Brachot perek 1 English

The beginning of tractate Berakhot, the first tractate in the first of the six orders of Mishna, opens with a discussion of the recitation of Shema, as the recitation of Shema encompasses an acceptance of the yoke of Heaven and of the mitzvot, and as such, forms the basis for all subsequent teachings. The Mishna opens with the laws regarding the appropriate time to recite Shema:

MISHNA: From when, that is, from what time, does one recite Shema in the evening? From the time when the priests enter to partake of their teruma. Until when does the time for the recitation of the evening Shema extend? Until the end of the first watch. The term used in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:7) to indicate the time for the recitation of the evening Shema is beshokhbekha, when you lie down, which refers to the time in which individuals go to sleep. Therefore, the time for the recitation of Shema is the first portion of the night, when individuals typically prepare for sleep. That is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis say: The time for the recitation of the evening Shema is until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says: One may recite Shema until dawn, indicating that beshokhbekha is to be understood as a reference to the entire time people sleep in their beds, the whole night. The mishna relates that Rabban Gamliel practiced in accordance with his ruling. There was an incident where Rabban Gamliel’s sons returned very late from a wedding hall. They said to him, as they had been preoccupied with celebrating with the groom and bride: We did not recite Shema. He said to them: If the dawn has not yet arrived, you are obligated to recite Shema. Since Rabban Gamliel’s opinion disagreed with that of the Rabbis, he explained to his sons that the Rabbis actually agree with him, and that it is not only with regard to the halakha of the recitation of Shema, but rather, wherever the Sages say until midnight, the mitzva may be performed until dawn. Rabban Gamliel cites several cases in support of his claim, such as the burning of fats and limbs on the altar. Due to the quantity of offerings each day, the priests were often unable to complete the burning of all of the fats and limbs, so they continued to be burned into the night, as it is written: “This is the law of the burnt offering: The burnt offering shall remain upon the pyre on the altar all night until morning, while the fire on the altar burns it” (Leviticus 6:2). And, with regard to all sacrifices, such as the sin-offerings and the guilt-offerings that are eaten for one day and night; although the Sages state that they may be eaten only until midnight, by Torah law they may be eaten until dawn. This is in accordance with the verse: “On the day on which it is offered must you eat. Do not leave it until the morning” (Leviticus 7:15). If so, why did the Sages say that they may be eaten only until midnight? This is in order to distance a person from transgression, as if one believes that he has until dawn to perform the mitzva, he might be negligent and postpone it until the opportunity to perform the mitzva has passed. GEMARA: The Mishna opens with the laws concerning the appropriate time to recite Shema with the question: From when does one recite Shema in the evening? With regard to this question, the Gemara asks: On the basis of what prior knowledge does the tanna of our mishna ask: From when? It would seem from his question that the obligation to recite Shema in the evening was already established, and that the tanna seeks only to clarify details that relate to it. But our mishna is the very first mishna in the Talmud. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, what distinguishes the evening Shema, that it was taught first? Let the tanna teach regarding the recitation of the morning Shema first. Since most mitzvot apply during the day, the tanna should discuss the morning Shema before discussing the evening Shema, just as the daily morning offering is discussed before the evening offering (Tosefot HaRosh). The Gemara offers a single response to both questions: The tanna bases himself on the verse as it is written: “You will talk of them when you sit in your home, and when you walk along the way, when you lie down, and when you arise” (Deuteronomy 6:7). By teaching the laws of the evening Shema first, the tanna has established that the teachings of the Oral Torah correspond to that which is taught in the Written Torah. And based on the Written Torah, the tanna teaches the oral law: When is the time for the recitation of Shema of lying down as commanded in the Torah? From when the priests enter to partake of their teruma. Just as the Written Torah begins with the evening Shema, so too must the Oral Torah. However, there is another possible explanation for why the mishna opens with the evening Shema rather than with the morning Shema. If you wish, you could say instead that the tanna derives the precedence of the evening Shema from the order of the creation of the world. As it is written in the story of creation: “And there was evening, and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). According to this verse, day begins with the evening and not the morning. For both of these reasons it was appropriate to open the discussion of the laws of the recitation of Shema with the evening Shema. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the latter clause of the mishna, which appears later in the chapter, teach: In the morning one recites two blessings before Shema and one blessing afterward, and in the evening one recites two blessings before Shema and two afterward? Based upon the above reasoning, the mishna should have taught the blessing recited before and after the evening Shema first. The Gemara answers: Indeed, the tanna began by discussing the laws regarding the recitation of the evening Shema, and then taught the laws regarding the recitation of the morning Shema. Once he was already dealing with the morning Shema, he explained the matters of the morning Shema, and then explained the matters of the evening Shema. The Gemara proceeds to clarify the rest of the mishna. The Master said in the mishna that the beginning of the period when one recites Shema in the evening is when the priests enter to partake of their teruma. However, this does not specify a definitive time. When do the priests enter to partake of their teruma? From the time of the emergence of the stars. If that is the case, then let the tanna teach that the time for the recitation of the evening Shema is from the time of the emergence of the stars. The Gemara responds: Indeed it would have been simpler to say that the time for the recitation of the evening Shema begins with the emergence of the stars, but the particular expression used by the tanna teaches us another matter in passing: When do priests partake of their teruma? From the time of the emergence of the stars. And the tanna teaches us a new halakha parenthetically: failure to bring an atonement offering does not prevent a priest from eating teruma. In cases where an impure priest is required to immerse himself in a ritual bath and bring an atonement offering, even if he already immersed himself, he is not completely ritually pure until he brings the atonement offering. Nevertheless, he is still permitted to partake of teruma. Taught in passing in our mishna, this is articulated fully in a baraita, based on a close reading of the biblical passages. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the laws of ritual impurity, it is said: “One who touches it remains impure until evening. He should not eat of the consecrated items and he must wash his flesh with water. And the sun sets and it is purified. Afterwards, he may eat from the teruma, for it is his bread” (Leviticus 22:6–7). From the passage: “And the sun sets and it is purified,” that the absence of the setting of his sun prevents him from partaking of teruma, but failure to bring the atonement offering does not prevent him from partaking of teruma, may be inferred. The Gemara discusses the proof offered in the baraita: From where do we know that the phrase: “And the sun sets” refers to the complete setting of the sun, and therefore, “and it is purified” refers to the fact that the day is pure, i.e., and the sun sets and it is purified is one phrase meaning that the sun will set, the air will clear, and the stars will emerge (Rav Hai Gaon)? Perhaps the expression: “And the sun sets and it is purified” refers to the very beginning of sunset, the setting of the sun’s light. According to that explanation, what does the expression and it is purified mean? It means that the person will become purified. At the very beginning of sunset he will go and immerse himself and offer his sacrifice, and only then will he be able to eat of his teruma (Tosafot). Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: If so, that: And it is purified, means that the priest goes and purifies himself, then let the verse say unambiguously: And he will become purified. Since the Torah does not employ that language, the conclusion is: What is the meaning of the expression: And it is purified? It means the day is pure, no residue of day remains, as people say colloquially: The sun has set and the day is purified. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they did not hear this explanation given by Rabba bar Rav Sheila. They raised the dilemma: Does the expression: And the sun sets, refer to the actual setting of the sun, and does: And it is purified, mean the day clears away? Or perhaps it refers to the setting of its light at sunset, in which case what is the meaning of: And it is purified? It refers to the purification of the person. In other words, in Eretz Yisrael, they attempted to clarify the halakha based on the biblical passage, but were unable to do so. Ultimately they resolved this dilemma from a baraita. It was taught in a baraita that the time for the recitation of the evening Shema corresponds to the time when priests are permitted to eat of their teruma, a sign for which is the emergence of the stars. Therefore, derive from here that “and the sun sets” refers to the complete sunset, and the expression “and it is purified” means the day clears away, as the Sages in Babylonia concluded. In our mishna, the Master said: The beginning of the time for the recitation of the evening Shema is: From the time when the priests enter to partake of their teruma. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this opinion from a baraita that states that the time for the recitation of the evening Shema is: From when a poor person enters to eat his bread with salt until he rises from his meal. The Gemara begins its analysis by clarifying whether there is an actual contradiction here, or whether different expressions are being employed to describe the same time. The latter clause of the baraita, which established that the time for the recitation of the evening Shema ends when a poor person rises from his meal, certainly disagrees with our mishna. Since the poor person clearly does not continue eating until the end of the third watch, this baraita certainly contradicts our mishna. With regard to the first clause of the baraita, however, which establishes the beginning of the time for the recitation of the evening Shema, shall we say that it disagrees with our mishna? The Gemara immediately rejects this idea: No, the time when the poor person eats and the time when the priest is purified and permitted to partake of his teruma are one and the same time. The Gemara raises a contradiction from the Tosefta: From when does one begin to recite Shema in the evening? From the time when people enter to eat their bread on Shabbat eve. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. As they do in our mishna, the Rabbis say: From the time when the priests are eligible to partake of their teruma, a sign for which is the emergence of the stars. And although there is no explicit proof that the emergence of the stars is when one may begin to recite the evening Shema, there is an allusion in the book of Nehemiah to the fact that the emergence of the stars is generally considered the beginning of the night. As it is stated with regard to the building of the walls of Jerusalem: “And we perform the work, and half of them grasp their spears from dawn until the emergence of the stars” (Nehemiah 4:15). And it says: “That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labor in the day” (Nehemiah 4:17). From here we ascertain that the day ends with the emergence of the stars. Even before analyzing these sources, the Gemara seeks to clarify a confusing element in the Tosefta. In their biblical proof, the Rabbis do not suffice with one verse, but rather they say: And it says…and they cite an additional verse. What is added by this use of: And it says? It seems superfluous, as the entire proof appears in the first verse. The Gemara answers that the first verse was not sufficient. As, if you say that night begins when the sun sets, but the workers stayed late and arrived early; i.e., due to the importance of their task they worked even into the night. In anticipation of this objection, the second verse was cited to teach: Come and hear, as it is stated: “That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labor in the day,” the time between dawn and the emergence of the stars is explicitly referred to as “day,” proving that night begins with the emergence of the stars. In analyzing the three opinions regarding the beginning of the period for the recitation of the evening Shema, the Gemara begins with the supposition: It might enter your mind to say that the time when the poor person typically eats his meal and the time when ordinary people eat their Shabbat evening meal are one and the same time, since in both cases those eating would seek to begin their meals as early as possible, as, for different reasons, they are unable to kindle additional lights to illuminate their meal. And, if you say that the time of the poor person’s meal and the time when the priest is purified and permitted to partake of his teruma are one and the same time, then the opinion of the Rabbis is identical to that of Rabbi Meir. What is their disagreement? Rather, what we said previously must be rejected, and instead learn from this that there is a separate time for the poor person and a separate time for the priest. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that the time of the poor person and the time of people are the same. That too can be rejected with the assertion that, no, the time of the poor person and the priest are one and the same time, and the time of the poor person and people are not the same. Accordingly, the opinion expressed by the tanna in our baraita is identical to that of the other tanna’im, and only Rabbi Meir disagrees with them. And is the time of the poor person and the priest the same? The Gemara raises a contradiction to this approach from another baraita, in which other opinions regarding the time for the recitation of the evening Shema are cited: From when does one begin to recite the evening Shema?
From the time when the day becomes sanctified on the eve of Shabbat, this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, who established an earlier time for Shema.
Rabbi Yehoshua, like our mishna, says: From the time when the priests are eligible to partake of their teruma.
Rabbi Meir says: The time for the recitation of Shema begins before the priests were purified, from when the priests immerse themselves in order to partake of their teruma.
Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Meir: How is it possible that the time for the recitation of the evening Shema corresponds to the time of the priests’ immersion? Do the priests not immerse themselves during the day, so that with nightfall and the onset of a new day they will be purified? If so, how can that time be called night?
Rabbi Ḥanina says that the time for the recitation of the evening Shema begins when the poor person enters to eat his bread with salt.
But Rabbi Aḥai, and some say Rabbi Aḥa, says: From the time when most people enter to recline at their meal during the week. The preceding was the text of the baraita. Returning to our question, if you say that the time of the poor person and the priest are one and the same time, then the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina is identical to that of Rabbi Yehoshua. However, the fact that they are cited together indicates that they are not, in fact, the same. Rather, must one not conclude from this the time for the poor person is separate and the time for the priest is separate? Since no objection is raised, the Gemara concedes: Indeed, conclude from this. Having established that the time of the poor person and that of the priest are different, the Gemara seeks to determine: which one is later? The Gemara suggests that it is reasonable to conclude that the time of the poor person is later. As if you say that the poor person is earlier, it would be impossible to establish a time earlier than that established by Rabbi Yehoshua, unless we hold that night begins with sunset, in which case the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina is identical to that of Rabbi Eliezer. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the poor person is later? The Gemara notes: Indeed, conclude from this. We learned that the Master said in a baraita that the time for the recitation of the evening Shema according to Rabbi Meir begins with the time of the immersion of the priests. Regarding this, Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Meir: Do the priests not immerse themselves during the day? The Gemara notes: What Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Meir seems correct, and how can Rabbi Meir respond? Rabbi Meir’s response is connected to the fundamental dispute over when night begins. After sunset, a period begins which is neither day nor night. The tanna’im disagree over the precise duration of this period known as twilight [bein hashemashot]. Rabbi Yehuda holds that twilight extends a full hour after sunset. Rabbi Neḥemya agrees in principle, though he disagrees over the specifics. Rabbi Yosei maintains that twilight is very brief, and occurs immediately before the emergence of the stars, which marks the beginning of the night. Regarding Rabbi Meir’s argument, Rabbi Yehuda asks that since the priests immerse themselves before twilight, they have a long wait until nightfall; clearly their immersion takes place while it is still day. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Yehuda as follows: Do you maintain that I am speaking of your definition of twilight? I am speaking of Rabbi Yosei’s definition of twilight, as Rabbi Yosei said: Twilight is like the blink of an eye; night begins and day ends and the time between them is so brief, it is impossible to quantify. According to this opinion, the priests immerse themselves just before the emergence of the stars, when it is already considered night. There is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara responds: Two tanna’im, students of Rabbi Meir, expressed different opinions in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s opinion. So too, the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in the mishna contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in the baraita. In the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the time for the recitation of Shema begins with the emergence of the stars: From the time when the priests enter to partake of their teruma, while in the baraita, he states that the time for the recitation of Shema begins when the day becomes sanctified on the eve of Shabbat. The Gemara responds: There are two possible resolutions to the apparent contradiction in Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion. Either two tanna’im expressed different opinions in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, or if you wish, say instead that the first clause of the mishna, according to which we begin to recite Shema when the priests enter to partake of their teruma, is not actually Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion. Only the second half of the statement: Until the end of the first watch, was stated by Rabbi Eliezer. In the mishna, we learned that Rabbi Eliezer establishes that one may recite the evening Shema until the end of the first watch. These watches are mentioned in the Bible as segments of the night, but it must be established: Into precisely how many segments is the night divided, three or four? Moreover, why does Rabbi Eliezer employ such inexact parameters rather than a more precise definition of time (Tosefot HaRosh)? What does Rabbi Eliezer actually hold? If he holds that the night consists of three watches, let him say explicitly that one recites the evening Shema until the fourth hour. If he holds that the night consists of four watches, let him say explicitly until the third hour. The Gemara responds: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the night consists of three watches, and he employs this particular language of watches in order to teach us: There are watches in heaven and there are watches on earth; just as our night is divided into watches, so too is the night in the upper worlds. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The night consists of three watches, and over each and every watch, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and roars like a lion in pain over the destruction of the Temple. This imagery is derived from a reference in the Bible, as it is stated: “The Lord roars [yishag] from on high, from His holy dwelling He makes His voice heard. He roars mightily [shaog yishag] over His dwelling place, He cries out like those who tread grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth” (Jeremiah 25:30). The three instances of the root shin-alef-gimmel in this verse correspond to the three watches of the night. And signs of the transition between each of these watches in the upper world can be sensed in this world: In the first watch, the donkey brays; in the second, dogs bark; and in the third people begin to rise, a baby nurses from its mother’s breast and a wife converses with her husband. With regard to these earthly manifestations of the three heavenly watches as established in the baraita, the Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Eliezer enumerate? If he enumerated the beginning of the watch, why do I need a sign for the beginning of the first watch? It is when evening begins; an additional sign is superfluous. If he enumerated the end of the watches, why do I need a sign for the end of the last watch? It is when day begins; an additional sign is similarly superfluous. The Gemara answers: Rather, he enumerated the signs for the end of the first watch and the beginning of the last watch, both of which require a sign, as well as the middle of the middle watch. And if you wish, say instead: He enumerated the ends of all of the watches. And if you say that a sign indicating the end of the final watch is unnecessary because it is day, nevertheless, that sign is useful. What is the practical ramification of this sign? It is relevant to one who recites Shema while lying in a dark house, who cannot see the dawn and who does not know when the time for reciting Shema arrives. That person is provided with a sign that when a woman speaks with her husband and a baby nurses from its mother’s breast, the final watch of the night has ended and he must rise and recite Shema. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel said in the name of Rav: The night consists of three watches, and over each and every watch the Holy One, Blessed be He sits and roars like a lion, because the Temple service was connected to the changing of these watches (Tosefot HaRosh), and says: “Woe to Me, that due to their sins I destroyed My house, burned My Temple and exiled them among the nations of the world.” Incidental to the mention of the elevated significance of the night watches, the Gemara cites a related story: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I was once walking along the road when I entered the ruins of an old, abandoned building among the ruins of Jerusalem in order to pray. I noticed that Elijah, of blessed memory, came and guarded the entrance for me and waited at the entrance until I finished my prayer. When I finished praying and exited the ruin, Elijah said to me, deferentially as one would address a Rabbi: Greetings to you, my Rabbi. I answered him: Greetings to you, my Rabbi, my teacher. And Elijah said to me: My son, why did you enter this ruin? I said to him: In order to pray. And Elijah said to me: You should have prayed on the road. And I said to him: I was unable to pray along the road, because I was afraid that I might be interrupted by travelers and would be unable to focus. Elijah said to me: You should have recited the abbreviated prayer instituted for just such circumstances. Rabbi Yosei concluded: At that time, from that brief exchange, I learned from him, three things: I learned that one may not enter a ruin; and I learned that one need not enter a building to pray, but he may pray along the road; and I learned that one who prays along the road recites an abbreviated prayer so that he may maintain his focus. And after this introduction, Elijah said to me: What voice did you hear in that ruin?
I responded: I heard a Heavenly voice, like an echo of that roar of the Holy One, Blessed be He (Maharsha), cooing like a dove and saying: Woe to the children, due to whose sins I destroyed My house, burned My Temple, and exiled them among the nations.
And Elijah said to me: By your life and by your head, not only did that voice cry out in that moment, but it cries out three times each and every day. Moreover, any time that God’s greatness is evoked, such as when Israel enters synagogues and study halls and answers in the kaddish prayer, May His great name be blessed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, shakes His head and says: Happy is the king who is thus praised in his house. When the Temple stood, this praise was recited there, but now: How great is the pain of the father who exiled his children, and woe to the children who were exiled from their father’s table, as their pain only adds to that of their father (Rabbi Shem Tov ibn Shaprut). The Sages taught, for three reasons one may not enter a ruin: Because of suspicion of prostitution, because the ruin is liable to collapse, and because of demons. Three separate reasons seem extraneous, so the Gemara asks: Why was the reason because of suspicion necessary? Let this halakha be derived because of collapse. The Gemara answers: This halakha applies even in the case of a new, sturdy ruin, where there is no danger of collapse. Therefore, the reason because of suspicion is cited in order to warn one not to enter a new ruin as well. The Gemara continues to object: And let this halakha be derived because of demons? The Gemara answers: Demons are only a threat to individuals, so because of demons would not apply to a case where two people enter a ruin together. The Gemara objects: But if there are two people entering a ruin together, then there is no suspicion either. There is no prohibition against two men to be alone with a woman as, in that case, there is no suspicion of untoward behavior. Consequently, if two men enter a ruin together, there is no room for suspicion. The Gemara answers: If two individuals known to be immoral enter together, there is suspicion even though there are two of them. The Gemara considers why because of collapse is necessary. Let the prohibition be derived from suspicion and demons. The Gemara responds: There are times when this reason is necessary, e.g., when two upstanding individuals enter a ruin together. Although there is neither concern of suspicion nor of demons, there remains concern lest the ruin collapse. The Gemara considers the third reason, because of demons. Why is it necessary to include: Because of demons? Let the prohibition be derived from suspicion and collapse. The Gemara responds: There are cases where this is the only concern, for example where it is a new ruin into which two upstanding individuals enter, so there is neither concern lest it collapse nor of suspicion. The Gemara points out, however, that if there are two people, there is also no concern of demons. As such, the question remains: In what case can demons be the sole cause not to enter a ruin? The Gemara responds: Generally speaking, two individuals need not be concerned about demons; but, if they are in their place, i.e., a place known to be haunted by demons (see Isaiah 13:21), we are concerned about demons even with two people. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, this refers to the case of an individual entering a new ruin located in a field. There, there is no suspicion, as finding a woman in the field is uncommon; and since it is a new ruin, there is no danger of collapse. However, there is still concern of demons. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: The night is comprised of four watches; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: The night is comprised of three watches. The Gemara explains: What is Rabbi Natan’s reasoning? As it is written: “And Gideon, and the one hundred men who were with him, came to the edge of camp at the beginning of the middle watch” (Judges 7:19). It was taught in the Tosefta: Middle means nothing other than that there is one before it and one after it. From the fact that the verse refers to a middle watch, the fact that the night is comprised of three watches may be inferred. And what does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say about this proof? He argues that it is inconclusive, as one could say: To what does middle refer? It refers to one of the two middle watches. And how would Rabbi Natan respond? He would say: Despite Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s objection, is: One of the middle watches, written in the verse? The middle watch is written. This indicates that the night is comprised of only three watches. What is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reasoning? Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion is based on a comparison of two verses. One verse says: “At midnight I rise to give thanks for Your righteous laws” (Psalms 119:62), and the other verse says: “My eyes forestall the watches, that I will speak of Your word” (Psalms 119:148). Taken together, these verses indicate that their author, King David, rose at midnight, two watches before dawn, in order to study Torah. How is it possible to reconcile these two verses? Only if there are four watches in the night does one who rises two watches before dawn rise at midnight. And how does Rabbi Natan reconcile these two verses? He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, for we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua says: One is permitted to recite the morning Shema during the time when people rise, until the third hour of the day, as it is the custom of kings to rise during the third hour. Since it is customary for kings to rise during the third hour of the day, if David rose at midnight, he would be awake for six hours of the night and two hours of the day, which amounts to two watches. Therefore King David could say that he “forestalls the watches,” as he rose two watches before the rest of the kings in the world. Rav Ashi said that the verses can be reconciled in accordance with Rabbi Natan’s opinion in another way: One and one-half watches are still called watches in plural. Therefore King David could rise at midnight yet maintain that he “forestalls the watches.” Following this discussion, another halakha that Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said is cited: Before the dead, one may speak only of matters relating to the dead, as speaking of other matters appears to be contemptuous of the deceased, underscoring that he is unable to talk while those around him can. Therefore, one must remain fully engaged in matters relating to him. Two traditions exist with regard to the details of this halakha in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana. According to one version, Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: This halakha was only said with regard to matters of Torah. Speaking of other matters, however, is not prohibited, since no contempt is expressed for the deceased by the fact that he is unable to speak of such topics. Others say another version of this halakha in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: This halakha was said even with regard to matters of Torah, and all the more so with regard to other matters. If one must refrain from speaking of matters of Torah, regarding which one is commanded to speak, and limit himself to matters concerning the deceased, all the more so should he refrain from speaking of other matters, regarding which one is not commanded to speak. Incidental to the Gemara’s mention of King David, other sources are cited that describe his actions. Regarding that which was cited above, that he would rise in the middle of the night in order to serve his Creator, the Gemara asks: Did David rise at midnight? He rose in the evening. As it is written: “I rose with the neshef and cried, I hoped for Your word” (Psalms 119:147). And how do we know that this neshef is the evening? As it is written: “In the neshef, in the evening of the day, in the blackness of night and the darkness” (Proverbs 7:9). Apparently, King David did indeed rise when it was still evening. The Gemara suggests several ways to resolve this contradiction. Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Aḥa said: David said as follows: Midnight never passed me by in my sleep. Sometimes I fulfilled the verse, “I rose with the neshef and cried,” but I always, at least, fulfilled the verse, “At midnight I rise to give thanks for Your righteous laws.” Rabbi Zeira said: Until midnight, David would doze like a horse, as a horse dozes, but never sleeps deeply. From midnight on, he would gain the strength of a lion. Rav Ashi said: Until midnight, he would study Torah, as it is written: “I rose with the neshef and cried, I hoped for Your word,” and from midnight on, he would engage in songs and praise, as it is written: “At midnight I rise to give thanks.” To this point, the discussion has been based on the assumption that neshef means evening. The Gemara asks: Does neshef really mean evening? Doesn’t neshef mean morning? As it is written: “And David slew them from the neshef until the evening of the next day” (I Samuel 30:17). Doesn’t this verse mean from the morning until the night, in which case neshef must mean morning? The Gemara responds: No, this verse means that David slew them from one evening until the next evening. The Gemara rejects this response: If so, let the verse be written: From the neshef until the neshef, or from the evening until the evening. Why would the verse employ two different terms for a single concept? Rather, Rava said: There are two times referred to as neshef, and the word can refer to either evening or morning. Neshef must be understood in accordance with its Aramaic root: The night moves past [neshaf ] and the day arrives, and the day moves past [neshaf ] and the night arrives. When King David said: At midnight I rise, the assumption is that he rose precisely at midnight. The Gemara asks: Did David know exactly when it was midnight? Even Moses our teacher did not know exactly when it was midnight. How do we know this about Moses? As it is written that he said to Pharaoh: “Thus said the Lord: About midnight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt” (Exodus 11:4). The word about indicates that it was only an approximation. The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the expression: About midnight? Did Moses say it or did God say it? If we say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself, said: About midnight, to Moses, is there doubt before God in heaven? Rather, this must be understood as follows: God told Moses: At midnight, but from the fact that when Moses came to Pharaoh he said: About midnight; apparently, Moses was uncertain about the exact moment of midnight. Moses, the greatest of all the prophets, was uncertain, and David knew? The Gemara offers several answers to this question:
David had a sign indicating when it was midnight. As Rav Aḥa bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: A lyre hung over David’s bed, and once midnight arrived, the northern midnight wind would come and cause the lyre to play on its own. David would immediately rise from his bed and study Torah until the first rays of dawn.
