that continued to burn on the altar throughout the night. For an example of the types of fat that were burned see Leviticus 3:3-5. The limbs, which take the longest to burn, of the afternoon minhah offering or other burnt offerings were left on the altar all night. See Leviticus 6:2 where it states explicitly that it burns all night until morning. This practice of burning all night appears to be confirmed in the Mishnah. M. Tamid 2:1 and 5 describes what was done after dawn with the limbs that had not fully been consumed by the altar and had to be cleared away. For when there is already light in the sky, it is time to begin the slaughter of the morning tamid sacrifice (M. Tamid 3:2 and M. Yoma 3:1). Only on the special occasion of Yom Kippur when there was a lot of preparation for the many rituals of the day was the altar cleared at midnight (M. Yoma 1:8). Besides a parallel citation in Mekhilta DeR. Yishmael, Bo Masekhet DePisha Parsha 6, to this mishnah in Berakhot, there seems to be no other tannaitic record of the Sages limiting this law of sacrifices to midnight. Rather both the Torah and Mishnah Tamid permit the fats and limbs to burn all night.

The Kaufmann manuscript adds into this list, “and the eating of pascal sacrifice, ואכלת פסחים ,” although the versions from Babylonia do not have this phrase. If eating the pascal sacrifice was included in this mishnah, then unlike the limbs and fats which M. Tamid says can burn all night (see above paragraph), the laws of the Passover sacrifice might also reflect a Rabbinic limiting to midnight as stated in our mishnah about Shema. See M. Pesahim 10:9 where it states that after midnight the pascal sacrifice makes one’s hands impure. (See BT Berakhot 9a for a discussion of why this mitzvah should not be included in the mishnah, as this limit of midnight may be inherent to the law and not a buffer from the Rabbis. See also JT Berakhot 1:1, 3a.)

And all [sacrifices] which may be eaten for one day — their mitzvah [of eating them can be performed] until the pillar of dawn - וְכָל הַנֶּאֱכָלִים לְיוֹם אֶחָד, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר: Thanksgiving, sin, guilt, and other offerings which are not fully burned by the altar but rather parts of them are eaten by people, can be consumed throughout the entire night which follows the day in which they were sacrificed. See for example Leviticus 7:15 and 22:30. For once the window of prescribed eating for any sacrifice has passed, it is forbidden to consume it; and the leftovers, notar, must be burnt (Leviticus 7:17). Eating it past the permitted time period is punishable by karet, being cut off (Leviticus 19:8). See M. Zevahim 5:3, 5, 6, where the Rabbis limit the window of eating till midnight.

If that is so, why did the Sages say, “until midnight” - אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת: This mishnah opens and closes with a question, thereby creating an envelope structure. After informing the learner that really all of these commandments may be performed until just before dawn, the text asks a meta question – what motivates the Rabbis to make the cutoff time earlier than needed? Why limit the time to midnight, when the letter of the law is that it may be done all night?

To distance a person from transgression - כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעֲבֵרָה: According to the letter of the law, once the first light appears in the sky, one can no longer eat the sacrifices or read the Shema. But since it is very difficult, if not impossible, to predict this end point, the moment just before dawn, the Sages were concerned that it would be too easy for someone to transgress. Moreover, the consequences of eating the sacrifice past the time and violating that negative commandment are significant. The punishment is karet, being cut off, the most severe punishment handed out directly by God. In the case of Shema, if one put off reciting it, one could easily fall asleep and miss the time. Possibly it is behavior such as that of R. Gamliel’s sons above which concerns the Sages; thus, they instituted a buffer zone to prevent one from transgressing. However, despite the Mishnah presenting an equivalency between Shema and sacrifice, they are not exactly the same. There is no punishment for neglecting to perform a positive mitzvah. So technically there is no active transgression from which the earlier time protects the individual. By making the comparison between Shema and sacrifices, the Rabbis are signaling the perceived importance that the reading of the Shema plays in one’s relationship and link to the Divine. Neglecting to read it is thus understood as being similar to severing that connection and being cut off from God.

Mekhilta DeR. Yishmael, Bo Masekhet DePisha Parsha 6 identifies this behavior of the Rabbis with that which the men of the Great Assembly stated (M. Avot 1:1), as one of their three major tenants: “to make a fence around the Torah,” to protect both the holy Torah and the nation itself. Throughout this introductory chapter of the body of the oral law – besides discussing the commandment of Shema – the Rabbis will also convey information about how they see their role in bringing Torah to the people. Already in this first mishnah, we have seen them limit and interpret Biblical verses and apply those interpretations to real life situations. They have asked questions, both legal and conceptual, as a general teaching method. They have given answers, to their own questions and to the specific scenarios like that of Rabban Gamliel’s sons. They have made references to, and connections between, different rituals – specifically those linked to the Temple – to let us know that the legal system which they are articulating, formulating and structuring is firmly rooted in the past, and that it is the continuation of that same intimate relationship we had when God resided in the midst of the Jewish people, in the Temple.

Many times, the first mishnah of a Tractate serves as a sort of introduction and can be longer than the others in the chapter. This first mishnah gently moves us from the leadership of the past, the priests, to that of the Sages, and from the sacred space of the Temple to the rubric of sacred time and a Divine presence that can be encountered anywhere, even in the depths of darkness. Service of God, painfully, can no longer happen in the Beit Hamikdash but it can continue to unfold in the Beit Hamidrash, the house of study. Although we have lost the Temple, the Torah and its verses remain with us always. Our mouths may no longer be able to eat terumah and korbanot but they can still read the Shema twice daily. Things are not as they seem at first, just as midnight is not the end of the time for the evening Shema and just as one thought that possibly R. Gamliel’s words to his sons were finished or that this rule of midnight was only applicable to the commandment of Shema – there is still more. After the destruction of the Temple the relationship between the Jewish people and the God has not ended – v’lo zo bilvad, there is still more – for the individual, by placing themselves in the domain of the Divine with the daily reading of the Shema; and for the collective community, by attaching itself to the entire Rabbinic enterprise, whose crowning glory is the Mishnaic corpus, there are still points of connection with God. This duality of finding paths to move forward while yet remembering and feeling the loss of the past is one of the main enterprises of the Mishnah.