Once dawn arrived, the Sages of Israel entered to advise him with regard to the various concerns of the nation and the economy. They said to him: Our master, the king, your nation requires sustenance.
He said: Go and sustain one another, provide each other with whatever is lacking.
The Sages of Israel responded to him with a parable: A single handful of food does not satisfy a lion, and a pit will not be filled merely from the rain that falls directly into its mouth, but other water must be piped in (ge’onim). So too, the nation cannot sustain itself using its own resources.
King David told them: Go and take up arms with the troops in battle in order to expand our borders and provide our people with the opportunity to earn a livelihood. The Sages immediately seek advice from Ahitophel to determine whether or not it was appropriate to go to war at that time and how they should conduct themselves, and they consult the Sanhedrin in order to receive the requisite license to wage a war under those circumstances (Tosefot HaRosh). And they ask the Urim VeTummim whether or not they should go to war, and whether or not they would be successful. Rav Yosef said: Upon what verse is this aggada based? As it is written: “And after Ahitophel was Yehoyada son of Benayahu and Evyatar, and the general of the king’s army, Yoav” (I Chronicles 27:34). The individuals named in this verse correspond with the roles in the aggada as follows: Ahitophel is the adviser whose advice they sought first with regard to going to war, and so it says: “Now the counsel of Ahitophel, which he counseled in those days, was as a man who inquires of the word of God; so was the counsel of Ahitophel both with David and with Absalom” (II Samuel 16:23). Benayahu ben Yehoyada corresponds to the Sanhedrin, since he was the head of the Sanhedrin, and Evyatar corresponds to the Urim VeTummim, as Evyatar ben Ahimelekh the priest would oversee inquiries directed to the Urim VeTummim (see I Samuel 23:9). And so it says regarding Benayahu ben Yehoyada’s position as head of the Sanhedrin: “And Benayahu ben Yehoyada was over the Kereti and over the Peleti” (II Samuel 20:23). And why was the Sanhedrin called Kereti UPeleti? It was called Kereti because they were decisive [koretim] in their pronouncements. It was called Peleti because their pronouncements and wisdom were wondrous [mufla’im]. The head of the Kereti UPeleti was the head of the Sanhedrin. According to the order of the verse, upon being instructed by King David to go to war, the Sages first consulted with Ahitophel, then with the Sanhedrin, then they would ask the Urim VeTummim, and only thereafter was the general of the king’s army, Yoav, given the command to ready the military for battle. Rav Yitzḥak bar Adda, and some say Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Idi, said: From what verse is it derived that David’s lyre would wake him at midnight? “Awake, my glory; awake, harp and lyre; I will wake the dawn” (Psalms 57:9). This means that the playing lyre has already woken, and now I must engage in Torah study until dawn. Rabbi Zeira offered a different solution to the question of whether Moses and David knew exactly when it was midnight and said: Moses certainly knew when it was midnight, and David also knew. The Gemara asks: If David knew, then why did he need the lyre? The Gemara answers: He needed the lyre to wake him from his sleep. Similarly with regard to Moses, since Moses knew the precise moment of midnight, why did he say: About midnight, instead of: At midnight? Moses did so because he maintained: Lest Pharaoh’s astrologers err and believe midnight to be earlier. Since no disaster would have occurred, they would say: Moses is a liar. Moses spoke in accordance with the principle articulated by the Master: Accustom your tongue to say: I do not know, lest you become entangled in a web of deceit. Rav Ashi said: This question is unfounded, as Moses was standing at midnight of the thirteenth, leading into the fourteenth, when he pronounced his prophecy, and Moses told Israel that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said that tomorrow, at the exact time like midnight tonight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt. This indicates that the passage should not be understood to mean about midnight, an approximation; but rather, like midnight, as a comparison, likening midnight tomorrow to midnight tonight. The Gemara further explores King David’s character. It is said: “A prayer of David…Keep my soul, for I am pious” (Psalms 86:1–2). Levi and Rabbi Yitzḥak debated the meaning of this verse and how David’s piety is manifest in the fact that he went beyond his fundamental obligations. One said: David’s declaration of piety referred to his awakening during the night to pray, and so said David before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, am I not pious? As all of the kings of the East and the West sleep until the third hour of the day, but although I am a king like them, “At midnight I rise to give thanks” (Psalms 119:62). And the other Sage said: David said the following before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, am I not pious? For all of the kings of the East and the West sit in groups befitting their honored status, but I sit as a judge who issues rulings for the people. Women come with questions of ritual impurity and my hands become soiled with their blood as I labor to determine whether or not it is blood of impurity and she has menstruating woman status, and with a fetus that miscarried at a stage of development before it was clear whether or not it is considered a birth, and with placenta, which women sometimes discharge unrelated to the birth of a child (see Leviticus 15:19–30 with regard to blood, and 12:1–8 with regard to miscarriage and placenta). King David went to all this trouble in order to render a woman ritually pure and consequently permitted to her husband. If, after examination, a Sage declares the woman ritually pure, she is permitted to be with her husband, which leads to increased love and affection, and ultimately to procreation (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto). And not only do I engage in activity considered to be beneath the station of a king, but I consult my teacher, Mefivoshet, son of King Saul’s son, Jonathan, with regard to everything that I do. I say to him: Mefivoshet, my teacher, did I decide properly? Did I convict properly? Did I acquit properly? Did I rule ritually pure properly? Did I rule ritually impure properly? And I was not embarrassed. Forgoing royal dignity should make me worthy to be called pious. Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said: What verse alludes to this? “And I speak Your testimonies before kings and I will not be ashamed” (Psalms 119:46). This verse alludes both to David’s commitment to Torah, in contrast to the kings of the East and the West, as well as to the fact that he was not ashamed to discuss matters of Torah with Mefivoshet, a descendant of kings. David was not afraid to have his mistakes corrected by Mefivoshet. It was taught in a Tosefta from a tannaitic tradition: His name was not Mefivoshet, but rather Ish Boshet was his name. Why was Ish Boshet referred to as Mefivoshet? Because he would embarrass [mevayesh] David in matters of halakha. According to this approach, Mefivoshet is an abbreviation of boshet panim, embarrassment. Because David was not embarrassed to admit his errors, he merited that Kilav, who, according to tradition, was exceedingly wise, would descend from him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: His name was not Kilav; rather, his name was Daniel, as it appears in a different list of David’s descendants. Why was he called Kilav? Because he would embarrass [makhlim] Mefivoshet, the teacher or authority figure [av] in matters of halakha. In his book of wisdom, Solomon said about this wise son: “My son, if your heart is wise, my heart will be glad, even mine” (Proverbs 23:15), as David enjoyed witnessing his son Kilav develop into a Torah luminary to the extent that Kilav was able to respond to Mefivoshet. And Solomon says about Kilav: “Be wise, my son, and make my heart glad, that I may respond to those who taunt me” (Proverbs 27:11). With regard to David’s statement, “Keep my soul, for I am pious,” the Gemara asks: Did David call himself pious? Isn’t it written: “If I had not [luleh] believed to look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living” (Psalms 27:13). The dots that appear over the word luleh in the text indicate doubt and uncertainty of his piety, and whether he was deserving of a place in the land of the living (see Avot DeRabbi Natan 34). In the name of Rabbi Yosei, it was taught in a Tosefta: Why do dots appear over the word luleh, as if there are some reservations? Because David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe. I have every confidence in You that You grant an excellent reward to the righteous in the World-to-Come since God’s ultimate goodness is manifest in the land of eternal life, but I still harbor uncertainty with regard to myself, and I do not know whether or not I definitely have a portion among them. In any case, apparently David was uncertain whether or not he deserved to receive a portion of God’s reward for the righteous; how, then, could he characterize himself as pious? The Gemara responds: His concern does not prove anything, as King David knew that he was pious. He was simply concerned lest a transgression that he might commit in the future will cause him to lose his opportunity to look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. The Gemara cites a proof that there is room for one to fear lest he commit a transgression in the future in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi, as Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written that God told Jacob in his vision of the ladder: “Behold, I am with you and I guard you wherever you go” (Genesis 28:15), yet when Jacob returned to Canaan and realized that Esau was coming to greet him, it is written: “And Jacob became very afraid, and he was pained” (Genesis 32:8). Why did Jacob not rely on God’s promise? Jacob had concerns and said to himself: Lest a transgression that I might have committed after God made His promise to me will cause God to revoke His promise of protection. Apparently, at times, transgression does cause God’s promise to go unfulfilled, as it was taught explicitly in a baraita with regard to the ostensibly redundant language in a verse in the Song of the Sea: “Until Your people will cross, Lord, until the people You have acquired will cross. You bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place, Lord, which You made for Your dwelling” (Exodus 15:16–17). The Gemara interprets homiletically that until Your people will cross refers to the first entry into Eretz Yisrael during the time of Joshua, while until the people You have acquired pass over refers to the second entry following the exile in Babylonia. Based on the juxtaposition of these two entries in this single verse, the Sages said: Israel was worthy of having a miracle performed on its behalf in the time of Ezra the scribe, just as one was performed on their behalf in the time of Joshua bin Nun. However, transgression caused the absence of a miracle. The Gemara returns to explain what we learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: The time for the recitation of the evening Shema is until midnight. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion do they hold in explaining the verse: “When you lie down”? If they explain this verse in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that “when you lie down” is the time when people customarily go to sleep, then let the Rabbis also say that the time for the recitation of Shema extends, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, until the end of the first watch. And if they explain this verse in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel who says that “when you lie down” refers to the entire night, then let the Rabbis also say that one may recite the evening Shema until dawn, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. The Gemara answers: Actually, the Rabbis hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, and the fact that they say until midnight is in order to distance a person from transgression. As it was taught in a baraita, the Rabbis created a “fence” for their pronouncements with regard to the recitation of Shema in order to prevent a situation where a person comes home from the field in the evening, tired from his day’s work, and knowing that he is permitted to recite Shema until dawn says to himself: I will go home, eat a little, drink a little, sleep a little and then I will recite Shema and recite the evening prayer. In the meantime, he is overcome by sleep and ends up sleeping all night. However, since one is concerned lest he fall asleep and fail to wake up before midnight in order to recite Shema at the appropriate time, he will come from the field in the evening, enter the synagogue, and until it is time to pray, he will immerse himself in Torah. If he is accustomed to reading the Bible, he reads. If he is accustomed to learning mishnayot, a more advanced level of study, he learns. And then he recites Shema and prays as he should. When he arrives home, he eats his meal with a contented heart and recites a blessing. The baraita concludes with a warning: Anyone who transgresses the pronouncements of the Sages is liable to receive the death penalty. This is a startling conclusion. What is different in all other places that it is not taught that one is liable to receive the death penalty and what is different here that it is taught that he is liable to receive the death penalty? There is no unique stringency apparent in the rabbinic restriction on the recitation of Shema. The Gemara offers two answers, explaining that the conclusion of the baraita essentially stems not from the magnitude of the transgression, but rather from concern that the “fence” created around this particular mitzva may be neglected. If you wish, say that one returning from work is quite anxious to go to sleep, and due to the risk that he will be overcome by sleep, he must be particularly vigilant in the recitation of Shema. And if you wish, say instead that strong language is employed here in order to exclude the opinion of he who says that although the morning prayer and the afternoon prayer are mandatory, the evening prayer is optional. Therefore, it teaches us that the evening prayer is mandatory, and anyone who transgresses the pronouncement of the Sages in this regard is liable to receive the death penalty. In this baraita, the Master said that when one returns from work in the evening, he enters the synagogue, recites Shema, and prays. From this baraita, we see that at night, just as during the day, one first recites Shema and then prays. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Who is assured of a place in the World-to-Come? It is one who juxtaposes the blessing of redemption, recited after Shema, to the evening prayer. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The prayers were instituted to be recited between the two recitations of Shema. According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, one recites the morning Shema, then recites all of the prayers and only after the recitation of the evening prayer does he recite the evening Shema. Although the practical difference between these two positions is clear, the Gemara seeks to determine: With regard to what do they disagree? What is the basis of their argument? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that they disagree over the interpretation of a verse; if you wish, say instead that they disagree on a point of logic. If you say that they disagree on a point of logic, then the argument relates to the redemption recited after Shema, whose focus is the exodus from Egypt, the first redemption. The question is whether that redemption began at night, which would render it appropriate to juxtapose redemption to the blessing of the evening prayers as well, in prayer for immediate redemption. Or, perhaps, the redemption from Egypt only began during the day. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: Redemption occurred in the evening as well; however, the full-fledged redemption was only in the morning. Since the redemption began in the evening, it is appropriate to juxtapose the blessing of redemption to the daily evening prayer. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, on the other hand, holds: Since full-fledged redemption only occurred in the morning, and the redemption of the previous evening was not a full-fledged redemption, there is no need to juxtapose the blessing of redemption to the evening prayer. And if you wish, say instead that the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is not a difference over a point of logic, but over the interpretation of a verse. Both derived their opinions from the same verse: “When you lie down, and when you rise.” Both interpreted that the juxtaposition in this verse of the recitation of Shema at night and the recitation of Shema in the morning draws a parallel between them. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: The verse juxtaposes lying down and rising. Just as when one rises, the recitation of Shema is followed by prayer, as everyone agrees that in the morning one juxtaposes redemption to the morning prayer, so too, when one lies down, the recitation of Shema is followed by prayer. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains: The verse juxtaposes lying down and rising in a different sense. Just as when one rises, he recites Shema adjacent to rising from his bed, as the verse, when you rise, means when one awakens, so too when one lies down, he recites Shema adjacent to lying down in his bed. Therefore, the recitation of the evening Shema should be performed as close as possible to the moment when one actually lies down. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, it is a mitzva to recite Shema before the evening prayer. Mar, son of Ravina, raises an objection from a mishna: How can one do that? We learn in a later mishna: In the evening, one recites two blessings prior to the recitation of Shema and two blessings afterward. And if you say that one must juxtapose redemption to prayer, doesn’t he does fail to juxtapose redemption to prayer, as he must recite: Help us lie down [hashkivenu], the blessing recited after the blessing of redemption, which constitutes an interruption between redemption and prayer? They say in response: Since the Sages instituted the practice of reciting: Help us lie down, it is considered one extended blessing of redemption, and therefore does not constitute an interruption. As if you fail to say that the sections added by the Sages are considered no less significant than the original prayers, then can one juxtapose redemption to prayer even in the morning? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Before every prayer one recites the verse: “Lord, open my lips, that my mouth may declare Your glory” (Psalms 51:17) as a prelude to prayer? Afterward, one recites the verse: “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable before You” (Psalms 19:15). Doesn’t the verse: Lord, open my lips, constitute an interruption between redemption and prayer? Rather, there, since the Sages instituted that one must recite: Lord, open my lips, it is considered as an extended prayer and not as an interruption. Here, too, with regard to the evening prayer, since the Sages instituted to recite the blessing Help us lie down, it is considered as one extended blessing of redemption. Tangential to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that one who juxtaposes redemption and prayer is assured of a place in the World-to-Come, a similar statement is cited. Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Avina said: Anyone who recites: “A Psalm of David” (Psalms 145) three times every day is assured of a place in the World-to-Come. This statement extolling the significance of this particular chapter of Psalms, usually referred to as ashrei because its recitation is preceded by recitation of the verse, “Happy [ashrei] are those who dwell in Your House, they praise You Selah” (Psalms 84:5), raises the question: What is the reason that such significance is ascribed to this particular chapter? If you say that it is because it is arranged alphabetically, then let us say: “Happy are they who are upright in the way” (Psalms 119) where the alphabetical arrangement appears eight times. Rather, if you suggest that this particular chapter is recited because it contains praise for God’s provision of sustenance to all of creation: “You open Your hand and satisfy every living thing with favor” (Psalms 145:16), then let him recite the great hallel (Psalms 136), in which numerous praises are written, including: “Who provides food to all flesh, Whose kindness endures forever” (Psalms 136:25). Rather, the reason why tehilla leDavid is accorded preference is because it contains both an alphabetic acrostic as well as mention of God’s provision of sustenance to all creation. Additionally, with regard to this psalm, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why is there no verse beginning with the letter nun in ashrei? Because it contains an allusion to the downfall of the enemies of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself. As it is written: “The virgin of Israel has fallen and she will rise no more; abandoned in her land, none will raise her up” (Amos 5:2), which begins with the letter nun. Due to this verse, ashrei does not include a verse beginning with the letter nun. In order to ease the harsh meaning of this verse, in the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they interpreted it with a slight adjustment: “She has fallen but she shall fall no more; rise, virgin of Israel.” Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak adds: Even so, David went and provided support, through divine inspiration. Although King David did not include a verse beginning with the letter nun alluding to Israel’s downfall, he foresaw the verse that would be written by Amos through divine inspiration; and the very next verse, which begins with the letter samekh, reads: “The Lord upholds the fallen and raises up those who are bowed down” (Psalms 145:14). Therefore, through divine inspiration, David offered hope and encouragement; although the virgin of Israel may have fallen, the Lord upholds the fallen. After this discussion of the statement that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Avina said, another statement of Rabbi Elazar is cited. Rabbi Elazar bar Avina said: What was said about the angel Michael is greater than what was said about the angel Gabriel. As about Michael, it is written: “And one of the seraphim flew to me” (Isaiah 6:6), indicating that with a single flight, the seraph arrived and performed his mission, while regarding Gabriel, it is written: “The man, Gabriel, whom I had seen at the beginning, in a vision, being caused to fly swiftly, approached close to me about the time of the evening offering” (Daniel 9:21). The double language used in the phrase “to fly swiftly [muaf biaf],” indicates that he did not arrive at his destination in a single flight, but rather, that it took him two flights. To Rabbi Elazar bar Avina, it is clear that “one of the seraphim” refers to Michael, and the Gemara asks: From where is it inferred that the one mentioned in the verse is Michael? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is derived through a verbal analogy between the words one and one. Here, it is written: “And one of the seraphim flew to me” (Isaiah 6:6), and there, it is written: “And behold, Michael, one of the chief ministers of the king, came to my aid” (Daniel 10:13). Since the verse from Daniel refers to Michael as “one,” which aggadic midrash interprets as “the unique one,” so, too, “one of the seraphs” described in Isaiah must also refer to the unique one, Michael. This discussion in the Gemara concludes with a Tosefta that arrives at a hierarchy of angels based on the number of flights required by each to arrive at his destination. It was taught in a Tosefta: Michael, as stated above, in one flight; Gabriel, in two flights; Elijah the Prophet, in four flights; and the Angel of Death, in eight flights. During a time of plague, however, when the Angel of Death seems ubiquitous, he arrives everywhere in one flight. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Even though one recited Shema in the synagogue, it is a mitzva to recite it upon his bed in fulfillment of the verse: “When you lie down.” Rabbi Yosei said: What verse alludes to the fact that one must recite Shema in the evening, upon his bed, as well? “Tremble, and do not sin; say to your heart upon your bed and be still, Selah” (Psalms 4:5). This is understood to mean: Recite Shema, about which it is written, “on your hearts,” upon your bed, and afterward be still and sleep. With regard to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement, Rabbi Naḥman said: If one is a Torah scholar, he need not recite Shema on his bed since he is always engaged in the study of Torah and will likely fall asleep engrossed in matters of Torah. Abaye said: Even a Torah scholar must recite at least one verse of prayer, such as: “Into Your hand I trust my spirit; You have redeemed me, Lord, God of truth” (Psalms 31:6). Incidental to the verse, “Tremble, and do not sin,” the Gemara mentions that Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One should always incite his good inclination against his evil inclination, i.e., that one must constantly struggle so that his evil inclination does not lead him to transgression.
If one succeeds and subdues his evil inclination, excellent, but if he does not succeed in subduing it, he should study Torah, as alluded to in the verse: “Say to your heart.”
If he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should recite Shema, which contains the acceptance of the yoke of God, and the concept of reward and punishment, as it is stated in the verse: “Upon your bed,” which alludes to Shema, where it says: “When you lie down.”
If he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should remind himself of the day of death, whose silence is alluded to in the continuation of the verse: “And be still, Selah.” And Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: God said to Moses, “Ascend to me on the mountain and be there, and I will give you the stone tablets and the Torah and the mitzva that I have written that you may teach them” (Exodus 24:12), meaning that God revealed to Moses not only the Written Torah, but all of Torah, as it would be transmitted through the generations.
The “tablets” are the ten commandments that were written on the tablets of the Covenant,
the “Torah” is the five books of Moses.
The “mitzva” is the Mishna, which includes explanations for the mitzvot and how they are to be performed.
“That I have written” refers to the Prophets and Writings, written with divine inspiration.
“That you may teach them” refers to the Talmud, which explains the Mishna.
These explanations are the foundation for the rulings of practical halakha. This verse teaches that all aspects of Torah were given to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara continues its treatment of the recitation of Shema upon one’s bed. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema on his bed, it is as if he holds a double-edged sword, guarding him from all evil, as it is stated: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands” (Psalms 149:6). The Gemara asks: From where is it inferred that this verse from Psalms refers to the recitation of Shema? Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: We derive it from the preceding verse, as it is written: “Let the pious exult in glory; let them joyously sing upon their beds.” The praise of God from one’s bed is the recitation of Shema. And it is written thereafter: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema upon his bed, demons stay away from him. This is alluded to, as it is stated: “But man is born into trouble, and the sparks [reshef ] fly [uf ] upward” (Job 5:7). The verse is explained: The word fly [uf ] means nothing other than Torah, as Torah is difficult to grasp and easy to lose, like something that floats away, as it is stated: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone; for riches certainly make themselves wings, like an eagle that flies into the heavens” (Proverbs 23:5). The word “sparks” means nothing other than demons, as it is stated: “Wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the sparks [reshef] and bitter destruction [ketev meriri], and the teeth of beasts I will send upon them, with the venom of crawling things of the dust” (Deuteronomy 32:24). Here we see reshef listed along with ketev meriri, both of which are understood by the Sages to be names of demons. Regarding this unclear verse, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one engages in Torah study, suffering stays away from him, as it is stated: “And the sparks fly upward.” And fly means nothing other than Torah, and sparks means nothing other than suffering, as it is stated: “Wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the sparks,” equating devouring sparks with wasting hunger, as both are types of suffering. From here, we derive that through Torah, fly, one is able to distance himself, upward, from suffering, sparks. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Even schoolchildren, who learn only the Written Torah, know this concept as it is stated: “And He said you shall surely hear the voice of the Lord your God, and what is upright in His eyes you shall do and you shall listen to His mitzvot and guard His statutes; any disease that I have placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you for I am the Lord your healer” (Exodus 15:26). Rather, one must interpret the verse: Anyone who is able to engage in Torah study yet does not engage in that study, not only does the Holy One, Blessed be He, fail to protect him, but He brings upon him hideous afflictions, that embarrass him and trouble him, as it is stated: “I was mute with silence; I was silent from good, and my pain was strong” (Psalms 39:3). The word good means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion, My Torah, do not abandon it” (Proverbs 4:2). The verse should be understood: “I have been silent from the study of Torah, and my pain was strong.” With regard to the verse: “For I have given you a good portion,” Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa, said: Come and see how the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are unlike the characteristics of flesh and blood. It is characteristic of flesh and blood that when one sells an object to another person, the seller grieves the loss of his possession and the buyer rejoices. With regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, however, this is not so. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion, My Torah, do not abandon it.” A good portion is understood as a good purchase; although God sold Torah to Israel, He rejoices in the sale and praises the object before its new owner (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto). Previously, the Gemara discussed suffering that results from one’s transgressions. The Gemara shifts the focus and discusses suffering that does not result from one’s transgressions and the suffering of the righteous. Rava, and some say Rav Ḥisda, said: If a person sees that suffering has befallen him, he should examine his actions. Generally, suffering comes about as punishment for one’s transgressions, as it is stated: “We will search and examine our ways, and return to God” (Lamentations 3:40). If he examined his ways and found no transgression for which that suffering is appropriate, he may attribute his suffering to dereliction in the study of Torah. God punishes an individual for dereliction in the study of Torah in order to emphasize the gravity of the issue, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You punish, Lord, and teach out of Your law” (Psalms 94:12). This verse teaches us that his suffering will cause him to return to Your law. And if he did attribute his suffering to dereliction in the study of Torah, and did not find this to be so, he may be confident that these are afflictions of love, as it is stated: “For whom the Lord loves, He rebukes, as does a father the son in whom he delights” (Proverbs 3:12). So too, Rava said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: Anyone in whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, delights, He oppresses him with suffering, as it is stated: “Yet in whom the Lord delights, He oppresses him with disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in guilt, that he might see his children, lengthen his days, and that the desire of the Lord might prosper by his hand” (Isaiah 53:10). This verse illustrates that in whomever God delights, he afflicts with illness. I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.” Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly. And if one accepts that suffering with love, what is his reward? As the second part of the verse states: “That he might see his children, lengthen his days.” Moreover, in addition to these earthly rewards, his Torah study will endure and his Torah study will be successful, as it is stated: “The purpose of the Lord,” the Torah, the revelation of God’s will, “might prosper by his hand.” With regard to the acceptance of affliction with love and what exactly this entails, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina disagree. One of them said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the study of Torah, i.e., any which do not afflict his body to the extent that he is unable to study Torah, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord, and teach from Your Torah.” Afflictions of love are when You “teach from Your Torah.” And one said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the recitation of prayer, as it is stated: “Blessed is God Who did not turn away my prayer” (Psalms 66:20). Despite his suffering, the afflicted is still capable of praying to God. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: My father, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: Both, even afflictions that cause dereliction in the study of Torah and those that cause dereliction in the recitation of prayer, are afflictions of love, as with regard to one who suffers without transgression it is stated: “For whom He loves, He rebukes,” and inability to study Torah and to pray are among his afflictions. What then, is the meaning when the verse states: “And teach him from Your Torah”? Do not read and teach to mean and teach him, rather, and teach us. You teach us the value of this affliction from Your Torah. This is taught through an a fortiori inference from the law concerning the tooth and eye of a slave: The tooth and eye are each a single limb of a person and if his master damages either, the slave thereby obtains his freedom; suffering that cleanses a person’s entire body all the more so that one attains freedom, atonement, from his sins. And that is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The word covenant is used with regard to salt, and the word covenant is used with regard to afflictions. The word covenant is used with regard to salt, as it is written: “The salt of the covenant with your God should not be excluded from your meal-offering; with all your sacrifices you must offer salt” (Leviticus 2:13). And the word covenant is used with regard to afflictions, as it is written: “These are the words of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 28:69). Just as, in the covenant mentioned with regard to salt, the salt sweetens the taste of the meat and renders it edible, so too in the covenant mentioned with regard to suffering, the suffering cleanses a person’s transgressions, purifying him for a more sublime existence. Additionally, it was taught in a baraita with regard to affliction: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, all of which were given only by means of suffering, which purified Israel so that they may merit to receive them. These gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-Come. From where is it derived that Torah is only acquired by means of suffering? As it is said: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord,” after which it is said: “And teach from Your Torah.” Eretz Yisrael, as it is written: “As a man rebukes his son, so the Lord your God rebukes you” (Deuteronomy 8:5), and it is written thereafter: “For the Lord your God will bring you to a good land.” The World-to-Come, as it is written: “For the mitzva is a lamp, the Torah is light, and the reproofs of instruction are the way of life” (Proverbs 6:23). One may arrive at the lamp of mitzva and the light of Torah that exists in the World-to-Come only by means of the reproofs of instruction in this world. A tanna taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one engages in Torah and acts of charity and buries his sons, all his transgressions are forgiven. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is your source for this? Granted, if one engages in Torah and acts of charity, his transgressions are forgiven, as it is written: “With mercy and truth, iniquity is expiated” (Proverbs 16:6); mercy refers to acts of charity, as it is stated: “He who pursues charity and mercy finds life, charity and honor” (Proverbs 21:21), mercy and charity are listed together. And truth refers to Torah, as it is stated: “Buy truth and do not sell it; also wisdom, guidance and understanding” (Proverbs 23:23). However, from where is it derived that the transgressions of one who buries his sons are also forgiven? An answer was provided to Rabbi Yoḥanan when a certain elder taught him in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: This conclusion is derived from a verbal analogy between the words iniquity and iniquity. Here, it is written: “With mercy and truth, iniquity is expiated,” and there it is written: “He repays the iniquity of the fathers onto the bosom of their children” (Jeremiah 32:18). Because he “repays the iniquity of the fathers onto the bosom of their children,” the father’s transgressions are forgiven. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Leprosy and suffering due to children are not afflictions of love. The Gemara asks: Is leprosy not an affliction of love? Didn’t we learn in a baraita: If one has any of the four signs of leprosy (Leviticus 13) they are nothing other than an altar of atonement? The Gemara answers: Although the signs of leprosy are an altar of atonement for one’s transgressions, they are not an affliction of love. And if you wish, say instead: This baraita, which says that leprosy is an affliction of love, is for us in Babylonia, because outside of Eretz Yisrael we are not as careful of the laws of ritual impurity, and one afflicted with leprosy may interact with others, mitigating his suffering. And that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that leprosy is not an affliction of love, is for them in Eretz Yisrael, where they are exceedingly careful of the laws of ritual impurity and the suffering of a leper is great because he is banished from society (Rav Hai Gaon). And if you wish, say instead: This baraita, which says that leprosy is an affliction of love, refers to concealed leprosy that only strikes the concealed areas of one’s body. But that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan refers to visible leprosy that causes those who see it to distance themselves from the leper. The Gemara continues to object: And suffering due to children is not an affliction of love? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If you say that he had children and they died, didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say, while consoling the victim of a catastrophe: This is the bone of my tenth son? Rabbi Yoḥanan experienced the death of ten of his children, and he kept a small bone from his tenth child as a painful memorial. He would show that bone to others in order to console them, and since he showed it to them, the deaths of his children must certainly have been affliction of love. He consoled others by displaying that there is an element of intimacy with God that exists in that suffering (Tosafot). Why, then, would Rabbi Yoḥanan have said that suffering due to children is not afflictions of love? Rather, one must conclude that when Rabbi Yoḥanan said that those afflictions are not afflictions of love, he was speaking with regard to one who has no children, and when one had children who died, this could very well be considered afflictions of love. The Gemara continues to address the issue of suffering and affliction: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s student, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, fell ill. Rabbi Yoḥanan entered to visit him, and said to him: Is your suffering dear to you? Do you desire to be ill and afflicted? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: I welcome neither this suffering nor its reward, as one who welcomes this suffering with love is rewarded. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Give me your hand. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba gave him his hand, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stood him up and restored him to health. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan fell ill. Rabbi Ḥanina entered to visit him, and said to him: Is your suffering dear to you? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I welcome neither this suffering nor its reward. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Give me your hand. He gave him his hand, and Rabbi Ḥanina stood him up and restored him to health. The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan wait for Rabbi Ḥanina to restore him to health? If he was able to heal his student, let Rabbi Yoḥanan stand himself up. The Gemara answers, they say: A prisoner cannot generally free himself from prison, but depends on others to release him from his shackles. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Elazar, another of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s students, fell ill. Rabbi Yoḥanan entered to visit him, and saw that he was lying in a dark room. Rabbi Yoḥanan exposed his arm, and light radiated from his flesh, filling the house. He saw that Rabbi Elazar was crying, and said to him: Why are you crying? Thinking that his crying was over the suffering that he endured throughout his life, Rabbi Yoḥanan attempted to comfort him: If you are weeping because you did not study as much Torah as you would have liked, we learned: One who brings a substantial sacrifice and one who brings a meager sacrifice have equal merit, as long as he directs his heart toward Heaven. If you are weeping because you lack sustenance and are unable to earn a livelihood, as Rabbi Elazar was, indeed, quite poor, not every person merits to eat off of two tables, one of wealth and one of Torah, so you need not bemoan the fact that you are not wealthy. If you are crying over children who have died, this is the bone of my tenth son, and suffering of that kind afflicts great people, and they are afflictions of love. Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: I am not crying over my misfortune, but rather, over this beauty of yours that will decompose in the earth, as Rabbi Yoḥanan’s beauty caused him to consider human mortality. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Over this, it is certainly appropriate to weep. Both cried over the fleeting nature of beauty in the world and death that eventually overcomes all. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Is your suffering dear to you? Rabbi Elazar said to him: I welcome neither this suffering nor its reward. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Give me your hand. Rabbi Elazar gave him his hand, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stood him up and restored him to health. The Gemara relates another story regarding acknowledgement of the justice of divine punishment: Four hundred barrels of Rav Huna’s wine fermented and turned into vinegar, causing him great financial loss.
Rav Yehuda, the brother of Rav Sala the Pious, along with the Sages, and some say Rav Adda bar Ahava, along with the Sages, entered to visit him, and said: The Master should examine his actions, as perhaps he committed a transgression for which he is being punished.
Rav Huna said to them: Am I suspect in your eyes? Have I committed a transgression on account of which you advise me to examine my behavior?
They said to him: Is the Holy One, Blessed be He, suspect that He exacts punishment without justice? Your loss was certainly just, and you must examine your conduct to find out why. The Sages were aware of a flaw in Rav Huna’s conduct, to which they alluded (Tosafot). Rav Huna said to them: If someone has heard something improper that I have done, let him say so. They said to him: We have heard that the Master does not give a share of his grapevines to his tenant farmers. A tenant farmer is entitled to a portion of the crop grown on his landlord’s property, as well as a share of the vines planted during a given year. Rav Huna said to them: Does this tenant farmer leave me anything from the produce that he grows on my property? He steals it all. Consequently, in denying him his share of the grapevines I am simply recouping that which was stolen from me by this tenant farmer. They said to him: That is the meaning of the folk saying: One who steals from a thief has a taste of theft. Despite the fact that the property was stolen to begin with, one nevertheless engages in theft. Although he did not violate a prohibition per se, it is still a form of theft, and one who is held to a higher standard than others will be punished for it.
He said to them: I accept upon myself to give my tenant farmer his portion in the future.
Thereupon, as a result of Rav Huna’s repentance, God restored his loss. Some say his vinegar turned back into wine, and some say that the price of vinegar rose and it was sold at the price of wine. The Gemara returns to the topic of prayer. It was taught in a baraita that the tanna Abba Binyamin would say: All of my life I have taken great pains with regard to two things: That my prayer should be before my bed and that my bed should be placed north to south. Abba Binyamin’s statement requires explanation. With regard to his statement: That my prayer should be before my bed, the Gemara asks, what does before my bed mean? If you say that it literally means that he would stand before his bed and pray, it is difficult, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: From where is it derived that one who prays should have nothing separating between him and the wall? As it is stated: “And Hezekiah turned to face the wall and prayed” (Isaiah 38:2), in order to facilitate his concentration during prayer. That being said, why would Abba Binyamin pray before his bed? Rather, do not say that before my bed refers to where he stood during prayer, but rather, say that he prayed adjacent to the time that he would retire to bed; he was careful to recite Shema and recite the evening prayer just before going to sleep (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). Abba Binyamin’s statement: And my bed should be placed north to south was in deference to the Divine Presence, which rests between east and west, the direction of the Temple; as the Holy of Holies was to the west, while the main entrance was to the east. Therefore, the Sages were careful not to perform actions inconsistent with that sanctity while facing east to west; and, therefore, Abba Binyamin was careful not to sleep in a bed that faced east to west. In praise of that stringency, the Sages added that Rabbi Ḥama said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One who places his bed facing north to south will be rewarded with male children, as it is stated: “And whose belly You fill with Your treasure [utzfunekha], who have sons in plenty and leave their abundance to their babies” (Psalms 17:14). This verse indicates that one who sets his bed facing north will be rewarded with sons in plenty, as north [tzafon] is etymologically similar to Your treasure [tzfunekha]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Moreover, his wife will not miscarry. From where do we derive this? It is written here: “And whose belly You fill [temaleh] with Your treasure,” and it is written there, concerning Rebecca’s pregnancy: “And her time to give birth was fulfilled [vayimle’u] and there were twins in her belly” (Genesis 25:24), consequently: You fill with Your treasure refers to a pregnancy that proceeds without complication. Another of Abba Binyamin’s statements with regard to the laws of prayer was taught in a baraita: Abba Binyamin says: If two people enter a synagogue outside of the city in order to pray, and one began praying before the other and did not wait for the other person to complete his prayer, and left him alone in the synagogue, his prayer is thrown back in his face. Because he left the other person alone and caused him to be distracted during his prayer, his own prayer is thrown back in his face, as it is stated: “You who throw your soul in your face, for your sake will the earth be forsaken? The Rock will be moved from its place” (Job 18:4). This verse indicates that one who left the other person alone effectively causes his soul, as prayer is the outpouring of the soul before God, to be thrown in his face. God says to that person: For your sake, do you think because you left, the earth will be forsaken, that God will leave the world and the prayer of the other person will go unheard? Not only that, but it causes the Divine Presence to remove itself from Israel, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “The Rock will be moved from its place.” The rock, God, is forced to remove His presence. And Rock means nothing other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Of the Rock that gave birth to you, you have been unmindful, and you have forgotten God Who bore you” (Deuteronomy 32:18). And if he waits for him in the synagogue, what is his reward? Is his reward proportionate to the punishment received by one who failed to do so? In terms of this reward, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina said: One who waits in the synagogue for the other to finish his prayer merits the following blessings, as it is stated: “If only you had listened to My mitzvot then your peace would be as a river, and your righteousness as the waves of the sea. Your seed would be as the sand, and the offspring of your body like the grains thereof; his name would be neither cut off nor destroyed from before Me” (Isaiah 48:18–19). The explanation of this passage is based on the etymological similarity between the word mitzva and the word tzevet, which means group. If he keeps the other person company and does not abandon him after his prayer, all of the blessings that appear later in the verse will be fulfilled in him (Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona). In another baraita it was taught that Abba Binyamin says: If the eye was given permission to see, no creature would be able to withstand the abundance and ubiquity of the demons and continue to live unaffected by them. Similarly, Abaye said: They are more numerous than we are and they stand over us like mounds of earth surrounding a pit. Rav Huna said: Each and every one of us has a thousand demons to his left and ten thousand to his right. God protects man from these demons, as it says in the verse: “A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; they will not approach you” (Psalms 91:7). Summarizing the effects of the demons, Rava said:
The crowding at the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, is from the demons;
those knees that are fatigued even though one did not exert himself is from the demons;
those clothes of the Sages that wear out, despite the fact that they do not engage in physical labor, is from friction with the demons;
those feet that are in pain is from the demons. One who seeks to know that the demons exist should place fine ashes around his bed, and in the morning the demons’ footprints appear like chickens’ footprints, in the ash. One who seeks to see them should take the afterbirth of a firstborn female black cat, born to a firstborn female black cat, burn it in the fire, grind it and place it in his eyes, and he will see them. He must then place the ashes in an iron tube sealed with an iron seal [gushpanka] lest the demons steal it from him, and then seal the opening so he will not be harmed. Rav Beivai bar Abaye performed this procedure, saw the demons, and was harmed. The Sages prayed for mercy on his behalf and he was healed. It was taught in a baraita that Abba Binyamin said: One’s prayer is only fully heard in a synagogue, as it is stated with regard to King Solomon’s prayer in the Temple: “Yet have You turned toward the prayer of Your servant and to his supplication, Lord my God, to listen to the song and the prayer which Your servant prays before You on this day” (I Kings 8:28). The following verse concludes: “To hear the prayer Your servant directs toward this place” (I Kings 8:29). We see that one’s prayer is heard specifically in the Temple, of which the synagogue is a microcosm (Rav Yoshiyahu Pinto). It may be inferred that in a place of song, a synagogue where God’s praises are sung, there prayer should be. In explaining Abba Binyamin’s statement, Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is located in a synagogue? As it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalms 82:1). The congregation of God is the place where people congregate to sing God’s praises, and God is located among His congregation. And from where is it derived that ten people who pray, the Divine Presence is with them? As it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God,” and the minimum number of people that constitute a congregation is a quorum of ten. From where is it derived that three who sit in judgment, the Divine Presence is with them? It is derived from this same verse, as it is stated: “In the midst of the judges He judges,” and the minimum number of judges that comprises a court is three. From where is it derived that two who sit and engage in Torah study, the Divine Presence is with them? As it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). The Divine Presence listens to any two God-fearing individuals who speak with each other. With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase, “And that think upon His name”? Rav Ashi said: If a person intended to perform a mitzva, but due to circumstances beyond his control, he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzva, as he is among those that think upon His name. The Gemara returns to Ravin bar Rav Adda’s statement: And from where is it derived that when even one who sits and engages in Torah study, the Divine Presence is with him? As it is stated: “In every place where I cause My Name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21); God blesses even a single person who mentions God’s name, a reference to Torah study (Iyyun Ya’akov). The Gemara asks: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon one who engages in Torah study, was it necessary to say that the Divine Presence rests upon two who study Torah together? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them. Two people, their words of Torah are written in the book of remembrance, as it is stated: “And a book of remembrance was written”; however a single individual’s words of Torah are not written in a book of remembrance. The Gemara continues: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon two who engage in Torah study, is it necessary to mention three? The Gemara answers: Here too, a special verse is necessary lest you say that judgment is merely to keep the peace among the citizenry, and the Divine Presence does not come and rest upon those who sit in judgment as they are not engaged in Torah study. Ravin bar Rav Adda teaches us that sitting in judgment is also Torah. The Gemara asks: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon three, is it necessary to mention ten? The Gemara answers: The Divine Presence arrives before a group of ten, as the verse: “God stands in the congregation of God,” indicates that when the ten individuals who comprise a congregation arrive, the Divine Presence is already there. For a group of three judges, however, the Divine Presence does not arrive until they sit and begin their deliberations, as in the midst of the judges He judges. God aids them in their judgment, but does not arrive before them. The Gemara cites another aggadic statement: Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, wears phylacteries? As it is stated: “The Lord has sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength” (Isaiah 62:8). Since it is customary to swear upon holy objects, it is understood that His right hand and the arm of His strength are the holy objects upon which God swore. Specifically, “His right hand” refers to the Torah, as it is stated in describing the giving of the Torah: “From His right hand, a fiery law for His people” (Deuteronomy 33:2). “The arm of His strength,” His left hand, refers to phylacteries, as it is stated: “The Lord gave strength to His nation” (Psalms 29:11), in the form of the mitzva of phylacteries. The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that phylacteries provide strength for Israel? As it is written: “And all the nations of the land shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you, and they will fear you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written in fulfillment of the verse: “That the name of the Lord is called upon you.” Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: What is written in the phylacteries of the Master of the world? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin replied: It is written: “Who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” (I Chronicles 17:21). God’s phylacteries serve to connect Him, in a sense, to the world, the essence of which is Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak continues: Is the Holy One, Blessed be He, glorified through the glory of Israel? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin answered: Yes, as indicated by the juxtaposition of two verses; as it is stated: “You have affirmed, this day, that the Lord is your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His laws and commandments, and listen to His voice.” And the subsequent verse states: “And the Lord has affirmed, this day, that you are His treasure, as He spoke to you, to keep His commandments” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18). From these two verses it is derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: You have made Me a single entity [ḥativa] in the world, as you singled Me out as separate and unique. And because of this, I will make you a single entity in the world, and you will be a treasured nation, chosen by God. You have made Me a single entity in the world, as it is stated that Israel declares God’s oneness by saying: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And because of this, I will make you a single entity in the world, unique and elevated with the utterance: “Who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” Consequently, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is glorified through the glory of Israel whose praises are written in God’s phylacteries. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: It works out well with regard to the contents of one of the four compartments of God’s phylacteries of the head. However, all four compartments of Israel’s phylacteries of the head contain portions of the Torah that praise God. What portions in praise of Israel are written in the rest of the compartments of God’s phylacteries of the head? Rav Ashi said to him: In those three compartments it is written: “For who is a great nation, to whom God is close, like the Lord our God whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7); “And who is a great nation, who has righteous statutes and laws, like this entire Torah which I set before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:8); “Happy are you, Israel, who is like you? A people saved by the Lord, the shield of your help, and that is the sword of your excellence. And your enemies shall dwindle away before you, and you shall tread upon their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29); “Or has God attempted to go and take for Himself a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs and by wonders” (Deuteronomy 4:34); “And to elevate you above all nations that He has made, in praise, in name and in glory; that you may be a holy people to the Lord, your God, as He has spoken” (Deuteronomy 26:19). Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, raises an objection: If all of these verses are included in God’s phylacteries of the head, there are too many compartments as more than four verses of praise were listed. Rather, the portions in God’s phylacteries must be arranged as follows: The verses “For who is a great nation” and “And who is a great nation” are included in one compartment, as they are similar. “Happy are you, Israel” is in one compartment. “Or has God attempted” is in one compartment and “And to elevate you” is in one compartment in the phylacteries of the head, where there are four separate compartments. And all of the verses are written together on one parchment in the phylacteries of the arm, which has only one compartment. Additionally, Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One who is accustomed to come to the synagogue and did not come one day, the Holy One, Blessed be He, asks about him, as it were, to determine what happened to him, as it is stated: “Who among you fears the Lord? Who hears the voice of His servant? Though he walks in darkness and has no light, let him trust in the name of the Lord, and rely upon his God” (Isaiah 50:10). In other words, God asks, who among you fears the Lord yet did not come to hear the voice of His servant the prayer leader, who engages in the service of God? He who went out before dawn and walks in darkness before prayer. If it is for a matter involving a mitzva that he went and absented himself from prayer in the synagogue, then, despite the darkness, there is light for him, the aura of his mitzva will protect him. But if it is for an optional matter, some mundane purpose, that he went and absented himself from prayer in the synagogue, then, even once the day begins, there is no light for him (Maharsha). The verse continues: “Let him trust in the name of the Lord.” The Gemara asks: What is the reason that God is so exacting with this person? The Gemara answers: Because he should have relied on the name of the Lord, and trusted that he would not incur any loss if he postponed dealing with his mundane matters until after prayer in the synagogue, and he did not rely on God. On this same topic, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, enters a synagogue and does not find ten people there, He immediately becomes angry, as it is stated: “Why, when I came, was there no one? When I called, there was no one to answer…Behold, with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness” (Isaiah 50:2). Concerning another aspect of the constancy of prayer, Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: One who sets a fixed place for his prayer, the God of Abraham assists him. Since prayer parallels the Temple service, it is a sign of respect to set a fixed place for this sacred rite (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto). The God of Abraham assists him because this pious custom evokes Abraham’s conduct. When he dies, those who eulogize one who set a fixed place for his prayer say about him: “Where is the humble one, where is the pious one, of the disciples of our father Abraham?” Presumably, one who sets a fixed place for prayer is a disciple of Abraham in every respect, including humility and piety (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto). The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that Abraham our father set a fixed place for his prayer? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And Abraham rose in the morning to the place where he had stood before God” (Genesis 19:27), and the verb “standing” means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: “And Pinehas stood and prayed” (Psalms 106:30). Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: One who leaves the synagogue should not take large strides because it creates the impression that he is eager to leave. Abaye explained Rav Huna’s statement and said: This halakha was only said with regard to leaving the synagogue, where large strides seem particularly disrespectful. However, with regard to entering a synagogue, it is a mitzva to run and one is permitted to rush and take large strides (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto). As it is said: “And let us know, eagerly strive to know the Lord” (Hosea 6:3). One who eagerly enters a synagogue displays his enthusiasm to follow the path of God. Rabbi Zeira said: Initially, when I saw the Sages running to the Rabbi’s lecture on Shabbat, I said: These Sages are desecrating Shabbat. One is prohibited from running on Shabbat in deference to the sanctity of the day. Once I heard that which Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always run for a matter of halakha, even on Shabbat, as it is stated: “They shall walk after the Lord, who will roar like a lion” (Hosea 11:10). In other words, one should rush as though he were chased by a lion (Birkat Hashem), I too run. Rabbi Zeira said: The reward for attending the lecture is for running. Since most individuals attending the lecture did not fully understand the material taught, the primary reward for attendance was given for their intention to hear the Torah being taught, as evidenced by their rush to arrive. Similarly, Abaye said: The reward for attending the kalla is for the crowding. Due to the large crowd, study was difficult, so the primary reward was given for their effort to hear and understand some part of the lecture. Similarly, Rava said: The reward for learning the halakhic traditions of the amora’im is for the logical analysis, as the primary reward for studying Talmud was not given for knowing the halakhic conclusions, but for the logical reasoning that led to those conclusions. Rav Pappa said: The primary reward for attending a house of mourning [bei tammaya] is for the silence, which is the optimal manner for those consoling the mourners to express their empathy. Mar Zutra said: The primary reward for fasting is for the charity given to the poor on the fast day (see Isaiah 58). Rav Sheshet said: The primary reward for delivering a eulogy is for causing those in attendance to raise their voices and cry, as that increases the grief over the deceased. Rav Ashi said: The primary reward for participating in a wedding is for the words, i.e., the good wishes with which the guests regale the bride and groom. Back to the topic of deference for a synagogue, the Gemara records that Rav Huna said: One who prays behind the synagogue is called wicked, as while the entire congregation is facing one direction to pray, he faces the opposite direction creating the impression that he is treating the synagogue and its congregation with contempt. As it is stated: “The wicked walk round about, when vileness is exalted among the sons of men” (Psalms 12:9). In other words, only the wicked walk round about the synagogue in order to pray. Abaye said: This halakha was said only in a case where one does not turn his face toward the synagogue. But where he turns his face toward the synagogue and prays we have no prohibition in that case. To reinforce the gravity of this prohibition, the Gemara relates: A certain individual prayed behind the synagogue and did not turn to face the synagogue. Elijah the Prophet passed by and appeared to him as an Arab [taya’a]. Elijah said: “This is how [kadu bar] you stand before your Master?” Elijah drew a sword and killed him. Rav Huna already explained the beginning of the verse, “The wicked walk round about.” The Gemara explains the end of the verse: “When vileness is exalted among the sons of men.” One of the Sages said to Rav Beivai bar Abaye, and some say Rav Beivai said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: What is the meaning of: “When vileness is exalted among the sons of men”? He replied to: These are matters of utmost importance, exalted, i.e., mitzvot or prayer, which people nonetheless treat with contempt, vileness among the sons of men. Rabbi Yoḥanan and his student, Rabbi Elazar, both said an alternative explanation of this verse: Once a person needs the help of others and loses dignity in their eyes, vileness among the sons of men, his face changes and becomes like a kerum, as it is stated: “When [kerum] vileness is exalted among the sons of men.” What is kerum referred to by Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar? When Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said: There is a bird in the cities by the sea called kerum and when the sun rises, the bird changes several colors. Similarly, one who becomes dependent upon others blushes in embarrassment. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi both said: One who becomes dependent upon others, it is as if he was punished with two punishments: Fire and water. As it is stated: “You have caused men to ride over our heads; we have gone through fire and water” (Psalms 66:12). And Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: One must always be vigilant with regard to the afternoon prayer, as Elijah’s prayer was only answered in the afternoon prayer, as it is stated: “And it was at the time of the afternoon offering that Elijah the Prophet came near, and he said: Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known on this day that You are God in Israel, and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your word. Answer me, Lord, answer me, that this people will know that You, Lord, are God” (I Kings 18:36–37). Because Elijah was answered in the afternoon prayer, it has particular significance. In passing, the Gemara explains why it was necessary for Elijah to repeat, “answer me, Lord, answer me”: The first answer me was the request that fire descend from the heavens, while the second answer me was the request that Israel should accept complete faith in God and not say that the fire descending from the heavens was an act of sorcery. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One must be vigilant with regard to the evening prayer as well, as it is stated: “Let my prayer come forth as incense before You, the lifting of my hands as the evening offering” (Psalms 141:2).
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One must be vigilant with regard to the morning prayer as well, as it is stated: “Lord, in the morning You shall hear my voice; in the morning I will order my prayer unto You and will look forward” (Psalms 5:4). And Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: Anyone who benefits from the feast of a groom but does not cause him to rejoice violates the five voices mentioned in this verse, as it is stated: “The voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride, and the voice of those who say: Give thanks to the Lord of hosts, for the Lord is good, for His mercy lasts forever, even of those who bring a thanks-offering to the house of the Lord. For I will restore the captivity of the land as it was in the beginning, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 33:11). These five voices in the context of a bride and groom correspond to the five voices mentioned in the context of the revelation at Sinai, as in Song of Songs, the day of the revelation at Sinai is alluded to by the phrase: His wedding day (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto, Maharsha). What is his reward if he causes the groom to rejoice? He is privileged to acquire the Torah, which was given with five voices, as it is stated: “And it was on the third day, when it was morning, there were sounds [kolot], and lightning and a thick cloud upon the mountain, and the voice of the shofar” (Exodus 19:16). The plural kolot indicates at least two sounds, while “the voice of the shofar” is one more. The passage continues: “And when the voice of the shofar grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and God answered him by a voice” (Exodus 19:19). Along with the three previous voices, the second shofar and the voice with which God answered Moses amount to a total of five voices at the revelation at Sinai. The Gemara asks: Is this so? Isn’t it also written: “And the whole nation saw the voices and the torches and the sound of the shofar” (Exodus 20:15)? Clearly more than five voices are mentioned with regard to the revelation at Sinai. The Gemara answers: Those voices were sounded prior to the giving of the Torah, so they are not included in this calculation of voices. Rabbi Abbahu said: The reward for causing a groom to rejoice is the same as if one had offered a thanks-offering in the Temple, for as it is stated later in the previously cited verse from Jeremiah: “Those who bring a thanks-offering to the house of the Lord.”
And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The reward for causing a groom to rejoice is the same as if one rebuilt one of Jerusalem’s ruins, as it is stated later in the same verse: “For I will restore the captivity of the land as it was in the beginning.” And Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: Any person who has the fear of Heaven, his words are heeded, as it is stated: “The end of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is all of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). The Gemara explains: “The end of the matter, all having been heard,” refers to the words of one “who keeps His commandments; for this is all of man.” With regard to the end of this verse, the Gemara asks: What is meant by, “for this is all of man”? Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said about him: The entire world was created only for this person. This is the ultimate person for which all of man was created. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: The end of this verse teaches that this is equivalent to the entire world, all of man.
Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, and some say Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma, says: Not only is he the equivalent of the entire world, but the entire world was created to serve as companions for him, so that he would have a society in which to live and with which to interact. And Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: One who is aware that another person is accustomed to greet him is not only obligated to return his greeting, but he must greet him first, as it is stated: “Seek peace and pursue it” (Psalms 34:15). If the other person extended his greeting to him and he did not respond, he is called a robber, as it is stated: “It is you who have eaten up the vineyard, the spoils of the poor is in your houses” (Isaiah 3:14). The only way to steal from a pauper who owns nothing is to rob him of his dignity by refusing to return his greeting. Along the same lines, Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, prays? As it is stated: “I will bring them to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in the house of My prayer” (Isaiah 56:7). The verse does not say the house of their prayer, but rather, “the house of My prayer”; from here we see that the Holy One, Blessed be He, prays. The Gemara asks: What does God pray? To whom does God pray? Rav Zutra bar Tovia said that Rav said:
God says: May it be My will that My mercy will overcome My anger towards Israel for their transgressions,
and may My mercy prevail over My other attributes through which Israel is punished,
and may I conduct myself toward My children, Israel, with the attribute of mercy,
and may I enter before them beyond the letter of the law. Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, the High Priest, said: Once, on Yom Kippur, I entered the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, to offer incense, and in a vision I saw Akatriel Ya, the Lord of Hosts, one of the names of God expressing His ultimate authority, seated upon a high and exalted throne (see Isaiah 6).
And He said to me: Yishmael, My son, bless Me.
I said to Him the prayer that God prays: “May it be Your will that Your mercy overcome Your anger,
and may Your mercy prevail over Your other attributes,
and may You act toward Your children with the attribute of mercy,
and may You enter before them beyond the letter of the law.”
The Holy One, Blessed be He, nodded His head and accepted the blessing. This event teaches us that you should not take the blessing of an ordinary person lightly. If God asked for and accepted a man’s blessing, all the more so that a man must value the blessing of another man. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: From where is it derived that one must not placate a person while he is in the throes of his anger, rather he should mollify him after he has calmed down? As it is written, when following the sin of the Golden Calf, Moses requested that the Divine Presence rest upon Israel as it had previously, God said to him: “My face will go, and I will give you rest” (Exodus 33:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan explained: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Wait until My face of wrath will pass and I will grant your request. One must wait for a person’s anger to pass as well. The Gemara asks: And is there anger before the Holy One, Blessed be He? Can we speak of God using terms like anger? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it was taught in a baraita, God becomes angry, as it is stated: “God vindicates the righteous, God is furious every day” (Psalms 7:12). How much time does His anger last? God’s anger lasts a moment. And how long is a moment? One fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred and eighty-eighth of an hour, that is a moment. The Gemara adds: And no creature can precisely determine that moment when God becomes angry, except for Balaam the wicked, about whom it is written: “He who knows the knowledge of the Most High” (Numbers 24:16). This should not be understood to mean that Balaam was a full-fledged prophet. Now, clearly, Balaam did not know the mind of his animal; and he did know the mind of the Most High? If he could not understand the rebuke of his donkey, he was certainly unable to understand the mind of the Most High. Rather, this verse from Numbers teaches that Balaam was able to precisely determine the hour that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is angry. At that moment, Balaam would utter his curse and, through God’s anger, it would be fulfilled. And that is what the prophet said to Israel: “My nation, remember what Balak king of Moab advised, and how Balaam, son of Beor, responded; from Shittim to Gilgal, so that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord” (Micah 6:5). What is meant by the statement: “So that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord”? Rabbi Elazar said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: Know how many acts of kindness I performed on your behalf, that I did not become angry during the days of Balaam the wicked, for had I become angry, there would have been no remnant or survivor remaining among the enemies of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself. Instead, God restrained His anger and Balaam’s curse went unfulfilled. And that is what Balaam said to Balak: “How can I curse whom God has not cursed? And how can I condemn whom God has not condemned?” (Numbers 23:8). This verse teaches that all those days, God was not angry. And how long does His anger last? God’s anger lasts a moment. And how long is a moment? Rabbi Avin, and some say Rabbi Avina, said: A moment lasts as long as it takes to say it [rega]. From where do we derive that God is only angry for a moment? As it is stated: “His anger is but for a moment, His favor, for a lifetime” (Psalms 30:6). And if you wish, say instead, from here, as it is stated: “Hide yourself for a brief moment, until the anger passes” (Isaiah 26:20), meaning that God’s anger passes in a mere moment. The Gemara asks: When is the Holy One, Blessed be He, angry? Abaye said: God’s anger is revealed through animals. During the first three hours of the day, when the sun whitens the crest of the rooster and it stands on one leg. When it appears that its life has left him and he suddenly turns white, that is when God is angry. The Gemara asks: The rooster also stands that way every hour. What kind of sign is this? The Gemara answers: The difference is that every other hour when the rooster stands in that way, there are red streaks in his crest. But when God is angry, there are no red streaks in his crest. The Gemara relates: A certain heretic who was in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s neighborhood would upset him by incessantly challenging the legitimacy of verses. One day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi took a rooster and placed it between the legs of the bed upon which he sat and looked at it. He thought: When the moment of God’s anger arrives, I will curse him and be rid of him. When the moment of God’s anger arrived, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi slept. When he woke up, he said to himself: Conclude from the fact that I nodded off that it is not proper conduct to do so, to curse people, even if they are wicked. “His mercy is over all His creations” (Psalms 145:9) is written even with regard to sinners. Moreover, it is inappropriate to cause the punishment of another, as it is written: “Punishment, even for the righteous, is not good” (Proverbs 17:26), even for a righteous person, it is improper to punish another. Explaining the cause of God’s anger, it is taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: When the sun rises and the kings of the East and the West place their crowns on their heads and bow down to the sun, the Holy One, Blessed be He, immediately grows angry. Since this occurs in the early hours every day, God becomes angry at His world at that moment every day. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: A single regret or pang of guilt in one’s heart is preferable to many lashes administered by others that cause only physical pain, as it is stated: “And she chases her lovers, but she does not overtake them; she seeks them, but she will not find them; and she will say ‘I will go and return to my first husband; for it was better for me then than now’” (Hosea 2:9). Remorse is more effective than any externally imposed punishment listed in the verses that follow (Hosea 2:11–19). And Reish Lakish said that in the Bible, it seems that such remorse is preferable to one hundred lashes, as it is stated: “A rebuke enters deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred lashes to a fool” (Proverbs 17:10). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei regarding Moses’ request that the Divine Presence rest upon Israel as it once had: Moses requested three things from the Holy One, Blessed be He, at that time, all of which were granted him. He requested that the Divine Presence rest upon Israel and not leave, and He granted it to him, as it is stated: “For how can it be known that I have found grace in Your sight, I and Your people? Is it not in that You go with us, so that we are distinguished, I and Your people, from all the people that are on the face of the earth?” (Exodus 33:16). The request: Is it not in that You go with us, refers to the resting of the Divine Presence upon Israel. Moses requested that the Divine Presence not rest upon the nations of the world, and He granted it to him, as it is stated: “So that we are distinguished, I and Your people, from all the people on the face of the earth” (Exodus 33:16). Lastly, Moses requested that the ways in which God conducts the world be revealed to him, and He granted it to him, as it is stated: “Show me Your ways and I will know You” (Exodus 33:13).
Moses said before God: Master of the Universe. Why is it that the righteous prosper, the righteous suffer, the wicked prosper, the wicked suffer?
God said to him: Moses, the righteous person who prospers is a righteous person, the son of a righteous person, who is rewarded for the actions of his ancestors. The righteous person who suffers is a righteous person, the son of a wicked person, who is punished for the transgressions of his ancestors. The wicked person who prospers is a wicked person, the son of a righteous person, who is rewarded for the actions of his ancestors. The wicked person who suffers is a wicked person, the son of a wicked person, who is punished for the transgressions of his ancestors. The Gemara expands upon these righteous and wicked individuals: The Master said: The righteous person who prospers is a righteous person, the son of a righteous person. The righteous person who suffers is a righteous person, the son of a wicked person. The Gemara asks: Is it so that one is always punished for his ancestors’ transgressions? Isn’t it written: “He visits iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 34:7). And it is written elsewhere: “Fathers shall not die for their children, and children shall not be put to death for the fathers; every man shall die for his own transgression” (Deuteronomy 24:16). And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the two verses. The Gemara resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult. This verse from Exodus, which states that God punishes descendants for the transgressions of their ancestors, refers to a case where they adopt the actions of their ancestors as their own. While this verse from Deuteronomy, which states that descendants are not punished for the actions of their ancestors, refers to a case where they do not adopt the actions of their ancestors as their own, as it is stated: “I visit iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and fourth generations of my enemies” (Exodus 20:5). A righteous person is clearly not punished for the transgressions of his ancestors. Rather, it must be that God said to Moses as follows:
The righteous person who prospers is a completely righteous person whose actions are entirely good and whose reward is entirely good both in this world and in the World-to-Come.
The righteous person who suffers is one who is not a completely righteous person. Because he does have some transgressions, he is punished in this world so that he will receive a complete reward in the World-to-Come.
The wicked person who prospers is one who is not a completely wicked person. God rewards him in this world for the good deeds that he performed, so that he will receive a complete punishment in the World-to-Come.
Finally, the wicked person who suffers is a completely wicked person. Since he performed absolutely no mitzvot and deserves no reward, he receives only punishment both in this world and in the World-to-Come (Maharsha). Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, that God granted Moses all three of his requests, disagrees with that of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir said: Two of Moses’ requests were granted to him, and one was not granted to him. God granted him that the Divine Presence would rest upon Israel and not leave, and that the Divine Presence would not rest upon the nations of the world, but God did not reveal to Moses the ways in which He conducts the world. As it is said: “And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious” (Exodus 33:19); in His mercy, God bestows His grace upon every person, even though he is not worthy. Similarly, God says: “And I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy,” even though he is not worthy. According to Rabbi Meir, the way in which God conducts the world and bestows grace and mercy was not revealed even to Moses. The Gemara continues to cite the Sages’ explanation of verses that require clarification on the same topic. With regard to God’s statement to Moses, “And He said: ‘You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live’” (Exodus 33:20), it was taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses as follows: When I wanted to show you My glory at the burning bush, you did not want to see it, as it is stated: “And Moses concealed his face, fearing to gaze upon God” (Exodus 3:6). But now that you want to see My glory, as you said: “Show me Your glory,” I do not want to show it to you. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa interprets Moses’ initial refusal to look upon God’s glory negatively, as he rebuffed God’s desire to be close to him. This disagrees with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Specifically as a reward for three acts of humility in averting his glance at the burning bush, Moses was privileged to experience three great revelations: Because “Moses concealed his face, fearing to gaze upon God” (Exodus 3:6), he was privileged to have his countenance [kelaster] glow.
Because he “feared,” he was privileged that “they feared to approach him” (Exodus 34:30).
Because he did not “gaze,” he was privileged to “behold the likeness of the Lord” (Numbers 12:8). What did Moses see? It is said: “And I will remove My hand, and you will see My back, but My face you will not see” (Exodus 33:23). Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida, the expression: “And you will see My back,” should be understood as follows: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who, as mentioned above, wears phylacteries, showed him the knot of the phylacteries of His head, which is worn on the back of the head. On this subject, Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Every statement to a person or to a nation that emerged from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, with a promise of good, even if it was conditional, He did not renege on it. Ultimately, every promise made by God will be fulfilled. From where do we derive that all of God’s promises are fulfilled? We know this from Moses our teacher, as God promised and said: “Leave Me alone; I will destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make from you a nation mightier and greater than they” (Deuteronomy 9:14). Even though Moses prayed to have the decree repealed, and it was nullified, the promise was fulfilled and Moses’ descendants became a nation mightier and greater than the 600,000 Israelites in the desert. As it is stated with regard to the Levites: “The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer…and the sons of Eliezer were Reḥaviya the chief. And Eliezer had no other sons; and the sons of Reḥaviya were very many” (I Chronicles 23:15–17). And Rav Yosef taught in a baraita: “Many” means more than 600,000. This is learned through a verbal analogy between the words many and many. It is written here with regard to Reḥaviya’s sons: “Were very many.” And it is written there with regard to the Israelites in Egypt: “And the children of Israel became numerous and multiplied and were very many, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them” (Exodus 1:7). Just as when the children of Israel were in Egypt, very many meant that there were 600,000 of them, so too the descendants of Reḥaviya were 600,000. Until now, the Gemara has cited statements made by Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of the tanna, Rabbi Yosei. Now, the Gemara begins to cite what Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From the day that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the world there was no person who called him “Lord” until Abraham came and called him Lord. As it is stated: “And he said, ‘My Lord, God, by what shall I know that I will inherit it?’” (Genesis 15:8). The Gemara cites another statement extolling that virtue of Abraham is mentioned, as Rav said: Even Daniel’s prayers were only answered on account of Abraham, as it is stated: “And now listen, God, to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplication; and cause Your face to shine upon Your desolate Temple, for the sake of the Lord” (Daniel 9:17). The verse should have said: And cause Your face to shine upon Your desolate Temple, for Your sake, as Daniel was addressing the Lord. Rather, this verse contains an allusion that the prayer should be accepted for the sake of Abraham, who called You, Lord. Daniel utilized that name of God in order to evoke Abraham’s virtue and enhance his prayer. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where is it derived that one must not placate a person while the person in the throes of his anger? As it is stated: “My face will go, and I will give you rest” (Exodus 33:14). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From the day the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the world, no one thanked the Holy One, Blessed be He, until Leah came and thanked Him, as it is stated: “And she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, and she said, ‘This time I will give thanks to God,’ and thus he was called Judah” (Genesis 29:35). Tangential to the mention of Leah’s son, Judah, and the reason for his name, the Gemara explains the sources for other names, including Reuben. Rabbi Elazar said: Reuben’s name should be considered a prophecy by Leah, as Leah said: See [re’u] the difference between my son [beni] and the son of my father-in-law, Esau, son of Isaac. Even though Esau knowingly sold his birthright to his brother Jacob, as it is written: “And he sold his birthright to Jacob” (Genesis 25:33), nonetheless, behold what is written about him: “And Esau hated Jacob” (Genesis 27:41). Esau was not only angry over Isaac’s blessing, but he was angry about another matter as well, as it is written: “And he said, ‘Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me twice? He took my birthright, and behold, now he has taken my blessing’” (Genesis 27:36). Despite having sold his birthright, he refused to relinquish it. While my son, Reuben, even though Joseph took his birthright from him by force, as it is written: “And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, for he was the firstborn; but, since he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, son of Israel” (I Chronicles 5:1). Nevertheless, he was not jealous of him, as it is written when Joseph’s brothers sought to kill him: “And Reuben heard and he saved him from their hands, saying ‘Let us not take his life’” (Genesis 37:21). Continuing on the topic of names, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the name Ruth? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That she had the privilege that David, who inundated the Holy One, Blessed be He, with songs and praises, would descend from her. The name Ruth [Rut] is etymologically similar in Hebrew to the word inundate [riva]. Regarding the basic assumption that these homiletic interpretations of names are allusions to one’s future, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the name affects one’s life? Rabbi Eliezer said that the verse says: “Go, see the works of the Lord, who has made desolations [shamot] upon the earth” (Psalms 46:9). Do not read the word as shamot, rather as shemot, names. The names given to people are, therefore, “the works of the Lord upon the earth.” And Rabbi Yoḥanan said other aggadic statements in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: The existence of wayward children in a person’s home is more troublesome than the war of Gog and Magog, the ultimate war, the climax of the travails of Messianic times. As it is stated: “A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son, Absalom” (Psalms 3:1). And it is written thereafter: “Lord, how numerous are my enemies, many have risen against me” (Psalms 3:2). While concerning the war of Gog and Magog, which is alluded to in the second chapter of Psalms, it is written: “Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples speak for naught? The kings of the earth stand up and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed…He that sits in heaven laughs, the Lord mocks them” (Psalms 2:1–4). Yet in this chapter describing the war of Gog and Magog “how numerous are my enemies” is not written, as it is not as difficult as raising a wayward son like Absalom. Regarding the opening phrase of the psalm, which serves as its title, the Gemara wonders: It is said: “A Psalm of David, when fleeing his son, Absalom.” A Psalm of David? It should have said: A lament of David. Rabbi Shimon ben Avishalom said a parable: To what is this similar? It is similar to a person about whom a promissory note was issued stating that he must repay a debt to the lender. Before he repaid it, he was despondent, worried how he will manage to repay the debt. After he repaid it, he was glad. So too was the case with David. When the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him, through Natan the prophet, after the incident with Bathsheba, “Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your house” (II Samuel 12:11), David was despondent. He said: Perhaps it will be a slave or a mamzer who will rise up in my house, a person of such lowly status, who will have no pity on me. But once David saw that Absalom was the one through whom the prophecy was to be fulfilled, he rejoiced, as he was certain that Absalom would show him mercy. That is why David said a psalm, not a lament, thanking God for punishing him in the least severe manner possible. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: One is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world. Though the ways of the wicked prosper, one is still permitted to provoke them and need not fear (Maharsha), as it is stated: “Those who abandon the Torah will praise wickedness, and the keepers of the Torah will fight them” (Proverbs 28:4). That statement was also taught in a baraita, as Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Matun, says: One is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, as it is stated: “Those who abandon the Torah will praise wickedness, and the keepers of the Torah will fight them.” And if someone whispered to you, saying, on the contrary, isn’t it also written: “Do not compete with evil-doers, and do not envy the unjust” (Psalms 37:1), meaning that one should avoid provoking the wicked, say to him: Only one whose heart strikes him with pangs of conscience over sins that he committed says this. Rather, the true meaning of the verse is: Do not compete with evil-doers, to be like the evil-doers, and do not envy the unjust to be like the unjust. The Gemara cites proof from another verse. And it says: “One shall not envy the unjust, but be in fear of the Lord all the day” (Proverbs 23:17). In this context, to envy means to seek to emulate the unjust. From these verses in Psalms and Proverbs, it would seem that one is encouraged to provoke the wicked. The Gemara asks: Is this so? Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak say: If you see a wicked person upon whom the hour is smiling, do not provoke him. As long as he is enjoying good fortune, there is no point in confronting him. As it is stated: “His ways prosper at all times; Your judgments are far beyond him; as for his adversaries, he snorts at them” (Psalms 10:5). The verse teaches us that the ways of the wicked will always succeed. And not only that, but he emerges victorious in judgment, as it is stated: “Your judgments are far beyond him,” meaning that even when he is brought to justice, it does not affect him. And not only that, but he witnesses his enemies’ downfall, as it is stated: “As for all his adversaries, he snorts at them.” To resolve this contradiction with regard to whether or not one may provoke the wicked, the Gemara offers several explanations: This is not difficult, as it can be understood that this, which says that one may not provoke the wicked, is referring to his personal matters, while that, which says that it is a mitzva to confront them, is referring to matters of Heaven. And if you wish, say instead that this, which says not to confront the wicked and that, which says to confront the wicked, are both referring to matters of Heaven, and, nevertheless, it is not difficult. This, which says that one may not provoke the wicked, is referring to a wicked person upon whom the hour is smiling, who is enjoying good fortune. While that, which says that it is a mitzva to confront them, is referring to a wicked person upon whom the hour is not smiling. And if you wish, say instead that this, which says not to confront and that, which says to confront, are both referring to a wicked person upon whom the hour is smiling, but the question of whether one is permitted to confront him depends on who is confronting him. This, which says that it is a mitzva to confront them, is referring to a completely righteous person, while this, which says that one may not confront the wicked, is referring to one who is not completely righteous, as Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Why do You look on those who deal treacherously and hold Your peace? When the wicked swallows the man more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13). This verse is difficult to understand. Do the wicked swallow the righteous? Isn’t it written: “The wicked looks to the righteous and seeks to kill him; the Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor allow him to be condemned when he is judged” (Psalms 37:32–33), and it is written: “No mischief shall befall the righteous” (Proverbs 12:21)? Rather, in light of these verses, the verse: “The wicked swallows the man more righteous than he” means: The man who is more righteous than he, but not completely righteous, he swallows. The completely righteous he does not swallow. And if you wish, say: In general, the wicked cannot swallow the righteous, but when the hour is smiling upon him, it is different. When the wicked are enjoying good fortune, even the righteous can be harmed (Birkat Hashem). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Setting a fixed place for prayer is so important that one who sets a fixed place for his prayer, his enemies fall beneath him, as it is said: “And I will appoint a place for My nation, Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place.” Through setting aside a place for prayer, they will merit to “be disturbed no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them anymore, as in the beginning” (II Samuel 7:10). This verse, cited by the Gemara, leads to an additional point. Rav Huna raised a contradiction: In the book of Samuel, in this verse it is written: “To afflict them,” while in the parallel verse in I Chronicles (17:9) it is written: “To destroy them.” The Gemara resolves this contradiction: The enemies of Israel intend first to afflict them, and, ultimately, to destroy them entirely. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Service of Torah is greater than its study, i.e., serving a Torah scholar and spending time in his company is greater than learning Torah from him. Torah study is one component of a Torah life, but one who serves a Torah scholar learns about every aspect of life from his actions. This is derived from the verse that speaks in praise of Elisha, as it is stated: “Here is Elisha son of Shafat, who poured water over Elijah’s hands” (II Kings 3:11). The verse does not say that he learned from Elijah, rather that he poured water, which teaches that the service of Torah represented by Elisha pouring water over Elijah’s hands is greater than its study. As a prelude to another of the statements by Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, the Gemara relates the following incident. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rav Naḥman: Why did the Master not come to the synagogue to pray? Rav Naḥman said to him: I was weak and unable to come. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: Let the Master gather ten individuals, a prayer quorum, at your home and pray. Rav Naḥman said to him: It is difficult for me to impose upon the members of the community to come to my home to pray with me (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol). Rabbi Yitzḥak suggested another option: The Master should tell the congregation to send a messenger when the congregation is praying to come and inform the Master so you may pray at the same time. Rav Naḥman saw that Rabbi Yitzḥak was struggling to find a way for him to engage in communal prayer. He asked: What is the reason for all this fuss? Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But as for me, let my prayer be unto You, Lord, in a time of favor; O God, in the abundance of Your mercy, answer me with the truth of Your salvation” (Psalms 69:14)? It appears that the individual is praying that his prayers will coincide with a special time of Divine favor. When is a time of favor? It is at the time when the congregation is praying. It is beneficial to pray together with the congregation, for God does not fail to respond to the entreaties of the congregation. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that the unique quality of communal prayer is derived from here: “Thus said the Lord, in a time of acceptance I have answered you and on a day of salvation I have aided you” (Isaiah 49:8). Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that it is derived from here: “Behold, God is mighty, He despises no one” (Job 36:5). He adopts an alternative reading of the verse: “Behold, God will not despise” the prayer of “the mighty,” i.e., the community. And it is written: “He has redeemed my soul in peace so that none came upon me; for there were many with me. God shall hear and answer them…” (Psalms 55:19–20). This verse teaches that the prayer was answered because there were many with me when it was offered. That last proof was also taught in a baraita. Rabbi Natan says: From where do we know that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not despise the prayer of the masses? As it is stated: “Behold, God does not despise the mighty,” and it is written: “He has redeemed my soul in peace so that none came upon me; for there were many with me.” Rabbi Natan interprets this not as David speaking about himself, but as God speaking to Israel. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Anyone who engages in Torah study, which is called peace in the verse: “All its ways are peace” (Proverbs 3:17); and in acts of kindness, and prays with the congregation, I ascribe to him credit as if he redeemed Me and My children from among the nations of the world. Continuing to extol communal prayer, Reish Lakish said: One who has a synagogue nearby in his city but does not enter to pray there is called an evil neighbor, as it is stated: “Thus said the Lord: As for all My evil neighbors who touch My inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit, behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck the house of Judah up from among them” (Jeremiah 12:14). One who only touches, but does not enter the place of prayer, My inheritance, is considered an evil neighbor. And furthermore, he is punished in that he causes himself and his children to go into exile, as it is stated: “Behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck the house of Judah up from among them.” The Gemara relates that when the Sages told Rabbi Yoḥanan that there are elders in Babylonia, he was confounded and said: It is written: “So that your days will be lengthened and the days of your children upon the land the Lord swore to your forefathers to give to them like the days of heaven on the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21); lengthened in Eretz Yisrael but not outside of the Land. Why then, do the residents of Babylonia live long lives? When they told him that the people in Babylonia go early in the morning and go late in the evening to the synagogue, he said: That is what was effective for them in extending their lives. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to his sons: Go early and go late and enter the synagogue, so that your lives will be extended. And Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Upon what verse is this based? As it is stated: “Happy is the man who listens to Me, watching daily at My gates, guarding at My door posts” (Proverbs 8:34). And the reward for doing so is written thereafter: “For whoso finds Me finds life and obtains the favor of the Lord” (Proverbs 8:35). Based on this verse, Rav Ḥisda said: A person should always enter two doorways into the synagogue. This statement is unclear. Immediately, the Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that Rav Ḥisda meant that one should enter two doorways literally? What if a synagogue only has a single doorway? Rather, emend his statement and say that Rav Ḥisda meant that one should enter a distance of two doorways into the synagogue and then pray. In entering a distance of two doorways, one fulfills the verse: Guarding at My door posts, in the plural. Having mentioned the verse, “For whoso finds Me finds life,” the Gemara seeks to clarify its meaning. It is said, “For this, let every pious man pray to You in the time of finding, that the overflowing waters may not reach him” (Psalms 32:6). With regard to the phrase, the time of finding, Rabbi Ḥanina said: The time of finding refers to the time one must find a wife, that one should pray to find a suitable woman to marry. As it is said: “He who finds [matza] a wife finds [matza] good and obtains favor from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22). In Eretz Yisrael, the custom was that when a man married a woman, they would ask him: Matza or motzeh? In other words, they would ask the groom whether the appropriate passage for his wife is the above verse from Proverbs that begins with the word matza, as it is written: “He who finds a wife finds good and obtains favor from the Lord” or whether the more appropriate verse is the one beginning with the word motzeh, as it is written: “And I find [motzeh] the woman more bitter than death” (Ecclesiastes 7:26). Rabbi Natan says: The time of finding refers to the time of finding Torah, as it is stated in a verse referring to Torah: “He who finds Me finds life.” The Torah is the object most sought. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The time of finding refers to death. One should pray that when death comes, he will leave the world peacefully, as it is stated: “Issues [totzaot] of death” (Psalms 68:21). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement is based on the etymological similarity between totzaot and matza, finding. It was also taught in a baraita: Nine hundred and three types of death were created in the world, as it is stated: “Issues [totzaot] of death,” and that, 903, is the numerical value [gimatriya] of totzaot. The Gemara explains that the most difficult of all these types of death is croup [askara], while the easiest is the kiss of death. Croup is like a thorn entangled in a wool fleece, which, when pulled out backwards, tears the wool. Some say that croup is like ropes at the entrance to the esophagus, which would be nearly impossible to insert and excruciating to remove. The kiss of death is like drawing a hair from milk. One should pray that he does not die a painful death. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The time of finding refers to a respectful burial, for which one should pray. Supporting Rabbi Yoḥanan’s interpretation, Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the verse that teaches that the time of finding refers to burial? “Who rejoice in exultation and are glad when they can find a grave” (Job 3:22), as there are situations in which one is relieved when his body finds a grave in which to rest. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said, that is the meaning of the folk saying: A person should even pray for mercy until the final shovelful of dirt is thrown upon his grave. Mar Zutra said: The time of finding refers to finding a lavatory. As most places did not have a sewage system, one was forced to relieve himself outside the city. Because of this unpleasantness, finding a suitable location was called by Mar Zutra, the time of finding. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: This explanation of Mar Zutra is preferable to all of them, as the term motza is explicitly associated in the Bible (see II Kings 10:27) with the lavatory (Rabbi Abraham Moshe Horovitz). Returning to the tractate’s central topic, Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master say to us some of those outstanding statements that you said in the name of Rav Ḥisda with regard to matters of the synagogue. Rafram said to him, Rav Ḥisda said as follows: What is the meaning of the verse: “The Lord loves the gates of Zion [Tziyyon] more than all the dwellings of Jacob” (Psalms 87:2)? This means that the Lord loves the gates distinguished [metzuyanim] through the study of halakha as they are the gates of Zion, the outstanding gates, more than the synagogues and study halls. Although those places are the most outstanding of the dwellings of Jacob, they are not engaged in the study of halakha. And this concept, that halakha is the most sublime pursuit, is expressed in that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple, where the Divine Presence rested in this world, was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world where he reveals His presence exclusively; only the four cubits where the study of halakha is undertaken. This statement has practical ramifications. Abaye said: At first I studied in the house and prayed in the synagogue. Once I heard what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world, only the four cubits of halakha alone, from which I understood the significance of the four cubits of halakha, and I pray only where I study. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, despite the fact that they had thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, they would only pray between the pillars where they studied. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One who benefits from his hard labor is greater than a God-fearing person, i.e., one who is so enthralled by his fear of God that he sits idly by and does not work. As with regard to a God-fearing person, it is written: “Happy is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly desires His mitzvot” (Psalms 112:1), while with regard to one who benefits from his hard work, it is written: “By the labor of your hands you will live; you are happy and it is good for you” (Psalms 128:2). The Gemara explains this verse to mean that you are happy in this world, and it is good for you in the World-to-Come. And regarding a God-fearing person, happy is the man, is written about him but and it is good for you, is not written about him. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One should always live in the place where his teacher lives; thereby he will avoid sin. For as long as Shimi ben Gera, who according to tradition was a great Torah scholar and teacher of Solomon (see Gittin 59a), was alive, Solomon did not marry Pharaoh’s daughter. Immediately after the Bible relates the death of Shimi (I Kings, end of ch. 2), Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter is recorded (beginning of ch. 3). The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one should not live where his teacher lives? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, which says that one should live where his teacher lives, is referring to a case where he is acquiescent to his teacher and will heed his teaching and instruction. While this baraita, which says that one should not live where his teacher lives, is referring to a case where he is not acquiescent to him and that will lead them to quarrel. The Gemara again returns to the topic of the synagogue. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Menaḥem said that Rabbi Ami said: What is the practical halakhic meaning of that which is written: “They who forsake the Lord will perish” (Isaiah 1:28)? This verse refers to one who abandons the Torah scroll when it was taken out to be read and leaves the synagogue, as it appears that he is fleeing from God. Practically speaking, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Abbahu would go out between one person who read the Torah and the next person who did so. Since the scroll was closed between readers, it was not considered to be a show of contempt. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the ruling with regard to leaving between one verse and the next verse? Is one permitted to leave during a break in the Torah reading while the verse was translated into Aramaic? An answer to this question was not found, so the dilemma stands unresolved. The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet would turn his face away from the Torah while it was being read and study. Explaining this practice, he said: We are engaged in ours, the study of the Oral Torah and they are engaged in theirs, listening to the Written Torah. Since Rav Sheshet was engaged in Torah study, he is not considered one who forsakes the Lord. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Ami said: A person should always complete his Torah portions with the congregation. The congregation reads a particular Torah portion every Shabbat, and during the week prior to each Shabbat, one is required to read the Bible text of the weekly portion twice and the translation once. This applies to every verse, even a verse like: “Atarot and Divon and Yazer and Nimra and Ḥeshbon and Elaleh and Sevam and Nevo and Beon” (Numbers 32:3). While that verse is comprised entirely of names of places that are identical in Hebrew and Aramaic, one is nevertheless required to read the verse twice and its translation once, as one who completes his Torah portions with the congregation is rewarded that his days and years are extended. Rav Beivai bar Abaye thought to finish all the Torah portions of the entire year, which he had been unable to complete at their appointed time, on the eve of Yom Kippur when he would have time to do so. But Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught him: It is written with regard to Yom Kippur: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32). The Gemara wonders: And does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei, as the Torah says at the beginning of that portion: “However, on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement; there shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 23:27)? Rather, this verse comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth day of Tishrei in preparation for the fast the next day, the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth of Tishrei. Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti cited this verse to Rav Beivai bar Abaye to teach him that Yom Kippur eve is dedicated to eating and drinking, not to completing the Torah portions one may have missed throughout the year. When Rav Beivai heard this, he thought to read the Torah portions earlier, before they were to be read by the community. A certain unnamed elder told him, we learned: As long as one does not read the Torah portions earlier or later than the congregation. One must read them together with the congregation. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi told his sons: Complete your portions with the congregation, the Bible text twice and the translation once. He also advised them: Be careful with the jugular veins, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna with regard to the laws of ritual slaughter: Rabbi Yehuda said: Cutting the trachea and esophagus in the ritual slaughter of a bird does not render the bird kosher until he slaughters the jugular veins as well. While this is not halakhically required, it is appropriate to do so to prevent significant amounts of blood from remaining in the bird. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi further advised: And be careful to continue to respect an elder who has forgotten his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control. Even though he is no longer a Torah scholar, he must still be respected for the Torah that he once possessed. As we say: Both the tablets of the Covenant and the broken tablets are placed in the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple. Even though the first tablets were broken, their sanctity obligates one not to treat them with contempt. An elder who forgot the Torah knowledge he once possessed is likened to these broken tablets. Rava said to his sons three bits of advice: When you cut meat, do not cut it on your hand. The Gemara offers two explanations for this. Some say: Due to the danger that one might accidentally cut his hand, and some say: Due to the fact that it could ruin the meal, as even if one only cut himself slightly, that small amount of blood could still spoil the meat and render it repulsive to eat. And Rava also advised: Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman, and do not pass by a synagogue when the community is praying. The Gemara explains: Some say: Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman means one should not go to sleep without reciting Shema, as by doing so, it is tantamount to sleeping in the bed of a non-Jew, as his conduct is unbecoming a Jew. Others say: This means that one should not marry a woman who converted, and it is better to marry a woman who was born Jewish. And some say: It literally means that one should not sit on the bed of an Aramean, i.e., a non-Jewish woman. This bit of advice was due to an incident involving Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa went to visit an Aramean woman. She took out a bed and she said to him: Sit. He said to her: I will not sit until you lift the sheets covering the bed. She did so and they found a dead baby there. Had Rav Pappa sat upon the bed, he would have been blamed for killing the baby. From that incident, the Sages said: One is prohibited from sitting on the bed of an Aramean woman. And Rava’s third bit of advice was, do not pass behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying. This statement supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One is prohibited from passing behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying because they will suspect that he does not want to pray, and it is a show of contempt for the synagogue. Abaye introduced several caveats to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement and said:
We only said this prohibition if there is no other entrance to the synagogue, but if there is another entrance, since it is possible that he will simply use the second entrance, they will not suspect him, and the prohibition does not apply.
And we only said this prohibition if there is no other synagogue in the city, but if there is another synagogue, the prohibition does not apply.
And we only said this prohibition when he is not carrying a burden, and not running, and not wearing phylacteries. But if one of those factors applies, the prohibition does not apply. If he is carrying a burden or running, clearly he is occupied with his work. If he is wearing phylacteries, it is evident that he is a God-fearing individual and they will not suspect him. The Gemara cites a statement from a baraita, along the lines of Rava’s advice to refrain from cutting meat on one’s hands: Rabbi Akiva said: In three aspects of their conduct, I like the Medes, and we should learn from their practices. When they cut meat, they cut it only on the table and not on their hands; when they kiss, either as a show of affection or honor, they kiss only the back of the hand and do not give the person being kissed an unpleasant feeling; and when they hold counsel, they only hold counsel in the field so others will not hear their secrets. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: From what verse is this derived? From the verse, “And Jacob sent and he called Rachel and Leah to the field to his flock” (Genesis 31:4); it was only there in the field that he held counsel with them. It was taught in a baraita, Rabban Gamliel said: In three aspects of their conduct, I like the Persians: They are a modest people; they are modest in their eating, they are modest in the lavatory, and they are modest in another matter, i.e., sexual relations. While they have been praised here regarding certain specific aspects of their conduct, the Gemara proceeds to offer another perspective on the Persians based on a verse describing the destruction of Babylonia at the hands of the Persian and Medean armies: “I have commanded My consecrated ones; I have also called My mighty ones for My anger, even My proudly exulting ones” (Isaiah 13:3). Rav Yosef taught a baraita: These are the Persians who are consecrated and designated for Gehenna, for they have been sent by God to carry out his mission of anger, and they will be sent to Gehenna. The Gemara returns to explain the mishna, in which we learned that Rabban Gamliel says: One may recite Shema until dawn. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. It was taught in a baraita: Based on Rabban Gamliel’s ruling, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: At times, one recites Shema twice at night, once just before dawn and once just after dawn, and he thereby fulfills his obligation to recite Shema, one of the day and one of the night. According to Rabban Gamliel, the Shema that he recited before dawn fulfills his evening obligation and the Shema that he recited after dawn fulfills his morning obligation. This Tosefta is self-contradictory. Initially, you said: At times one recites Shema twice at night. Apparently, the time just after dawn is still night. And then you taught: He thereby fulfills his obligation to recite Shema one of the day and one of the night. Apparently, the time in question is considered day, as otherwise, he would not have fulfilled his obligation to recite Shema during the day. There is an internal contradiction with regard to the status of the time just after dawn. Is it considered day or night? The Gemara answers: No, there is no contradiction. Actually, the time just after dawn, when it is still dark, is considered night and the fact that it is referred to here as day is because there are people who rise from their sleep at that time and, if the need arises, it can be characterized as bekumekha, when you rise, despite the fact that it is still night. Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. Some teach this statement of Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in which he ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, with regard to this halakha, which is stylistically similar to the previous halakha. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: At times, one recites Shema twice during the day, once just before sunrise and once just after sunrise, and he thereby fulfills his dual obligation to recite Shema: One, that he recites after sunrise, Shema of the day, and one, that he recites before sunrise, Shema of the night. This baraita is self-contradictory. Initially, you said: “At times one recites Shema twice during the day.” Apparently, the time just before sunrise is considered day. And then you taught: “He thereby fulfills his dual obligation to recite Shema, one of the day and one of the night.” Apparently, the time in question is considered night, as otherwise, he could not thereby fulfill his obligation to recite Shema during the night. The Gemara answers: No, there is no contradiction. Actually, the time just before sunrise is considered day and the fact that it is referred to here as night is because there are people who are still asleep at that time and, if the need arises, it can be characterized as beshokhbekha [when you lie down] despite the fact that it is already day. Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who said it in the name of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Zeira said: As long as he will not recite: Help us lie down [hashkivenu] as well, after reciting the evening Shema before sunrise, as the blessing: Help us lie down, is a prayer that we sleep in peace, which is inappropriate in the morning. That is how the halakha was taught in the study hall. However, when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, where Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi lived, he said that this ruling that Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, was not said explicitly by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rather, it was stated that he held that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who said it in the name of Rabbi Akiva based on inference. The incident was as follows: This pair of Sages got drunk at the wedding of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s son and fell asleep before reciting the evening Shema. By the time they awoke, dawn had already passed. They came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and asked him if they could still recite the evening Shema. He said to them: Rabbi Shimon is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and, in a case where there are no exigent circumstances, one may not rely on this ruling. The mishna relates that there was an incident where Rabban Gamliel’s sons returned very late from a wedding hall and they asked their father if they were permitted to recite Shema after midnight. The Gemara asks: And until now, had they not heard this halakha of Rabban Gamliel? Were they unaware that he held that one is permitted to recite the evening Shema after midnight? The Gemara answers that Rabban Gamliel’s sons did not ask him his opinion. Rather, they said to him as follows: Do the Rabbis fundamentally disagree with you concerning this halakha, holding that Shema may be recited only until midnight? If so, when there is a disagreement between an individual Sage and many Sages, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many, in which case we must, in practice, follow the opinion of the Rabbis. Or perhaps, do the Rabbis hold in accordance with your opinion that the time of the evening Shema extends throughout the night, and that which they say that it may only be recited until midnight is in order to distance a person from transgression? If the latter is true, then, when there are extenuating circumstances, one may recite the evening Shema after midnight. Rabban Gamliel replied to his sons: The Rabbis agree with me and you are still obligated to recite Shema. The Rabbis say that Shema may only be recited until midnight in order to distance a person from transgression, but, after the fact, even the Rabbis permit recitation after midnight. We learned in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel told his sons: And that is not only with regard to the halakha of the recitation of Shema, but, rather, wherever the Rabbis say until midnight, the mitzva may be performed until dawn. The Gemara questions the formulation of the mishna: Does Rabban Gamliel say until midnight, that he teaches: And not only did they say? Rabban Gamliel does not restrict the time for the recitation of Shema until midnight, so why does he say, and not only do they say, implying that he agrees with that stringency? The Gemara explains that this is what Rabban Gamliel said to his sons: Even according to the Rabbis, who say that the mitzva may be performed only until midnight, the biblical obligation to perform the mitzva continues until dawn, and that which they say that it may only be recited until midnight is in order to distance a person from transgression. In our mishna, Rabban Gamliel cites several cases where a mitzva that must be performed before midnight may actually be performed until dawn; among them, the burning of fats and limbs on the altar. The Gemara notes: In our mishna, the eating of the Paschal lamb was not taught among those mitzvot that may be performed until dawn, indicating that the mitzva of eating the Paschal lamb does not extend until dawn. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this conclusion based on a baraita: The mitzvot of the recitation of the evening Shema, the recitation of hallel on the nights of Passover accompanying the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, as well as eating the Paschal lamb, may all be performed until dawn. Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult as these two sources reflect two conflicting opinions. This, our mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. While this, the baraita, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse discussing the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb: “And they shall eat of the meat on that night; roasted over fire and matzot with bitter herbs shall they eat it” (Exodus 12:8); Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Here it is stated: “On that night,” from which we cannot determine when night ends. The same expression is encountered later in the same chapter: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from person to animal” (Exodus 12:12). We know when the firstborns were struck down based on the verse “Thus said the Lord: At about midnight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt and every firstborn in Egypt shall die” (Exodus 11:4–5). Therefore, just as in the verse below, the striking of the firstborns took place until midnight, as stated explicitly in the verse, so too in the verse here, the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb continues until midnight. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Was it not already said, “Thus you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, your staffs in your hands and you will eat it in haste for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord” (Exodus 12:11)? Therefore the Paschal lamb may be eaten until the time of haste. Since the time of haste is when Israel left Egypt, and it is said, “You will not leave, every man from his house, until the morning,” then the Paschal lamb may be eaten until dawn. If that is so, why does the verse state: On that night? The Gemara explains that the phrase on that night is necessary because without it I might have thought that the Paschal lamb is eaten during the day, like all other sacrifices, which must all be slaughtered and eaten during the day. Therefore, the verse states: On that night, to underscore that this particular sacrifice is eaten at night and not during the day.
Essentially, the difference between these two opinions revolves around which word they deemed significant. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya considered the word night as the key word, while Rabbi Akiva considered the word haste as the key word. The Gemara begins to analyze their statements. Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who has the tradition of a verbal analogy between the phrase, on that night, with regard to the eating of the Paschal lamb and the phrase, on that night, with regard to the striking of the firstborn in Egypt, it was necessary for the verse to write “that” in order to indicate that these times are parallel. However, according to Rabbi Akiva, who has no such tradition, what does he do with “that”? Why is it necessary to emphasize on that night? The Gemara answers: On that night comes to exclude another night, as one might otherwise have concluded that the Paschal lamb may be eaten for two nights. It would have entered your mind to say: Since the Paschal lamb falls into the category of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, and peace-offerings are also sacrifices of lesser sanctity, just as peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night, i.e., the day that they are sacrificed through the following day, as we learned in the Torah, so too the Paschal lamb may be eaten for two nights instead of two days. In other words, one might otherwise mistakenly conclude from its parallel to peace-offerings, that the Paschal lamb is to be eaten for two nights and the day between them. Therefore, the verse teaches us specifically on that night, i.e., on that night it is eaten, and it is not eaten on another night. The Gemara asks: If so, from where does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya derive that the Paschal lamb cannot be eaten for two nights? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya derives this conclusion from the verse: “It should not remain until the morning” (Exodus 12:10). If one is prohibited from leaving over any part of the sacrifice until the morning, he is certainly prohibited from leaving it over until the following night. Therefore, it is unnecessary to cite an additional source to teach that the Paschal lamb may only be eaten on the first night. And why does Rabbi Akiva require “that” to derive that the Paschal lamb may not be eaten on the second night? According to Rabbi Akiva, if it was derived from the verse: “It should not remain until the morning,” I would have said: What is the meaning of morning? It means the second morning, as the Torah does not specify until which morning the Paschal lamb may not be left; until the first morning or the second morning. Therefore, the Torah needed to write on that night and no other. And what would Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya respond? He could have said to you: If it is not otherwise noted, every unmodified mention of the word morning in the Bible refers to the first, i.e., the next, morning. If that were not the case, no biblical text could have any definite meaning. Concerning the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya regarding until when the Paschal lamb may be eaten, the Gemara remarks: The dispute between these tanna’im is parallel to the dispute between those tanna’im, who disagree over the same issue. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “There you will offer the Paschal lamb, in the evening when the sun sets at the time when you left the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 16:6). Upon closer examination, it seems that this verse mentions three distinct times: In the evening, refers to the afternoon until sunset; when the sun sets, refers to the time of sunset itself; and the time when you left the land of Egypt refers to, as explained in Exodus, the early hours of the morning. Therefore it seems that these times parallel the different stages of the mitzva of the Paschal lamb, and it is regarding these details that the tanna’im disagree. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the evening, the afternoon, you slaughter the sacrifice, from when the sun sets until midnight you eat it, and at the time when you left the land of Egypt you burn what remains from the sacrifice, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.
Rabbi Yehoshua says: In the evening, the afternoon, you slaughter the sacrifice, from when the sun sets, you eat it. And until when do you continue eating? Until the time when you left the land of Egypt, meaning until morning, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara cites an alternative explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Elazer ben Azarya and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Abba said: Everyone agrees that when the children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt were given permission to leave, they were redeemed only in the evening, as it is stated: “In the spring the Lord, your God, took you out from Egypt at night” (Deuteronomy 16:1). And when they actually left, they left only during the day, as it is stated: “On the fifteenth of the first month, on the day after the offering of the Paschal lamb, the children of Israel went out with a high hand before the eyes of Egypt” (Numbers 33:3), indicating that they actually went out during the day. However, with regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to the time of haste, as it is written: “You will eat it in haste for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord” (Exodus 12:11). Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya held: What is the meaning of haste? It is the haste of the Egyptians at midnight, as they hurried to the houses of the people of Israel to send them away, in fear of the plague of the firstborn. And Rabbi Akiva held: What is the meaning of haste? It is the haste of Israel in the morning, as they rushed to leave Egypt. Similar to Rabbi Abba’s statement, it was also taught in a baraita, regarding the verse: “The Lord, your God, took you out from Egypt at night,” the question arises: Did they leave at night? Didn’t they leave during the day, as it is stated: “On the day after the offering of the Paschal lamb, the children of Israel went out with a high hand”? Rather, this teaches that the redemption began for them in the evening. Since the last topic discussed in the Gemara revolved around the exodus from Egypt, the Gemara cites additional aggadic midrash on that subject. With regard to the verse: “Speak, please [na] in the ears of the people, and they should borrow, every man from his fellow and every woman from her fellow, silver and gold vessels” (Exodus 11:2), the word please [na] is unclear. The students of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: Please [na] is nothing more than an expression of supplication. Why would God employ an expression of supplication in approaching Israel? The Gemara explains that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: I beseech you, go and tell Israel: I beseech you; borrow vessels of silver and vessels of gold from the Egyptians in order to fulfill the promise I made to Abraham in the “Covenant between the Pieces,” so that that righteous person, Abraham, will not say: God fulfilled His pronouncement: “And they will be enslaved and afflicted,” but God did not fulfill His pronouncement: “And afterward, they will leave with great possessions.” As God said to Abraham: “Surely you shall know that your descendants will be foreigners in a land that is not theirs, and they will be enslaved and afflicted for four hundred years. And also that nation who enslaves them will I judge. And afterward, they will leave with great possessions” (Genesis 15:13–14). The school of Rabbi Yannai continues: Israel said to Moses: If only we could get out ourselves. The Gemara offers a parable to one who was incarcerated in prison, and people would say to him: We promise, we will release you tomorrow and give you much money. He says to them: I beseech you, release me today and I ask for nothing. So too, Israel preferred leaving immediately empty handed rather than leaving later with great riches. With regard to the spoils taken from Egypt described in the verse: “And the Lord gave the nation grace in the eyes of Egypt, and they gave them what they requested and they emptied Egypt” (Exodus 12:36), Rabbi Ami said: This teaches that the Egyptians gave them what they requested against their will. There is a dispute with regard to the question: Against whose will? Some say it was given against the will of the Egyptians, and some say it was given against the will of Israel. The proponent of each position cites support for his opinion. The one who said that it was given against the will of the Egyptians cites the verse describing Israel’s exit from Egypt, as it is written: “And she who tarries at home divides the spoils” (Psalms 68:13). That which the woman in the verse requested from her counterpart was actually spoils taken against the will of an enemy. The one who said that it was given against the will of Israel, claims that they did not want the vessels because of the burden of carrying a heavy load on a long journey. With regard to the continuation of the verse: And they emptied Egypt, Rabbi Ami said: This indicates that they made Egypt like a trap in which there is no grain that serves as bait to attract birds. Reish Lakish said: They made Egypt like an abyss in the sea without fish. The Gemara proceeds to discuss the promise of redemption from Egypt that God made to Moses at the burning bush. When Moses asked God what to say when Israel asks him God’s name, “and God said to Moses: ‘I will be that I will be,’ and He said: ‘Thus you will say unto the children of Israel: I will be has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14). The Holy One, Blessed be He, told Moses to go and tell Israel: I was with you in this enslavement, and in this redemption, and I will be with you in the enslavement of the kingdoms in the future. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, it is enough for them to endure. Let the future suffering be endured at its appointed time. There is no need to mention their future enslavement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with Moses and said to him: Go and tell the children of Israel only that, “I will be has sent me to you.” Having explained the use of the double language of “I will be that I will be,” the Gemara proceeds to explain the double language employed by Elijah on Mount Carmel: “Answer me, Lord, answer me, that this people will know that You are the Lord, God, and You have turned their hearts backward” (I Kings 18:37). Rabbi Abbahu said: Why did Elijah say answer me twice? This repetition teaches that Elijah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, answer me that fire will descend from heaven and consume everything that is on the altar, and answer me that You will divert their mind from devising alternative explanations for what they witnessed so that they will say that they were acts of sorcery. As it is stated that Elijah said: “And You have turned their hearts backward,” God can restore them to the proper path as well. MISHNA: From when does one recite Shema in the morning? From when a person can distinguish between sky-blue [tekhelet] and white.
Rabbi Eliezer says: From when one can distinguish between sky-blue and leek-green.
And one must finish reciting Shema until the end of the period when you rise, i.e., sunrise, when the sun begins to shine.
Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may recite the morning Shema until three hours of the day, which this is still considered when you rise, as that is the habit of kings to rise from their sleep at three hours of the day. While there is a set time frame for the recitation of Shema, one who recites Shema from that time onward loses nothing. Although he does not fulfill the mitzva of reciting of Shema at its appointed time, he is nevertheless considered like one who reads the Torah, and is rewarded accordingly. GEMARA: The mishna stated that the time for the recitation of the morning Shema begins when one can distinguish between sky-blue and white. The Gemara asks: To what is between sky-blue and white referring? If you say that it means distinguishing between a pile of white wool and a pile of sky-blue wool, wouldn’t one know the difference at night, as well? Rather, it must be a reference to ritual fringes made with sky-blue strings (see Numbers 15:38) along with white strings, and one must be able to distinguish between the sky-blue strings in the ritual fringes and the white strings in the ritual fringes.
With regard to the beginning of the time for the recitation of the morning Shema, a baraita cites additional opinions not cited in the mishna. It was taught in a baraita:
Rabbi Meir says that the day begins when one can distinguish between two similar animals, e.g., a wolf and a dog.
Rabbi Akiva provides a different sign, and says that the day begins when there is sufficient light to distinguish between a donkey and a wild donkey.
And Aḥerim say: When one can see another person, who is merely an acquaintance (Jerusalem Talmud) from a distance of four cubits and recognize him. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with Aḥerim. Abaye said: Regarding the time from which one may don phylacteries, a mitzva incumbent only by day, the halakha is in accordance with Aḥerim. But with regard to the recitation of Shema, one should conduct himself in accordance with the custom of the vatikin, pious individuals who were scrupulous in their performance of mitzvot. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shema with sunrise, and one should act accordingly. It was also taught in a baraita: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shema with sunrise in order to juxtapose the blessing of redemption, which immediately follows the recitation of Shema, with prayer, and pray during the day. Regarding this custom of the vatikin, Rabbi Zeira said: What verse is the source for this tradition? “They shall fear You with the sun, and before the moon for all generations” (Psalms 72:5). This verse indicates that one should express one’s awe of Heaven, they shall fear You, immediately before sunrise, with the sun. Rabbi Yosei ben Elyakim testified in the name of the holy community in Jerusalem, a title accorded a particular group of Sages who lived there, that one who juxtaposes redemption and prayer at sunrise will incur no harm for the entire day. Rabbi Zeira said: Is that so? Didn’t I juxtapose redemption and prayer and nevertheless I was harmed? Rabbi Yosei ben Elyakim asked Rabbi Zeira: How were you harmed? That you brought a myrtle branch to the king’s palace? The Gemara refers to Rabbi Zeira’s responsibility as one of the respected members of the community to participate in a delegation that brought a crown of myrtle as a gift to the king, a dubious honor in which Rabbi Zeira had no interest. However, there, too, you had to pay a price in order to see the face of the king, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One should always strive to run to greet the kings of Israel to witness them in their glory. And not only must one run to greet the kings of Israel, but even to greet the kings of the nations of the world, so that if he will be privileged to witness the redemption of Israel, he will distinguish between the kings of Israel and the kings of the nations of the world, to see how much greater the Jewish king will be and how his rule will be manifest. Therefore, it was a privilege for Rabbi Zeira that he was allowed to see the face of the king. Rabbi El’a said to Ulla before Ulla left for Babylonia: When you go to Babylonia, ask after my brother, Rav Beruna, in the presence of the entire group, as he is a great man who rejoices in mitzvot, and it is only fitting that he should be accorded respect. The Gemara provides proof that he was indeed a great man who rejoiced in mitzvot: Once, Rav Beruna juxtaposed redemption and prayer at sunrise, as per the custom of the vatikin (Tosafot), and laughter and joy did not cease from his mouth for the entire day. In practice, the Gemara asks: How is one able to juxtapose redemption and prayer? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: At the beginning of prayer, one says: “Lord, open my lips, that my mouth may declare Your glory” (Psalms 51:17), and at the end of prayer one says: “May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable before You, Lord, my Rock, and my Redeemer” (Psalms 19:15). If so, the first verse is an interruption between redemption and prayer. Rabbi Elazar said: Let this verse, “Lord, open my lips,” be recited only in the evening prayer but not in the morning prayer. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Who is worthy of a place in the World-to-Come? He who juxtaposes redemption of the evening prayer to the evening prayer. Therefore, this verse from Psalms should not be recited before the evening prayer either. Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: Let this verse: “Lord, open my lips,” be recited only before the afternoon prayer. Rav Ashi said another explanation: Even if you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that “Lord, open my lips” is recited before all prayers, including the morning and the evening prayers. Since the Sages instituted this verse, it is considered as an extended prayer; it is an inseparable part of the prayers, and if redemption is juxtaposed to this verse, it is no different than if redemption was juxtaposed to prayer directly. Rabbi Ashi supports his claim: As if you do not say so, how does one juxtapose redemption of the evening prayer to the evening prayer? Mustn’t one recite: Help us lie down [hashkivenu] after redemption? Rather, since the Sages instituted the recitation of: Help us lie down, it is considered as an extended blessing of redemption. So, too, since the Sages instituted this verse in prayer, it is considered as an extended prayer. With regard to the verse with which the prayer concludes, the Gemara deliberates: Now, since this verse: “May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable before You,” can connote the end of prayer, petitioning God that He accept the prayer that was just recited, and it can connote the beginning of the prayer that he wants to recite: May the words of my mouth which I am about to recite be acceptable before You. If so, the question arises: Why did the Sages institute that it is to be recited after the eighteen blessings that constitute the Amida? Let it be recited at the beginning of the prayer. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said: This verse is recited after the eighteen blessings comprising the Amida because David only said this verse after eighteen chapters of Psalms (end of ch. 19). Therefore, the Sages instituted to recite it after the eighteen blessings of the Amida. The Gemara asks: Are these eighteen psalms? They are nineteen chapters that precede that verse. The Gemara answers: “Happy is the man,” the first chapter of Psalms, and “Why are the nations in an uproar,” the second chapter, constitute a single chapter, so the nineteen chapters are actually eighteen. The Gemara cites proof that the first two chapters are in fact a single chapter. As Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said: David said one hundred and three chapters, and he did not say Halleluya in any of them until he saw the downfall of the wicked. Only then could David could say Halleluya wholeheartedly. As it is stated: “Let sinners cease from the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, my soul, Halleluya” (Psalms 104:35). Here too, the Gemara notes that the calculation appears inaccurate: Are these one hundred and three psalms? They are one hundred and four. Rather, conclude from this that “Happy is the man” and “Why are the nations in uproar” constitute a single portion. Additional proof that these two chapters comprise a single portion is cited from what Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Every chapter that was dear to David, he began with “happy is” and concluded with “happy is.” He opened with “happy is,” as it is written: “Happy is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked or stood in the way of sinners or sat in the dwelling place of the scornful” (Psalms 1:1). And he concluded with “happy,” as it is written at the end of the chapter: “Pay homage in purity, lest He be angry, and you perish on the way when His anger is kindled suddenly. Happy are those who take refuge in Him” (Psalms 2:12). We see that these two chapters actually constitute a single chapter. With regard to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, that David did not say Halleluya until he saw the downfall of the wicked, the Gemara relates: There were these hooligans in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who caused him a great deal of anguish. Rabbi Meir prayed for God to have mercy on them, that they should die. Rabbi Meir’s wife, Berurya, said to him: What is your thinking? On what basis do you pray for the death of these hooligans? Do you base yourself on the verse, as it is written: “Let sins cease from the land” (Psalms 104:35), which you interpret to mean that the world would be better if the wicked were destroyed? But is it written, let sinners cease?” Let sins cease, is written. One should pray for an end to their transgressions, not for the demise of the transgressors themselves. Moreover, go to the end of the verse, where it says: “And the wicked will be no more.” If, as you suggest, transgressions shall cease refers to the demise of the evildoers, how is it possible that the wicked will be no more, i.e., that they will no longer be evil? Rather, pray for God to have mercy on them, that they should repent, as if they repent, then the wicked will be no more, as they will have repented. Rabbi Meir saw that Berurya was correct and he prayed for God to have mercy on them, and they repented. The Gemara relates an additional example of Berurya’s incisive insight: A certain heretic said to Berurya: It is written: “Sing, barren woman who has not given birth, open forth in song and cry, you did not travail, for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, said the Lord” (Isaiah 54:1). Because she has not given birth, she should sing and rejoice? Berurya responded to this heretic’s mockery and said: Fool! Go to the end of the verse, where it is written: “For the children of the desolate shall be more numerous than the children of the married wife, said the Lord.” Rather, what is the meaning of: “Sing, barren woman who has not given birth”? It means: Sing congregation of Israel, which is like a barren woman who did not give birth to children who are destined for Gehenna like you. In explaining passages from Psalms, the Gemara relates another instance of a response to the question of a heretic: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu, it is written: “A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son, Absalom” (Psalms 3:1), and similarly it is said: “To the chief musician, al tashḥet, a mikhtam of David when fleeing from Saul into the cave” (Psalms 57:1). Which event was first? Since the event with Saul was first, it would have been appropriate to write it first. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: For you, who do not employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, it is difficult. But for us, who employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, it is not difficult, as the Sages commonly homiletically infer laws and moral lessons from the juxtaposition of two verses. Regarding the juxtaposition of verses, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where in the Bible is it derived that one may draw homiletical inferences from the juxtaposition of verses? As it is said: “The works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. Adjoined forever and ever, made in truth and uprightness” (Psalms 111:7–8). Conclude from here that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of God’s commandments. Accordingly, David’s fleeing from Absalom is situated where it is in order to juxtapose it to the next chapter, which mentions the war of Gog and Magog; the second chapter of Psalms opens: “Why are the nations in an uproar?” Why was the chapter of Absalom juxtaposed with the chapter of Gog and Magog? They are juxtaposed so that if a person should say to you, expressing doubt with regard to the prophecy of the war of Gog and Magog “against the Lord and against His anointed”: Is there a slave who rebels against his master? Is there someone capable of rebelling against God? You too say to him: Is there a son who rebels against his father and severs the relationship with the one who brought him into the world and raised him? Yet, nevertheless, there was such a son, Absalom, and so too there can be a situation where people will seek to rebel against God. Rabbi Yoḥanan said explanations of other verses in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of loving-kindness is on her tongue” (Proverbs 31:26)? The Sages explain that this chapter discusses the wisdom of Torah and those who engage in its study, so with reference to whom did Solomon say this verse? He said this verse about none other than his father, David, who was the clearest example of one who opens his mouth in wisdom, and who resided in five worlds or stages of life and his soul said a song of praise corresponding to each of them. Five times David said: “Bless the Lord, O my soul,” each corresponding to a different stage of life. He resided in his mother’s womb, his first world, and said a song of praise of the pregnancy, as it is stated: “Of David. Bless the Lord, O my soul and all that is within me bless His holy name” (Psalms 103:1), in which he thanks God for creating all that is within his mother, i.e., her womb. He emerged into the atmosphere of the world, his second world, looked upon the stars and constellations and said a song of praise of God for the entirety of creation, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, His angels, mighty in strength, that fulfill His word, listening to the voice of His word. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants, that do His will. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all places of His kingship, bless my soul, Lord” (Psalms 103:20–23). David saw the grandeur of all creation and recognized that they are mere servants, carrying out the will of their Creator (Ma’ayan HaBerakhot). He nursed from his mother’s breast, his third world, and he looked upon her bosom and said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and do not forget all His benefits [gemulav]” (Psalms 103:2). The etymological association is between gemulav and gemulei meḥalav, which means weaned from milk (Isaiah 28:9). We still must understand, however, what is meant by all His benefits? What in particular is praiseworthy in what God provided, beyond merely providing for the infant? Rabbi Abbahu said: In contrast with most other animals, God placed her breasts near her heart, the place that is the source of understanding. What is the reason that God did this? Rav Yehuda said: So that the nursing child would not look upon the place of his mother’s nakedness. Rav Mattana said: So that the child would not nurse from a place of uncleanliness. He witnessed in both vision and reality the downfall of the wicked and he said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Let sinners cease from the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul, Halleluya” (Psalms 104:35). The fifth world was when David looked upon the day of death and said a song of praise, as it is stated: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. Lord my God, You are very great; You are clothed in glory and majesty” (Psalms 104:1); for even death is a time of transcendence for the righteous. The connection between this final praise and the day of death is unclear. The Gemara asks: From where is it inferred that this verse was stated with regard to the day of death? The Gemara answers: We can derive this from the verses at the end of the matter, where it is written: “You hide Your face, they vanish; You gather Your breath, they perish and return to the dust” (Psalms 104:29). Other interpretations of this verse exist. The Gemara relates how Rav Shimi bar Ukva, and some say Mar Ukva, would regularly study before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, who was well versed in aggada and would arrange the aggada before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
Once, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said to him: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Bless the Lord, my soul, and all that is within me bless His Holy name”?
Rav Shimi bar Ukva said to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood, as this verse praises the formation of man in his mother’s womb. The attribute of flesh and blood is such that he shapes a form on the wall for all to see, yet he cannot instill it with a spirit and soul, bowels and intestines. While the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not so, as God shapes one form within another form, a child in its mother’s womb, and instills it with spirit and soul, bowels and intestines. And this is the explanation of what Hannah said with regard to the birth of Samuel: “There is none holy like the Lord, for there is none like You, and there is no Rock like our God” (I Samuel 2:2). What is the meaning of there is no rock [tzur] like our God? There is no artist [tzayyar] like our God. The Gemara continues to interpret the rest of that verse homiletically: What is the meaning of “there is none like You”? Rabbi Yehuda ben Menasya said: Do not read the verse to mean “there is none like You [biltekha]”; rather, read it to mean “none can outlast You [levalotkha],” as the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood: The attribute of flesh and blood is such that his creations outlast him, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, outlasts His actions. This did not satisfy Rav Shimi bar Ukva, who said to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: I meant to say to you as follows: Corresponding to whom did David say these five instance of “Bless the Lord, O my soul”? He answered him: He said them about none other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, and corresponding to the soul, as the verse refers to the relationship between man’s soul and God. The five instances of “Bless the Lord, O my soul” correspond to the five parallels between the soul in man’s body and God’s power in His world. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, fills the entire world, so too the soul fills the entire body.
Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, sees but is not seen, so too does the soul see, but is not seen.
Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, sustains the entire world, so too the soul sustains the entire body.
Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, is pure, so too is the soul pure.
Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, resides in a chamber within a chamber, in His inner sanctum, so too the soul resides in a chamber within a chamber, in the innermost recesses of the body.
Therefore, that which has these five characteristics, the soul, should come and praise He Who has these five characteristics. With regard to redemption and prayer, the Gemara tells the story of Hezekiah’s illness, his prayer to God, and subsequent recuperation. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the meaning of that which is written praising the Holy One, Blessed be He: “Who is like the wise man, and who knows the interpretation [pesher] of the matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:1)? This verse means: Who is like the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who knows how to effect compromise [peshara] between two righteous individuals, between Hezekiah, the king of Judea, and Isaiah the prophet. They disagreed over which of them should visit the other. Hezekiah said: Let Isaiah come to me, as that is what we find with regard to Elijah the prophet, who went to Ahab, the king of Israel, as it is stated: “And Elijah went to appear to Ahab” (I Kings 18:2). This proves that it is the prophet who must seek out the king. And Isaiah said: Let Hezekiah come to me, as that is what we find with regard to Yehoram ben Ahab, king of Israel, who went to Elisha the prophet, as it is stated: “So the king of Israel, Jehosaphat and the king of Edom went down to him” (II Kings 3:12). What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do to effect compromise between Hezekiah and Isaiah? He brought the suffering of illness upon Hezekiah and told Isaiah: Go and visit the sick. Isaiah did as God instructed, as it is stated: “In those days Hezekiah became deathly ill, and Isaiah ben Amoz the prophet came and said to him: Thus says the Lord of Hosts: Set your house in order, for you will die and you will not live” (Isaiah 38:1). This seems redundant; what is the meaning of you will die and you will not live? This repetition means: You will die in this world, and you will not live, you will have no share, in the World-to-Come. Hezekiah said to him: What is all of this? For what transgression am I being punished?
Isaiah said to him: Because you did not marry and engage in procreation.
Hezekiah apologized and said: I had no children because I envisaged through divine inspiration that the children that emerge from me will not be virtuous. Hezekiah meant that he had seen that his children were destined to be evil. In fact, his son Menashe sinned extensively, and he thought it preferable to have no children at all. Isaiah said to him: Why do you involve yourself with the secrets of the Holy One, Blessed be He? That which you have been commanded, the mitzva of procreation, you are required to perform, and that which is acceptable in the eyes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, let Him perform, as He has so decided. Hezekiah said to Isaiah: Now give me your daughter as my wife; perhaps my merit and your merit will cause virtuous children to emerge from me.
Isaiah said to him: The decree has already been decreed against you and this judgment cannot be changed.
Hezekiah said to him: Son of Amoz, cease your prophecy and leave. As long as the prophet spoke as God’s emissary, Hezekiah was obligated to listen to him. He was not, however, obligated to accept Isaiah’s personal opinion that there was no possibility for mercy and healing. Hezekiah continued: I have received a tradition from the house of my father’s father, from King David, the founding father of the dynasty of kings of Judea: Even if a sharp sword rests upon a person’s neck, he should not prevent himself from praying for mercy. One may still hold out hope that his prayers will be answered, as was David himself when he saw the Angel of Destruction, but nonetheless prayed for mercy and his prayers were answered. With regard to the fact that one should not despair of God’s mercy, the Gemara cites that it was also said that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Eliezer both said: Even if a sharp sword is resting upon a person’s neck, he should not prevent himself from praying for mercy, as it is stated in the words of Job: “Though He slay me, I will trust in Him” (Job 13:15). Even though God is about to take his life, he still prays for God’s mercy. Similarly, Rabbi Ḥanan said: Even if the master of dreams, in a true dream, an angel (Ma’ayan HaBerakhot) tells a person that tomorrow he will die, he should not prevent himself from praying for mercy, as it is stated: “For in the multitude of dreams and vanities there are many words; but fear God” (Ecclesiastes 5:6). Although the dream may seem real to him, that is not necessarily the case, and one must place his trust in God. Having heard Isaiah’s harsh prophecy, immediately “Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall and prayed to the Lord” (Isaiah 38:2). The Gemara asks: What is meant by the word “wall [kir]” in this context? Why did Hezekiah turn his face to a wall? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This symbolically alludes to the fact that Hezekiah prayed to God from the chambers [kirot] of his heart, as it is stated elsewhere: “My anguish, my anguish, I am in pain. The chambers of my heart. My heart moans within me” (Jeremiah 4:19). Rabbi Levi said: Hezekiah intended to evoke matters relating to a wall, and he said before God: Master of the Universe, and if the woman from Shunem, who made only a single small wall on the roof for the prophet Elisha, and you revived her son, all the more so should you bring life to the descendant of my father’s father, King Solomon, who covered the entire Temple Sanctuary with silver and gold. In his prayer, Hezekiah said: “Please, Lord, please remember that I walked before You in truth, and with a complete heart, and what was good in Your eyes I did. And Hezekiah wept sore” (Isaiah 38:3). The Gemara asks: To what specific action was he referring when he said: “And what was good in your sight I did”? Various opinions are offered: Mentioning Hezekiah’s merits, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that he juxtaposed redemption and prayer at sunrise instead of sleeping late, as was the custom of most kings (Iyyun Ya’akov). Rabbi Levi said: He suppressed the Book of Remedies upon which everyone relied. The Sages taught: King Hezekiah performed six innovative actions. With regard to three the Sages agreed with him, and with regard to three they did not agree with him. With regard to three actions the Sages agreed with him:
He suppressed the Book of Remedies, and they agreed with him.
He ground the copper snake through which miracles were performed for Israel (Numbers 21:9), destroying it because it had been used in idol worship (II Kings 18:4), and they agreed with him.
He dragged the bones of his evil father, King Ahaz, on a bed of ropes; meaning he did not accord his father a funeral fit for a king (II Chronicles 28:27), and they agreed with him. Yet, with regard to three other innovations, the Sages of his generation did not agree with him:
He stopped up the waters of the Gihon, the Pool of Siloam, diverting its water into the city by means of a tunnel (II Chronicles 32:30), and they did not agree with him.
He cut off the doors of the Sanctuary and sent them to the king of Assyria (II Kings 18:16), and they did not agree with him.
He intercalated Nisan in Nisan, creating a leap year by adding an extra month during the month of Nisan. That intercalation must be performed before the end of Adar (II Chronicles 30:2). With regard to his intercalation of Nisan, the Gemara asks: Did Hezekiah not accept the halakha: “This month will be for you the first of the months; it shall be the first for you of the months of the year” (Exodus 12:2)? By inference, this first month is Nisan, and no other month is Nisan. How could Hezekiah add an additional Nisan in violation of Torah law? The Gemara answers that the scenario was different. Rather, Hezekiah erred with regard to the halakhic opinion ascribed in later generations to Shmuel, as Shmuel said: One may not intercalate the year on the thirtieth day of Adar, since it is fit to establish it as the New Moon of Nisan. On the thirtieth day of each month, those who witnessed the new moon would come and testify before the court, which, based on their testimony, would declare that day the first day of the next month. Therefore, one may not declare a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar, as it could potentially become the first of Nisan. Therefore, the Sages of Hezekiah’s generation did not agree with his decision to intercalate the year on the thirtieth of Adar. Hezekiah held that we do not say: Since that day is fit to establish it as the New Moon is reason enough to refrain from intercalation of the year. Stemming from the analysis of Hezekiah’s prayer, Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: Anyone who bases his prayer or request upon his own merit, when God answers his prayer, it is based upon the merit of others. And anyone who modestly bases his prayer or request upon the merit of others, when God answers his prayer, it is based upon his own merit. The Gemara cites proof from Moses. When he prayed to God for forgiveness after the incident of the Golden Calf, he based his request upon the merit of others, as it is stated: “Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel your servants, to whom You swore upon Yourself, and told them: I will increase your descendants like the stars of the heavens, and all of this land of which I have spoken, I will give to your descendants and they will inherit it forever” (Exodus 32:13). Yet when this story is related, God’s forgiveness of Israel is based upon Moses’ own merit, as it is stated: “And He said He would destroy them, had Moses, His chosen, not stood before Him in the breach to turn back His destructive fury, lest He should destroy them” (Psalms 106:23). Hezekiah, however, based his request upon his own merit, as it is written: “Please, remember that I walked before You” (Isaiah 38:3). When God answered his prayers, it was based upon the merit of others with no mention made of Hezekiah’s own merit, as it is stated: “And I will protect this city to save it, for My sake and for the sake of David, My servant” (II Kings 19:34). And that is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Behold, for my peace I had great bitterness; but You have, in love to my soul, delivered it from the pit of corruption; for You have thrown all my sins behind Your back” (Isaiah 38:17)? This verse teaches that even when the Holy One, Blessed be He, sent him peace and told him that he would recover from his illness, it was bitter for him, because God did not take his merit into consideration. Having mentioned the chamber on the roof built for Elisha by the woman from Shunem, the Gemara now describes the entire event. The woman from Shunem suggested to her husband: “Let us make, I pray thee, a small chamber on the roof, and let us place a bed, table, stool and candlestick for him there, and it will be, when he comes to us, that he will turn in there” (II Kings 4:10). Rav and Shmuel argued over the meaning of small chamber. One of them said: They had an uncovered second story on their roof, over which they built a ceiling; and one of them said: There was an enclosed veranda [akhsadra] and they divided it in half. The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who said that it was an enclosed veranda which they divided in two, it makes sense that the term wall [kir] was written. However, according to the one who said that they had an open second story, what is the meaning of wall? The Gemara responds: The one who said that they had an uncovered second story interprets kir not as wall but as ceiling meaning that they built a ceiling [kirui] over it. On the other hand, granted, according to the one who said that they had an uncovered second story, it makes sense that the term second story [aliyat] was written. But according to the one who said that it was an enclosed veranda, what is the meaning of the term second story? The Gemara responds: The one who said that it was an enclosed veranda interprets aliyat not as second story, but as the most outstanding [me’ula] of the rooms. Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara analyzes the statement made by the woman from Shunem to her husband with regard to the provisions that they would place in the room for Elisha: “And let us place a bed, table, stool and candlestick for him there.” Abaye, and some say Rabbi Yitzḥak, said: A great man who seeks to enjoy the contributions of those who seek to honor him may enjoy those gifts, as Elisha enjoyed gifts given him by the woman from Shunem, among others. And one who does not seek to enjoy these gifts should not enjoy them, as was the practice of the prophet Samuel from Rama, who would not accept gifts from anyone at all. From where do we know that this was Samuel’s custom? As it is stated: “And he returned to Rama, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and he built an altar to the Lord” (I Samuel 7:17). And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Every place where Samuel went, his house was with him, so he would have everything that he needed and not be forced to benefit from public contributions. One may opt to conduct himself in accordance with either of these paths. Regarding the woman from Shunem: “And she said to her husband: Behold now, I perceive that he is a holy man of God who passes by us continually” (II Kings 4:9). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: From here, where the woman from Shunem perceived the prophet’s greatness before her husband did, derive that a woman recognizes the character of her guests more than a man does. The Gemara notes that the woman from Shunem said that “he is holy.” The Gemara asks: From where did she know that he was holy? Rav and Shmuel disagreed over this. One of them said: She never saw a fly pass over his table; and the other said: She spread a white linen sheet on his bed, and despite that even the smallest stain is visible on white linen, and nocturnal seminal emissions are not uncommon, she never saw the residue of a seminal emission on it. With regard to the verse: “He is holy,” Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The woman from Shunem intimated that: He is holy, but his attendant, Geihazi, is not holy, as she saw no indication of holiness in him (Iyyun Ya’akov). Here too, she correctly perceived the character of her guest, as it is later stated: “And Geihazi approached her to push her away [lehodfa]” (II Kings 4:27). And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: He grabbed her by the majesty of her beauty [hod yofya], meaning that when he pushed her he grabbed her breasts in a licentious manner. With regard to the phrasing of the verse: “He is a holy man of God who passes by us continually,” Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: From this verse we derive that one who hosts a Torah scholar in his home and lets him enjoy his possessions, the verse ascribes to him credit as if he is sacrificing the daily [tamid] offering, as the verse states: “Passes by us continually [tamid].” With regard to the halakhot of prayer, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: A person should not stand in a high place and pray; rather, he should stand in a low place and pray, as it is stated: “I called to You, Lord, from the depths” (Psalms 130:1). That was also taught in a baraita: One should neither stand upon a chair nor upon a stool, nor in a high place and pray. Rather, one should stand in a low place and pray, for there is no haughtiness before God. As it is stated: “I called to You, Lord, from the depths” and it is written: “A prayer for the impoverished, when he is faint and pours out his complaint before God” (Psalms 102:1). It is appropriate to feel impoverished when praying and make one’s requests humbly. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: When praying, one should align his feet next to each other, as a single foot, in order to model oneself after the angels, with regard to whom it is stated: “And their feet were a straight foot” (Ezekiel 1:7). Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You shall not eat with the blood” (Leviticus 19:26)? You may not eat before you pray for your blood. One may not eat before he prays. Others say that Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: One who eats and drinks and later prays, about him the verse states the rebuke of the prophet in the name of God: “And Me you have cast behind your back” (I Kings 14:9). One who sees to his own bodily needs by eating and drinking before prayer casts God aside, according his arrogance and ego priority over God (Maharsha). Indeed, do not read your back [gavekha]; rather, your pride [ge’ekha]. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: After this one has become arrogant and engaged in satisfying his own needs, he only then accepted upon himself the kingdom of Heaven. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may recite the morning Shema until three hours of the day. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. We also learned in the mishna that one who recites Shema from that time onward loses nothing; although he does not fulfill the mitzva of reciting of Shema at its appointed time, he is nevertheless considered like one who reads the Torah, and is rewarded accordingly. With regard to this ruling, Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: This only applies provided one does not recite: Who forms light [yotzer or], or the rest of the blessings recited along with Shema, as they pertain only to the fulfillment of the mitzva of reciting of the morning Shema; after the third hour, they are inappropriate. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ḥisda’s statement from a baraita: One who recites Shema from that time onward loses nothing, and is considered like one who reads Torah, but he recites two blessings beforehand and one blessing thereafter.This directly contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s statement, and the Gemara notes: Indeed, the refutation of the statement of Rav Ḥisda is a conclusive refutation, and Rav Ḥisda’s opinion is rejected in favor of that of the baraita. Some say that Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said the opposite: What is the meaning of: Loses nothing, in the mishna? This means that one who recites Shema after the third hour does not lose the opportunity to recite the blessings and is permitted to recite them although the time for the recitation of Shema has passed. That was also taught in a baraita: One who recites Shema after this time loses nothing, and is considered like one who reads the Torah, but he recites two blessings beforehand and one thereafter. With regard to our mishna, Rabbi Mani said: Greater is one who recites Shema at its appropriate time than one who engages in Torah study. A proof is cited based on what was taught in the mishna: One who recites Shema after this time loses nothing and is considered like one who reads the Torah. This is proven by inference, since one who recites Shema at its appointed time is greater than one who does not, and one who does not is equal to one who reads the Torah, when one recites Shema at its appointed time he fulfills two mitzvot, that of Torah study and that of the recitation of Shema. MISHNA: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed the proper way to recite Shema. Beit Shammai say: One should recite Shema in the manner indicated in the text of Shema itself. Therefore, in the evening every person must recline on his side and recite Shema, in fulfillment of the verse: “When you lie down,” and in the morning he must stand and recite Shema, in fulfillment of the verse: When you rise, as it is stated: “When you lie down, and when you rise.” And Beit Hillel say: Every person recites Shema as he is, and he may do so in whatever position is most comfortable for him, both day and night, as it is stated: “And when you walk along the way,” when one is neither standing nor reclining (Me’iri). If so, according to Beit Hillel, why was it stated: “When you lie down, and when you rise”? This is merely to denote time; at the time when people lie down and the time when people rise. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Tarfon said: Once, I was coming on the road when I stopped and reclined to recite Shema in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. Although Rabbi Tarfon was a disciple of Beit Hillel, he thought that fulfilling the mitzva in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai would be a more meticulous fulfillment of the mitzva, acceptable to all opinions. Yet in so doing, I endangered myself due to the highwaymen [listim] who accost travelers. The Sages said to him: You deserved to be in a position where you were liable to pay with your life, as you transgressed the statement of Beit Hillel. This statement will be explained in the Gemara. GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying the rationale for Beit Shammai’s opinion. Granted, Beit Hillel explain the rationale for their opinion and the rationale for Beit Shammai’s opinion. Beit Hillel explain both the verse that ostensibly supports Beit Shammai’s opinion: When you lie down, at the time when people lie down, etc., and the verse that proves that their own explanation is more reasonable: “And when you walk along the way.” However, what is the reason that Beit Shammai do not state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara answers, Beit Shammai could have said to you: If so that the verse means only to denote the time for the recitation of Shema, as claimed by Beit Hillel, then let the verse say: “In the morning and in the evening.” What is the meaning of the ambiguous formulation: “When you lie down, and when you rise”? It must mean that at the time of lying down one must recite Shema while actually lying down, and at the time of arising one must recite Shema while actually risen. The Gemara continues, asking: And what do Beit Shammai do with this verse: “And when you walk along the way,” which Beit Hillel use to prove that every person recites Shema as he is? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai need this verse in order to derive other halakhot, as it was taught in a baraita which interpreted this verse that the obligation to recite Shema applies when you sit in your home, to the exclusion of one who is engaged in performance of a mitzva, who is exempt from the recitation of Shema; and when you walk along the way, to the exclusion of a groom, who is also exempt from the recitation of Shema. The baraita adds that from here, from this interpretation of the verses, they said: One who marries a virgin is exempt from the recitation of Shema on his wedding night, but one who marries a widow is obligated. The Gemara clarifies the meaning of this baraita, and asks: From where may it be inferred that the verse, when you walk along the way, exempts a groom from the obligation to recite Shema? Rav Pappa said that we learn: Like the way; just as the journey along a specific way described in the verse is voluntary and involves no mitzva, so too all of those who are obligated to recite Shema are engaged in voluntary activities. However, one engaged in the performance of a mitzva, like a groom, is exempt from the obligation to recite Shema. The Gemara asks: Are we not dealing with a case where one walks along the way to perform a mitzva? The Torah did not designate the objective of his walk and, nevertheless, the Torah said to recite Shema, indicating that one is obligated even if he set out to perform a mitzva. Rather, the proof is from the formulation of the verse. If so, that the intention was to obligate in all cases, let the Torah write: When sitting and when walking. What is the meaning of: When you sit and when you walk? Certainly these additions come to emphasize in your sitting down and in your walking, meaning that when one does this for his own purposes and of his own volition, he is obligated to recite Shema, but when he does with the objective of performing a mitzva, he is exempt from reciting Shema, as in that case he is sitting or walking at God’s behest. The conclusion is that anyone engaged in the performance of a mitzva is exempt from the recitation of Shema. If so, even one who marries a widow should be exempt, for he, too, is engaged in performance of a mitzva. That, however, contradicts the baraita. The Gemara responds that there is nevertheless a distinction between one marrying a virgin and one marrying a widow. One who marries a virgin is preoccupied by his concern lest he discover that his bride is not a virgin, while one who marries a widow is not preoccupied. The conclusion is that the groom is exempt from reciting Shema because he is preoccupied. The Gemara asks: If the exemption is due to preoccupation, then even one who is preoccupied because his ship sank at sea should also be exempt. The Gemara reinforces its question: And if you say that in this case as well, when one’s ship sank at sea, one is exempt, why then did Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, from which a mourner is exempt, as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries, as it is stated: “Make no mourning for the dead, bind your splendor upon yourself” (Ezekiel 24:17). It is inappropriate for a mourner to wrap himself in phylacteries, with regard to which, the term splendor was employed (Tosafot). If a mourner, who is clearly pained and preoccupied, is obligated to recite Shema, then certainly all others who are preoccupied, even one whose ship sank at sea, whose loss was merely monetary (Birkat Hashem), should be obligated. Why, then, is a groom exempted because of his preoccupation and one who lost his property is not? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the cases. For there, in the case of a groom, he is preoccupied with the preoccupation of a mitzva that he must perform; here, in the case of a ship lost at sea, he is preoccupied with the preoccupation of a voluntary act that he chooses to perform. Here, the Gemara returns to its initial question: And how do Beit Shammai explain the passage: “When you walk along the way” (Rashash)? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai need this passage in order to exclude one who is on the path to perform a mitzva from the obligation to recite Shema. Beit Hillel also agree that one engaged in the performance of a mitzva is exempt from reciting Shema? If so, the halakha that they derived from: When you walk along the way lacks a source and is therefore unfounded. And Beit Hillel say: Derive from this halakha itself that one who is not an agent in the performance of a mitzva recites Shema even along the way. The Sages taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel say: One may recite Shema in any situation: Standing and reciting, sitting and reciting, reclining and reciting, walking and reciting and even working and reciting. And in the Tosefta an incident is related where two tanna’im, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who were both disciples of Beit Hillel, were reclining at a meal in one place together with their students, and Rabbi Yishmael was reclined as was the customary dining position, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was upright. When the time to recite the evening Shema arrived, Rabbi Elazar reclined to recite Shema in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, while Rabbi Yishmael sat upright to recite Shema. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya appeared to take offense, and said to Rabbi Yishmael: Yishmael, my brother, I will tell you a parable to which this is similar. It is comparable to a situation where one to whom people say as a compliment: Your beard is full and suits you. That man says to them: May it be against those who shave and destroy their beards, i.e., the only reason I grow my beard is to irritate those who cut their own (Rashba). You are the same. As long as I am upright, you are reclined, and now when I reclined lauding your conduct and emulating you, you sat upright as if to demonstrate that whatever I do, you do the opposite. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: I acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, according to whom one may recite Shema in any position, while you acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. I am the one who acted in accordance with the halakha. And furthermore, I was concerned lest the students see your conduct and establish the halakha for generations accordingly. It was therefore necessary for me to demonstrate that there is no obligation to do so. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: And furthermore? Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to add additional justification for his actions when the reason that he acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel was sufficient? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to add this reason, as if you say: Beit Hillel also hold that one is permitted to recite Shema while reclining and Rabbi Yishmael could have remained reclining even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but this only applies when one had already been reclining originally, in which case it is like any other position. However, here, since until now he had been upright, and now he is reclined, the students will say: Conclude from this, that they hold in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Due to the concern that the students might see and establish the halakha for generations in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, it was necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to sit upright. Rav Yeḥezkel taught: One who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai has acted appropriately and is not in violation of the halakha. One who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel acted appropriately as well. According to this opinion, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that one who acted in accordance with the opinion of the other fulfilled his obligation. Although the halakha was ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, Beit Hillel would agree that one who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai fulfilled his obligation. However, Rav Yosef said: One who acts in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai has done nothing and must repeat Shema in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as we learned in the mishna with regard to the halakhot of a sukka: One who had his head and most of his body in the sukka, and his table upon which he was eating inside the house, Beit Shammai invalidate his action, as he is liable to be drawn after the table and end up eating outside the sukka. And Beit Hillel validate his action, since his head and most of his body remain inside the sukka. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as a proof: There was an incident where the elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel went on Sukkot to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit. They found him with his head and most of his body in the sukka and his table inside the house and they said nothing to him. In other words, even Beit Shammai did not object. Beit Shammai said to them: And is there proof from there? That is not what happened, rather they said to him explicitly: If you have been accustomed to act in this manner, you have never in your life fulfilled the mitzva of sukka. We see that Beit Shammai held that anyone who did not act in accordance with their opinion, did not fulfill his obligation at all. Similarly, since Beit Hillel’s opinion was accepted as halakha, anyone who acts in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai fails to fulfill his obligation. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak stated an even more extreme opinion: One who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai has acted so egregiously that he is liable to receive the death penalty, as we learned in our mishna that Rabbi Tarfon said to his colleagues: Once, I was coming on the road when I stopped and reclined to recite Shema in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. Yet in so doing, I endangered myself due to the highwaymen who accost travelers. The Sages said to him: You deserved to be in a position where you were liable to pay with your life, as you transgressed the statement of Beit Hillel. MISHNA: From the laws of the recitation of Shema itself, the mishna proceeds to discuss the blessings recited in conjunction with Shema. Here, the order is established: In the morning when reciting Shema, one recites two blessings beforehand, the first on the radiant lights and the second the blessing on the love of Torah, and one thereafter, which begins with: True and Firm [emet veyatziv]. And in the evening one recites two blessings beforehand, on the radiant lights and on the love of God, and two thereafter, the blessing of redemption: True and Faithful [emet ve’emuna], and the blessing: Help us lie down. With regard to the blessing: True and Faithful, whether one recites it in its long formula and whether one recites it in its short formula, he fulfills his obligation (Tosafot). However, the general principle is: Where the Sages said to recite a long blessing, one may not shorten it, and so too, wherever they said to recite a short blessing, one may not lengthen it. Where the Sages said that a blessing must conclude with a second blessing at the end, he may not fail to conclude with that blessing. Similarly, if the Sages said that a blessing must not conclude with a second blessing, one may not conclude with a blessing. GEMARA: The Gemara begins by determining the formula of the two blessings preceding the morning Shema. The Gemara asks: What blessing does one recite? Rabbi Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The blessing focuses on the verse: “Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil, I am the Lord Who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7). With regard to this formula of the blessing, the Gemara asks: Let him say the following formula instead: Who forms light and creates brightness, so as not to mention darkness, which has negative connotations. The Gemara answers: We say the blessing as the verse is written in the Bible and do not alter the formula that appears in the verse. The Gemara strongly objects: But if so, what about the continuation of the verse: “Who makes peace and creates evil”? Do we say this blessing as it is written in the Bible? Rather, it is written evil and we euphemistically recite the blessing all things to avoid mention of evil. Here, too, let us euphemistically say brightness instead of darkness. Rather, Rava said: The reason we recite: “Who creates darkness” is in order to mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night during the day, and thereby unify day and night as different parts of a single entity. The Gemara continues and asks: Granted, the attribute of night is mentioned during the day, as we say: Who forms light and creates darkness, but where do you find the attribute of day mentioned at night? In the blessing over the radiant lights recited at night there is no mention of “Who forms light.” Abaye said: Nevertheless, the attribute of day is mentioned at night in the words: Rolling away light before the darkness and darkness before the light. The Gemara asks: And what is the formula of the other blessing recited before Shema? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: An abounding love [ahava rabba]. And Rabbi Elazar instructed his son, Rabbi Pedat, to also say: An abounding love. That was also taught in a baraita: One does not recite: An eternal love [ahavat olam]; rather, one recites: An abounding love. And the Rabbis say that one recites: An eternal love, and so it says: “And an eternal love I have loved you, therefore I have drawn you with kindness” (Jeremiah 31:2). The blessing: An abounding love, is about God’s love for us and includes praise for His giving us the Torah. Therefore, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who arose to study, until he recites Shema he must recite a special blessing over the Torah. If he already recited Shema he need not recite that blessing, as he has exempted himself by reciting the blessing of: An abounding love, which includes the components of the blessing over the Torah. Having mentioned the blessing recited over Torah, the Gemara focuses on a dispute over what constitutes Torah in terms of requiring a blessing. Rav Huna said: For the study of Bible, one must recite a blessing, as it is the word of God, and for halakhic midrash, the derivation of halakhot from verses, one need not recite a blessing. And Rabbi Elazar said: For Bible and midrash, which includes halakhot derived from verses themselves, one must recite a blessing; for Mishna, which is only comprised of halakhic rulings issued by the Sages, one need not recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even for Mishna, which includes final, binding halakhic rulings, one must recite a blessing as well, but for Talmud, which comprises a study of the Mishna and the rationales for its rulings, one need not recite a blessing. And Rava said: Even for Talmud, which is the means to analyze the significance of the halakhot, and is the only form of Torah study that leads one to its true meaning, one must recite a blessing. This statement is supported by the practical halakha derived from observation of Rav’s practice. His student, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, said: Many times I stood before Rav to study our chapter in the Sifra, also known as Torat Kohanim, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, of the school of Rav, and I saw that Rav would first wash his hands, then recite a blessing, and only then he would teach us our chapter. This demonstrates that even before their study of Torat Kohanim, which, due to Rav’s explanation of the reasons behind the halakhot, was the equivalent of studying Talmud, one must recite a blessing. The Gemara clarifies: What formula of blessings does he recite? There is a dispute over the formula of the blessings as well. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The formula of this blessing is like the standard formula for blessings recited over other mitzvot: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with his mitzvot and commanded us to engage in matters of Torah. And Rabbi Yoḥanan concludes the blessing by adding the following: Lord our God, make the words of Your Torah sweet in our mouths and in the mouths of Your people, the house of Israel, so that we and our descendants and the descendants of Your people, the house of Israel, may be those who know Your name and engage in Your Torah. Blessed are You, Lord, Who teaches Torah to His people Israel. And Rav Hamnuna said an additional formula: Who has chosen us from all the peoples and given us His Torah. Blessed are You, Lord, Giver of the Torah. With regard to this formula, Rav Hamnuna said: This concise blessing is the most outstanding of all the blessings over the Torah, as it combines thanks to God for giving us the Torah as well as acclaim for the Torah and for Israel. Since several formulas for the blessing over Torah were suggested, each with its own distinct advantage, the Gemara concludes: Therefore, let us recite them all as blessings over the Torah. The Gemara returns to dealing with the blessings that accompany Shema, and describes the practice in the Temple. We learned there, in a mishna in tractate Tamid: In the morning the deputy High Priest appointed to oversee activity in the Temple, said to the priests who were members of the priestly watch [mishmar] on duty that week: Recite a single blessing. The members of the priestly watch recited a blessing, and read the Ten Commandments, Shema, VeHaya im Shamoa and VaYomer, the standard recitation of Shema. Additionally, they blessed the people with three blessings. These blessings were: True and Firm, the blessing of redemption recited after Shema; Avoda, service, the special blessing recited over God’s acceptance of the sacrifices with favor, similar to the blessing of Temple Service recited in the Amida prayer; and the priestly benediction, recited in the form of a prayer without the outstretched hands that usually accompany that blessing (Tosafot). And on Shabbat one blessing is added to bless the outgoing priestly watch, as the watch serving in the Temple was replaced on Shabbat. Certain details in this mishna are not sufficiently clear. First, what is the single blessing that the deputy High Priest instructed the guards to recite? The Gemara relates: It is like the incident where Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yosei bar Abba happened to visit a certain unnamed place, and the people there asked them: What is the single blessing mentioned in the mishna? They did not have an answer readily available. So they came and asked Rav Mattana, and he too did not have an answer readily available. They came and asked Rav Yehuda, and he told them: Shmuel said as follows: An abounding love is the single blessing recited by the priestly watch. Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said a different answer: This single blessing is: Who creates light. That was how Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement was received in Babylonia, yet when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that this halakha was not a direct quote of a statement by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. That which Rabbi Zerika said was not stated explicitly by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, but rather it was inferred from another statement. As Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: From the expression: Recite a single blessing, in the mishna in tractate Tamid, it follows that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other. This means that if only one of the blessings was recited, the obligation to recite that blessing was fulfilled, as the two blessings are not mutually dependent. The conclusion was drawn from Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement that he held that the single blessing recited was: Who creates light. The considerations that led the Sages to that conclusion were: Granted, if you say that they would recite: Who creates light, then the conclusion of Reish Lakish, that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other, is understandable, as they recited: Who creates light, and did not recite: An abounding love, and they nonetheless fulfilled their obligation. However, if you say that they would omit: Who creates light, and would recite: An abounding love, on what basis would you conclude that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other? In that case, one could offer another reason why only a single blessing is recited. Perhaps the fact that they did not recite: Who creates light was because the time for the recitation of: Who creates light, had not yet arrived, as the sun had yet to rise. The blessings of the priestly watch are recited in the early morning hours, long before sunrise. However, afterward, when the time to recite: Who creates light arrived, they would recite it. From the conclusion drawn by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other, it is clear that the blessing recited by the members of the priestly watch was: Who creates light. As this deductive reasoning seems coherent and convincing, the Gemara asks: And if this halakha is based on inference, and not on an explicit statement, what of it? There seems to be no other way to interpret Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement. The Gemara answers: If this conclusion were based on an inference, one could say that actually they recited: An abounding love, and when the time to recite: Who creates light arrived, they would recite it. In that case, what is the meaning of: Failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish meant that failure to recite the correct order of the blessings does not prevent one from fulfilling his obligation. Even if one recites: An abounding love before: Who creates light, he fulfills his obligation. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish did not refer to a case where only one of the blessings was recited. Consequently, one cannot infer from his statement his opinion regarding the identity of the single blessing. The Gemara related above that the priests in the Temple read the Ten Commandments, along with the sections of Shema, VeHaya im Shamoa, VaYomer, True and Firm, Avoda, and the priestly benediction. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even in the outlying areas, outside the Temple, they sought to recite the Ten Commandments in this manner every day, as they are the basis of the Torah (Rambam), but they had already abolished recitation of the Ten Commandments due to the grievance of the heretics, who argued that the entire Torah, with the exception of the Ten Commandments, did not emanate from God (Jerusalem Talmud). If the Ten Commandments were recited daily, that would lend credence to their claim, so their recitation was expunged from the daily prayers. That was also taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: In the outlying areas, they sought to recite the Ten Commandments in this manner, but they had already abolished their recitation due to the grievance of the heretics. The Gemara relates that several Sages sought to reinstitute recitation of the Ten Commandments, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana thought to institute this in the city of Sura, but Rav Ḥisda said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics. So too, Ameimar thought to institute this in the city of Neharde’a. Rav Ashi, the most prominent of the Sages in that generation, said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics. We learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that on Shabbat a single blessing is added to bless the outgoing priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What is that single blessing? Rabbi Ḥelbo said: As they finished their service, the outgoing priestly watch would say to the incoming priestly watch: May He who caused His Name to dwell in this house cause love and brotherhood, peace and camaraderie to dwell among you. We learned in the mishna: Where the Sages said to recite a long blessing, one may not shorten it, and vice-versa. The Gemara proceeds to address a particular problem arising from conclusions drawn from this mishna. Before addressing the primary problem, however, a simpler, secondary issue is raised: Obviously, in a case where one took a cup of wine in his hand and thought it was beer, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was beer, i.e., he intended to recite the appropriate blessing on beer: By Whose word all things came to be, and upon realizing that it was wine, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, he fulfilled his obligation. In that case, even had he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, as he originally intended, he would have fulfilled his obligation, as we learned in a mishna: If one recited the general blessing: By Whose word all things came to be, over all food items, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact, even if ab initio another blessing was instituted to recite before eating that food. Therefore, if he reconsidered and concluded the blessing with the ending of the blessing over wine, he fulfilled his obligation. However in a case where one took a cup of beer in his hand and thought it was wine, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was wine, meaning he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, and upon realizing that it was beer he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over beer: By Whose word all things came to be, what is the halakha? Ostensibly, this blessing is comprised of two sections. The first section, during which he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, cannot fulfill his obligation as it is an inappropriate blessing to recite over beer. However, in the second section he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, the appropriate blessing. The dilemma, then, is: Do we follow the essence of the blessing, the first section, or do we follow the conclusion of the blessing? Come and hear a proof from what was taught in a baraita with regard to a similar case: If, in the morning prayer, one began the blessings prior to the recitation of Shema appropriately with: Who creates light, and concluded with the formula of the evening prayer: Who brings on evenings, he did not fulfill his obligation. However, if one did the opposite, and commenced with: Who brings on evenings, and concluded with: Who creates light, he fulfilled his obligation. Similarly, if, in the evening prayer, one commenced the recitation of Shema with: Who brings on evenings and concluded with: Who creates light, he did not fulfill his obligation. If one commenced with: Who creates light and concluded with: Who brings on evenings, he fulfilled his obligation. The baraita summarizes that the general principle is: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. Based on this principle, the question with regard to a blessing recited over food and drink posed above can be resolved. This proof is rejected: There, in the case of the blessing recited over the radiant lights, it is different, as one recites: Blessed…Who forms the radiant lights, and similarly, in the evening one recites: Blessed…Who brings on evenings. Since these are long blessings that conclude with a second blessing summarizing their content, one could assert that everything follows the conclusion. However, in the case of short blessings, such as: By Whose word all things came to be, or: Who creates the fruit of the vine, ostensibly, if there is a problem with the first part of the blessing, the entire blessing is nullified. The distinction between the blessing recited over the radiant lights and the blessings recited over food and drink stems from the assumption that the conclusion: Blessed…Who fashions the radiant lights, is a complete, independent blessing. However, this is not necessarily so. This works out well according to Rav, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of God’s name is not considered a blessing, and since: Who creates light, includes God’s name, it constitutes a complete, independent blessing. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of God’s sovereignty, i.e., our God, King of the universe, is not considered a blessing, what can be said to distinguish between the conclusion of the blessings over food and drink and the blessing over the radiant lights? Since the conclusion: Who creates light, does not mention God’s sovereignty, it does not constitute a complete, independent blessing. The Gemara responds: Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds that the blessing over the radiant lights is a complete blessing. Since Rabba bar Ulla said: Who creates darkness, is mentioned during the day and: Rolling away the light before the darkness, is mentioned at night in order to mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night in the day, the beginning of the blessing in which God’s sovereignty is mentioned day and night is appropriate to both day and night, and when one recites the blessing with God’s name and mentions God’s sovereignty at the beginning of the blessing, it refers to both day and night. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the blessing over the radiant lights to the blessings recited over food and drink. The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: Come and hear another solution based on what we learned in the latter clause of the baraita cited above: The general principle is: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. What does the phrase: The general principle is, come to include beyond the detailed example cited in the baraita? Does it not come to include the case that we stated, that both in the case of a long blessing and the case of a short blessing, the conclusion of the blessing is the determining factor? The Gemara rejects this: No, the principle is cited to include a case of bread and dates. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the dilemma with regard to the blessings on these food items? If you say that it is a case where one ate bread and thought that he ate dates, and commenced reciting the blessing thinking it was dates; then, upon realizing that it was bread, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over bread, isn’t that our dilemma, as this case is identical to the one involving wine and beer? The Gemara answers: No; this general principle is only necessary to teach a special case, where one ate dates and thought that he ate bread, and commenced reciting the blessing thinking they were bread. Upon realizing that they were dates, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over dates. In that case he fulfilled his obligation, as even had he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over bread, he would have fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason that had he concluded with the blessing recited over bread he would have fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing over dates? This is because dates also provide a person sustenance. While ab initio one should not recite the blessing for bread over dates, after the fact, if one did so, he fulfilled his obligation. It is with regard to this particular situation that the baraita established the principle: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. Ultimately, the dilemma regarding a blessing with an inappropriate opening and an appropriate conclusion remains unresolved.
The Gemara proceeds to discuss the formula for the blessings recited along with Shema. Rabba bar Ḥinnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who did not recite: True and Firm [emet veyatziv] at the beginning of the blessing of redemption that follows Shema in the morning prayer, and: True and Trustworthy [emet ve’emuna] in the evening prayer, he did not fulfill his obligation. An allusion to the difference in formulation between morning and evening is, as it is stated: “To declare Your kindness in the morning and Your faith in the nights” (Psalms 92:3). In the morning, one must mention God’s loving-kindness, while in the evening one is required to emphasize the aspect of faith. And Rabba bar Ḥinnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who is praying, when he bows in the appropriate places, he bows when he says: Blessed, and when he subsequently stands upright, he stands upright when he says God’s name. Shmuel, who was Rav’s colleague and significantly outlived him, said: What is Rav’s reason for saying that one should stand upright at the mention of God’s name? As it is written: “The Lord, who raises the bowed” (Psalms 146:8); one stands upright at the mention of God’s name to recall that it is God who raises the bowed. The Gemara raises an objection based on what we learned in praise of a priest: “And he was afraid before My name” (Malachi 2:5), indicating that one must be humbled and not upright before God’s name. The Gemara responds: Is it written: At My name? Before My name, is written, meaning that one is humbled and bows prior to the mention of God’s name, when he says: Blessed. The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of Torah, come and I will tell you a great saying that your father said. Your father said the following: When one bows, he bows when he says: Blessed, and when he stands upright, he stands upright when he says God’s name. With regard to bowing, the Gemara relates: When Rav Sheshet bowed he bowed all at once, like a cane, without delay. When he stood upright he stood upright like a snake, lifting himself slowly, demonstrating that the awe of God was upon him in the manner that he bowed and stood upright (HaBoneh). And, with regard to the formulation of the blessings, Rabba bar Ḥinnana Sava said in the name of Rav: Throughout the year a person prays and concludes the third blessing of the Amida prayer with: The holy God, and concludes the blessing regarding the restoration of justice to Israel with: King who loves righteousness and justice, with the exception of the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, the Ten Days of Atonement. These days are comprised of Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, and the seven days in between, when one emphasizes God’s sovereignty, and so when he prays he concludes these blessings with: The holy King and: The King of justice, i.e., the King who reveals Himself through justice. In contrast, Rabbi Elazar said that one need not be exacting, and even if he said: The holy God during those ten days, he fulfilled his obligation, as it is stated: “And the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice, and the holy God is sanctified through righteousness” (Isaiah 5:16). The Gemara explains: When is it appropriate to describe God with terms like: And the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice? It is appropriate when God reveals Himself through justice, during the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, yet the verse says: The holy God. This appellation sufficiently underscores God’s transcendence, and there is no need to change the standard formula. The Gemara asks: What is the conclusion that was reached about this halakha? Here, too, opinions differ: Rav Yosef said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: There is no need to change the standard formula: The holy God and: King Who loves righteousness and justice. Rabba said in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The holy King and: The King of justice. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. And Rabba bar Ḥinnana Sava said in the name of Rav: Anyone who can ask for mercy on behalf of another, and does not ask is called a sinner, as it is stated following Samuel’s rebuke of the people: “As for me, far be it from me that I should transgress against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you, but I will teach you the good and the right way” (I Samuel 12:23). Had Samuel refrained from prayer, he would have committed a sin. Rava said: If the one in need of mercy is a Torah scholar, it is insufficient to merely pray on his behalf. Rather, one must make himself ill worrying about him. The Gemara seeks to clarify the source of this halakha. What is the reason that one must make oneself ill over a Torah scholar in need of mercy? If you say that it is because of what Saul said to his men, as it is written: “And there is none of you that is ill over me or tells unto me” (I Samuel 22:8), meaning that because Saul was a Torah scholar, it would have been appropriate for people to make themselves ill worrying about him; this is not an absolute proof. Perhaps a king is different, and excessive worry is appropriate in that case. Rather, proof that one must make oneself ill over a Torah scholar in need for mercy is from here: When David speaks of his enemies, Doeg and Ahitophel, who were Torah scholars, he says: “But for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth, I afflicted my soul with fasting” (Psalms 35:13). One must be concerned to the extent that he dresses in sackcloth and fasts for the recovery of a Torah scholar. And Rabba bar Ḥinnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who commits an act of transgression and is ashamed of it, all of his transgressions are forgiven. Shame is a sign that one truly despises his transgressions and that shame has the power to atone for his actions (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto), as it is stated: “In order that you remember, and be embarrassed, and never open your mouth anymore, because of your shame, when I have forgiven you for all that you have done, said the Lord, God” (Ezekiel 16:63). However this proof is rejected: Perhaps a community is different, as a community is forgiven more easily than an individual. Rather, proof that an individual ashamed of his actions is forgiven for his transgressions is cited from here, when King Saul consulted Samuel by means of a necromancer before his final the war with the Philistines: “And Samuel said to Saul, why have you angered me to bring me up? And Saul said, I am very pained, and the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has removed Himself from me and answers me no more, neither by the hands of the prophets nor by dreams. And I call to you to tell me what to do” (I Samuel 28:15). Saul says that he consulted prophets and dreams, but he did not say that he consulted the Urim VeTummim. The reason for this is because he killed all the residents of Nov, the city of priests, and because of this transgression Saul was ashamed to consult the Urim VeTummim, which was accomplished by means of a priest. The Gemara concludes: And from where is it derived that Saul was pardoned by God in the heavens for his transgressions? As it is stated: “And Samuel said to Saul: Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me” (I Samuel 28:19). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With me does not only mean that they will die, but also means, in a statement that contains an aspect of consolation, that they will be in my company among the righteous in heaven, as Saul was pardoned for his transgressions. And the Rabbis say that proof that Saul was pardoned is derived from here, from what the Gibeonites said to David: “Let seven men of his sons be given to us and we will hang them up unto the Lord in the Giva of Saul, the chosen of the Lord” (II Samuel 21:6). Certainly the Gibeonites, who were furious at Saul, would not refer to him as the chosen of the Lord. Therefore, this phrase must be understood as having been spoken by a Divine Voice that emerged and said the chosen of the Lord, because Saul had been pardoned for his transgressions and included among the completely righteous.
The Gemara returns to the primary focus of the chapter, the recitation of Shema. Rabbi Abbahu ben Zutarti said that Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevida said: The Sages sought to establish the blessings of Balaam that appear in the Torah portion of Balak, as part of the twice-daily recitation of Shema. And why did they not establish it there? Because extending Shema would place an encumbrance on the congregation, from which the Sages sought to refrain. The Gemara seeks: Why did the Sages seek to add the blessings of Balaam in the first place? If you say that they did so because the exodus from Egypt is mentioned, as it is written therein: “God, who brought them forth out of Egypt, is like the horns of the wild ram” (Numbers 23:22), certainly mention of the Exodus is not unique to this Torah portion. Many other portions mention the exodus as well. Let us say the portion of usury (Leviticus 25:35–38) or the portion of weights (Leviticus 19:35–37), as the exodus from Egypt is written therein as well. In addition, they are brief and would not constitute an encumbrance on the congregation. Rather, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: The reason the Sages sought to establish the portion of Balak as part of the recitation of Shema is because it is written therein: “He couched, He lay down like a lion and a lioness; who shall rouse Him? Those who bless You are blessed and those who curse You are cursed” (Numbers 24:9). This is reminiscent of what is said in Shema: When you lie down, and when you rise. On this, the Gemara asks: And if it is important to include this as part of Shema because of this single verse, then let us say this verse and nothing more. The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to do this, as they learned through tradition that any portion that Moses, our teacher, divided, we too divide and read separately. However, a portion that Moses, our teacher, did not divide, we do not divide and read separately. And, as stated above, the Sages did not wish to institute the recitation of the entire portion of Balak to avoid placing an encumbrance on the congregation. The Gemara continues: Why was the portion of ritual fringes established as part of the recitation of Shema when its content is unrelated to that of the preceding portions? Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva said: The portion of ritual fringes was added because it includes five elements including the primary reason for its inclusion, the exodus from Egypt (Melo HaRo’im): The mitzva of ritual fringes, mention of the exodus from Egypt, the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot, admonition against the opinions of the heretics, admonition against thoughts of the transgressions of licentiousness, and admonition against thoughts of idolatry. The Gemara clarifies: Granted, these three are mentioned explicitly: The yoke of mitzvot is mentioned in the portion of ritual fringes, as it is written: “And you shall look upon them and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord and you shall do them” (Numbers 15:39). Ritual fringes are mentioned explicitly, as it is written: “And they will make for themselves ritual fringes” (Numbers 15:38). The exodus from Egypt is also mentioned explicitly, as it is written: “I am the Lord, your God, who took you out from the Land of Egypt” (Numbers 15:41). But where do we derive the other elements mentioned above: Admonition against the opinions of the heretics, admonition against thoughts of transgressions of licentiousness, and admonition against thoughts of idolatry? In response, the Gemara cites a baraita where these elements were derived from allusions in the verse, “You shall stray neither after your hearts nor after your eyes, after which you would lust” (Numbers 15:39). As it was taught: “After your hearts” refers to following opinions of heresy that may arise in one’s heart. The Gemara offers a proof, as it is stated: “The fool said in his heart: ‘There is no God’; they have been corrupt, they have acted abominably; there is none who does good” (Psalms 14:1). The phrase: “After your eyes,” in this verse refers to following thoughts of transgressions of licentiousness, that a person might see and desire, as it is stated: “And Samson said to his father, ‘That one take for me, for she is upright in my eyes’” (Judges 14:3). The passage: “You shall stray after” refers to promiscuity, which in the parlance of the prophets is a metaphor for idol worship, as it is stated: “The children of Israel again went astray after the Be’alim” (Judges 8:33). MISHNA: It is a mitzva by Torah law to mention the exodus from Egypt at night, but some held that this mitzva was, like phylacteries or ritual fringes, fulfilled only during the day and not at night. For this reason it was decided: The exodus from Egypt is mentioned at night, adjacent to the recitation of Shema. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am approximately seventy years old, and although I have long held this opinion, I was never privileged to prevail (Me’iri) and prove that there is a biblical obligation to fulfill the accepted custom (Ra’avad) and have the exodus from Egypt mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma interpreted it homiletically and proved it obligatory. Ben Zoma derived it as it is stated: “That you may remember the day you went out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life” (Deuteronomy 16:3). The days of your life, refers to daytime alone; however, the addition of the word all, as it is stated: All the days of your life, comes to add nights as well. And the Rabbis, who posit that there is no biblical obligation to mention the exodus from Egypt at night, explain the word, all, differently and say: The days of your life, refers to the days in this world, all is added to include the days of the Messiah. GEMARA: The fundamental dispute between Ben Zoma and the Sages appears in the mishna, and the baraita cites its continuation. Disputing the position of the Sages that: All the days of your life, refers to both this world and the days of the Messiah, it was taught in a baraita that Ben Zoma said to the Sages: And is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in the days of the Messiah? Was it not already said that Jeremiah prophesied that in the days of the Messiah: “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, that they will no longer say: The Lord lives Who brought up the children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt. Rather: As the Lord lives, that brought up and led the seed of the house of Israel up out of the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them” (Jeremiah 23:7–8). The Sages rejected this claim and they said to him that these verses do not mean that in the future the exodus from Egypt will be uprooted from its place and will be mentioned no more. Rather, redemption from the subjugation of the kingdoms will be primary and the exodus from Egypt will be secondary. On a similar note, you say: The meaning of the expressions: It will not say, and they will no longer mention, are not absolute, as in the verse: “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob; rather, Israel will be your name” (Genesis 35:10). There, too, the meaning is not that the name Jacob will be entirely uprooted from its place, but that the name Israel will be the primary name to which the name Jacob will be secondary, as the Torah continues to refer to him as Jacob after this event. And it also says that the ultimate redemption will overshadow the previous redemption in the verse: “Do not remember the former events, and do not ponder things of old” (Isaiah 43:18), and the Gemara explains: “Do not remember the former events,” that is the subjugation to the kingdoms, and “do not ponder things of old,” that is the exodus from Egypt, which occurred before the subjugation to the nations. With regard to the following verse: “Behold, I will do new things, now it will spring forth” (Isaiah 43:19), Rav Yosef taught a baraita: This refers to the future war of Gog and Magog, which will cause all earlier events to be forgotten. The Gemara cites a parable: To what is this comparable? To a person who was walking along the way and a wolf accosted him and he survived it, and he continued to relate the story of the wolf. A lion accosted him and he survived it, and he continued to relate the story of the lion. A snake accosted him and he survived it, he forgot both the lion and the wolf, and he continued to relate the story of the snake. Each encounter was more dangerous and each escape more miraculous than the last, so he would continue to relate the most recent story. So too with Israel; more recent troubles cause the earlier troubles to be forgotten. Having mentioned the changing of Jacob’s name, the Gemara addresses the changing of the names of Abraham and Sarah. What is the meaning of changing Abram’s name to Abraham? As it is stated: “Abram is Abraham” (I Chronicles 1:27). The Gemara explains: Initially he became a father, a minister, and prominent person, only to Aram, so he was called Abram, father [av] of Aram, and ultimately with God’s blessing he became the father of the entire world, so he was called Abraham, father of the masses [av hamon], as it is stated: “I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:5). Similarly, what is the meaning of changing Sarai’s name to Sarah? The same concept applies to Sarai as to Abram: Sarai is Sarah.” The Gemara explains: Initially she was a princess only to her nation: My princess [Sarai], but ultimately she became Sarah, a general term indicating that she was princess for the entire world. Also, with regard to Abraham’s name, bar Kappara taught: Anyone who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated: “And your name will be Abraham” (Genesis 17:5). This is a positive mitzva to refer to him as Abraham. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a negative mitzva, as it is stated: “And your name shall no longer be called Abram, and your name will be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:5). The Gemara asks: But if we consider these obligatory statements, then from here we must infer that one who calls Sarah Sarai also transgresses a positive or negative mitzva. The Gemara answers: There in the case of Sarah, it is not a general mitzva, rather the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Abraham alone: “And God said to Abraham, your wife Sarai, you shall not call her name Sarai; rather, Sarah is her name” (Genesis 17:15). In contrast, this is stated regarding Abraham in general terms: “Your name shall no longer be called Abram.” Again, the Gemara asks: But if that is so, one who calls Jacob Jacob, about whom it is written: “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel” (Genesis 32:29), also transgresses a mitzva. The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse reverts back and God Himself refers to Jacob as Jacob, as it is written before his descent to Egypt: “And God said to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob, and he said, ‘Here I am’” (Genesis 46:2). Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raised an objection to the statements of bar Kappara and Rabbi Eliezer based on what is said in the recounting of the history of the Jewish people: “You are the Lord, God, Who chose Abram and took him out of Ur Kasdim and made his name Abraham” (Nehemiah 9:7). Here the Bible refers to him as Abram. The Gemara responds: There, the prophet is recounting God’s praises, including that which was the situation originally, before his name was changed to Abraham. Indeed, the verse continues: “You took him out of Ur Kasdim and made his name Abraham, and found his heart faithful before You and made a covenant with him to give him the land of Canaan…to give to his descendants, and You fulfilled Your words for You are righteous” (Nehemiah 9:7–8). May we return to thee : From what time. MISHNA: The first question discussed in the mishna is the question of intent. One who was reading the sections of the Torah which comprise Shema, and the time for the recitation of the morning or evening Shema arrived, if he focused his heart, he fulfilled his obligation and need not repeat Shema in order to fulfill his obligation. This is true even if he failed to recite the requisite blessings (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). Ab initio, one may not interrupt the recitation of Shema. The tanna’im, however, disagree over how strict one must be in this regard. They distinguish between interruptions between paragraphs and interruptions within each paragraph. At the breaks between paragraphs, one may greet an individual due to the respect that he is obligated to show him, and one may respond to another’s greeting due to respect. And in the middle of each paragraph one may greet an individual due to the fear that the individual may harm him if he fails do so (Me’iri) and one may respond to another’s greeting due to fear. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is a distinction between greeting someone and responding to his greeting. In the middle of each paragraph, one may greet another due to fear and respond due to respect. In the breaks between paragraphs, one may greet another due to respect and respond with a greeting to any person who greets him, whether or not he is obligated to show him respect. As for what constitutes a paragraph, these are the breaks between the paragraphs: Between the first blessing and the second, between the second and Shema, between Shema and the second paragraph: If you indeed heed My commandments [VeHaya im Shamoa], between VeHaya im Shamoa and the third paragraph: And the Lord spoke [VaYomer] and between VaYomer and True and Firm [emet veyatziv], the blessing that follows Shema. The Rabbis held that each blessing and each paragraph of Shema constitutes its own entity, and treat interruptions between them as between the paragraphs. Rabbi Yehuda, however, says: Between VaYomer and emet veyatziv, which begins the blessing that follows Shema, one may not interrupt at all. According to Rabbi Yehuda, these must be recited consecutively. Since the paragraphs of Shema are not adjacent to one another in the Torah, and they are not recited in the order in which they appear, the mishna explains their placement. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Why, in the mitzva of the recitation of Shema, did the portion of Shema precede that of VeHaya im Shamoa? This is so that one will first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, the awareness of God and God’s unity, and only then accept upon himself the yoke of the mitzvot, which appears in the paragraph of VeHaya im Shamoa. Why did VeHaya im Shamoa precede VaYomer? Because the paragraph of VeHaya im Shamoa is practiced both by day and by night, while VaYomer, which discusses the mitzva of ritual fringes, is only practiced during the day. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one must focus his heart while reading the portion of Shema in the Torah in order to fulfill his obligation. From here, the Gemara seeks to conclude: Learn from this that mitzvot require intent, when one performs a mitzva, he must intend to fulfill his obligation. If he lacks that intention, he does not fulfill his obligation. With that statement, this Gemara hopes to resolve an issue that is raised several times throughout the Talmud. The Gemara rejects this conclusion: What is the meaning of: If one focused his heart? It means that one had the intention to read. The Gemara attacks this explanation: How can you say that it means that one must have intention to read? Isn’t he already reading? The case in the mishna refers to a person who is reading from the Torah. Therefore, focused his heart must refer to intention to perform a mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the mishna speaks of one who is reading the Torah not for the purpose of reciting the words, but in order to emend mistakes in the text. Therefore, if he focused his heart and intended to read the words and not merely emend the text, he fulfills his obligation. He need not have the intention to fulfill his obligation. The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to the language in which Shema must be recited. This dispute serves as an introduction to a broader analysis of the question of intent: Shema must be recited as it is written, in Hebrew, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: Shema may be recited in any language. The Gemara seeks to clarify: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion? The Gemara answers: The source for his halakha lies in the emphasis on the word: “And these words, which I command you this day, will be upon your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:6). “Will be” means as they are, so shall they be; they should remain unchanged, in their original language. The Gemara seeks to clarify further: And what is the reason for the Rabbis’ opinion? The Gemara answers: The source upon which the Rabbis base their opinion is, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel” (Deuteronomy 6:4), which they understand to mean that Shema must be understood. Therefore, one may recite Shema in any language that you can hear and understand. The Gemara explains how Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis each contend with the source cited by the other. And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, isn’t it also stated: “Hear, Israel”? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara responds: He requires this verse in order to derive a different halakha: Make your ears hear what your mouth utters, i.e., one must recite Shema audibly so he hears it while reciting it. And from where do the Rabbis derive that one must recite Shema audibly? The Rabbis do not accept the literal interpretation of the word Shema; rather, they hold in accordance with the one who said: One who recited Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears, fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, isn’t it also written: “And they will be”? How do the Sages explain that emphasis in the verse? The Gemara answers: They, too, require this expression to derive that one may not recite Shema out of order. One may not begin reciting Shema from the end, but only in the order in which it is written. And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive the halakha that one may not recite Shema out of order? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives it from an additional emphasis in the verse: “And the words [hadevarim], which I command you this day, will be upon your heart.” The verse could have conveyed the same idea had it written: Words [devarim], without the definite article. However, it says the words [hadevarim], employing the definite article, emphasizing that it must be recited in the specific order in which it is written. The Rabbis, however, do not derive anything from the fact that the words, with the definite article, was written in place of words, without the definite article. The Gemara seeks to link this debate to another: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the entire Torah, i.e., any portion of the Torah which must be read publicly (Tosafot), or if one studies or reads the Torah in general (Me’iri), may be recited in any language? As if it should enter your mind to say that the entire Torah may only be recited in the holy tongue and not in any other, then why do I need that which the Torah wrote: “And they will be”? Prohibiting recitation of Shema in a language other than Hebrew is superfluous, if indeed one is prohibited from reciting any portion of the Torah in a language other than Hebrew. Since the Torah saw the need to specifically require Shema to be recited in Hebrew, it must be because the rest of the Torah may be recited in any language. The Gemara rejects this: This is not necessarily so, as the phrase: And they will be is necessary in this case because Shema, hear, is also written. Had it not been for the phrase: And they will be, I would have understood hear, to allow Shema to be recited in any language, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, and they will be, was necessary. The Gemara attempts to clarify: Is that to say that the Rabbis hold that the entire Torah may only be recited in the holy tongue and not in any other? As if it should enter your mind to say that the Torah may be recited in any language, then why do I require that which the Torah wrote: Shema, hear? One is permitted to recite the entire Torah in any language, rendering a specific requirement regarding Shema superfluous. The Gemara rejects this: Shema is necessary in any case, because and they will be, is also written. Had it not been for Shema, I would have understood this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that one is prohibited from reciting Shema in any other language. Therefore, Shema, is necessary. The interpretation of these verses is the source of a fundamental dispute concerning the obligation to recite Shema and the required intent during its recitation. The Rabbis taught: From: And they will be, it is derived that one may not recite Shema out of order. From: These words…upon your heart, it is derived that they must be recited with intent. I might have thought that the entire paragraph requires intent? Therefore the verse teaches: These, to indicate that to this point, one must have intent, but from here on one need not have intent, and even if he recites the rest of Shema without intent he fulfills his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva said to him: But the verse states: