Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth

Folio 2a

CHAPTER I

MISHNAH. FROM WHAT TIME MAY ONE RECITE THE SHEMA' IN THE EVENING? FROM THE TIME THAT THE PRIESTS ENTER [THEIR HOUSES] IN ORDER TO EAT THEIR TERUMAH¹  UNTIL THE END OF THE FIRST WATCH.²  THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. ELIEZER. THE SAGES SAY: UNTIL MIDNIGHT. R. GAMALIEL SAYS: UNTIL THE DAWN COMES UP.³  ONCE IT HAPPENED THAT HIS⁴  SONS CAME HOME [LATE] FROM A WEDDING FEAST AND THEY SAID TO HIM: WE HAVE NOT YET RECITED THE [EVENING] SHEMA'. HE SAID TO THEM: IF THE DAWN HAS NOT YET COME UP YOU ARE STILL BOUND TO RECITE. AND NOT IN RESPECT TO THIS ALONE DID THEY SO DECIDE, BUT WHEREVER THE SAGES SAY UNTIL MIDNIGHT', THE PRECEPT MAY BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE DAWN COMES UP. THE PRECEPT OF BURNING THE FAT AND THE [SACRIFICIAL] PIECES, TOO, MAY BE PERFORMED TILL THE DAWN COMES UP.⁵  SIMILARLY, ALL [THE OFFERINGS] THAT ARE TO BE EATEN WITHIN ONE DAY MAY LAWFULLY BE CONSUMED TILL THE COMING UP OF THE DAWN. WHY THEN DID THE SAGES SAY 'UNTIL MIDNIGHT'? IN ORDER TO KEEP A MAN FAR FROM TRANSGRESSION.

GEMARA. On what does the Tanna base himself that he commences: FROM WHAT TIME?⁶  Furthermore, why does he deal first with the evening [Shema']? Let him begin with the morning [Shema']! — The Tanna bases himself on the Scripture, where it is written [And thou shalt recite them] … when thou liest down and when thou risest up,⁷  and he states [the oral law] thus: When does the time of the recital of the Shema' of lying down begin? When the priests enter to eat their terumah.⁸  And if you like, I can answer: He learns [the precedence of the evening] from the account of the creation of the world, where it is written, And there was evening and there was morning, one day.⁹  Why then does he teach in the sequel: THE MORNING [SHEMA'] IS PRECEDED BY TWO BENEDICTIONS AND FOLLOWED BY ONE. THE EVENING [SHEMA'] IS PRECEDED BY TWO BENEDICTIONS AND FOLLOWED BY TWO?¹⁰  Let him there, too, mention the evening [Shema'] first? — The Tanna commences with the evening [Shema'], and proceeds then to the morning [Shema']. While dealing with the morning [Shema'], he expounds all the matters relating to it, and then he returns again to the matters relating to the evening [Shema'].

The Master said: FROM THE TIME THAT THE PRIESTS ENTER TO EAT THEIR 'TERUMAH'. When do the priests eat terumah? From the time of the appearance of the stars. Let him then say: 'From the time of the appearance of the stars'? — This very thing he wants to teach us, in passing, that the priests may eat terumah from the time of the appearance of the stars. And he also wants to teach us that the expiatory offering is not indispensable,¹¹  as it has been taught:¹²  And when the sun sets we-taher,¹³  the setting of the sun is indispensable [as a condition of his fitness] to eat terumah, but the expiatory offering is not indispensable to enable him to eat terumah. But how do you know that these words 'and the sun sets' mean the setting of the sun, and this 'we-taher' means that the day clears away?

1. If the priests have become ritually unclean, they are not permitted to eat terumah, to which a certain holiness attaches, till they have taken a bath and the sun has set.
2. I.e., until either a fourth or a third of the night has passed. V. infra 3a.
3. Maim: about one and one fifth hours before actual sunrise. V. Pes. 93b.
4. R. Gamaliel's.
5. This sentence is parenthetical. It is nowhere laid down that the burning of the fat etc. is permitted only till midnight. It is mentioned here in order to inform us that wherever the time fixed for the performance of a duty is the night, it expires at the rise of the dawn (Rashi).
6. I.e., where is it stated in the Law that the recital of the Shema' is prescribed at all?
7. Deut. VI, 7.
8. This answers also the second question, as the Bible mentions first the recital of the evening time.
9. Gen. I, 5.
10. Infra 11a.
11. For the eating of terumah even where it is necessary to complete the purification rites, v. Ker. II, 1.
12. Sifra, Emor.
13. Lev. XXII, 7. This can be rendered as E.V.: 'he (the man) is clean', or it (the day) is clean (clear), as understood now by the Gemara.

It means perhaps: And when the sun [of the next morning] appears, and we-taher means the man becomes clean?¹  — Rabbah son of R. Shila explains: In that case, the text would have to read we-yithar.²  What is the meaning of we-taher?³  The day clears away, conformably to the common expression, The sun has set and the day has cleared away. This explanation of Rabbah son of R. Shila was unknown in the West,⁴  and they raised the question: This 'and the sun sets', does it mean the real setting of the sun, and 'we-taher' means the day clears away? Or does it perhaps mean the appearance of the sun, and we-taher means the man becomes clean? They solved it from a Baraitha, it being stated in a Baraitha: The sign of the thing is the appearance of the stars. Hence you learn that it is the setting of the sun [which makes him clean] and the meaning of we-taher is the clearing away of the day.

The Master said: FROM THE TIME THAT THE PRIESTS ENTER TO EAT THEIR 'TERUMAH'. They pointed to a contradiction [from the following]: From what time may one recite the Shema' in the evening? From the time that the poor man⁵  comes [home] to eat his bread with salt till he rises from his meal. The last clause certainly contradicts the Mishnah. Does the first clause also contradict the Mishnah? — No. The poor man and the priest have one and the same time.

They pointed to a contradiction [from the following]: From what time may one begin to recite the Shema' in the evening? From the time that the people come [home] to eat their meal on a Sabbath eve. These are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: From the time that the priests are entitled to eat their terumah. A sign for the matter is the appearance of the stars. And though there is no real proof of it,⁶  there is a hint for it. For it is written: So we wrought in the work: and half of them held the spears from the rise of the dawn till the appearance of the stars.⁷  And it says further: That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labour in the day.⁸  (Why this second citation?⁹  — If you object and say that the night really begins with the setting of the sun, but that they left late and came early, [I shall reply]: Come and hear [the other verse]: 'That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labour in the day'). Now it is assumed that the 'poor man' and 'the people' have the same time [for their evening meal.]¹⁰  And if you say that the poor man and the priest also have the same time, then the Sages would be saying the same thing as R. Meir? Hence you must conclude that the poor man has one time and the priest has another time? — No; the 'poor man' and the priest have the same time, but the 'poor man' and the 'people' have not the same time.

But have the 'poor man' and the priest really the same time? They pointed to a contradiction [from the following]: From what time may one begin to recite the Shema' in the evening? From the time that the [Sabbath] day becomes hallowed on the Sabbath eve. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua says: From the time that the priests are ritually clean to eat their terumah. R. Meir says: From the time that the priests take their ritual bath in order to eat their terumah. (Said R. Judah to him: When the priests take their ritual bath it is still day-time!)¹¹  R. Hanina says: From the time that the poor man comes [home] to eat his bread with salt. R. Ahai (some say: R. Aha). says: From the time that most people come home to sit down to their meal. Now, if you say that the poor man and the priest have the same time, then R. Hanina and R. Joshua would be saying the same thing? From this you must conclude, must you not, that the poor man has one time and the priest has another time. — Draw indeed that conclusion!

Which of them is later? — It is reasonable to conclude that the 'poor man' is later. For if you say that the 'poor man' is earlier, R. Hanina would be saying the same thing as R. Eliezer.¹²  Hence you must conclude that the poor man is later, must you not? — Draw indeed that conclusion.

The Master said:¹³  'R. Judah said to him: When the priests take their ritual bath it is still daytime!' The objection of R. Judah to R. Meir seems well founded? — R. Meir may reply as follows: Do you think that I am referring to the twilight [as defined] by you?¹⁴  I am referring to the twilight [as defined] by R. Jose. For R. Jose says: The twilight is like the twinkling of an eye. This¹⁵  enters and that¹⁶  departs — and one cannot exactly fix it.¹⁷

1. Through his sin-offering.
2. The verb being in the future.
3. Which may be taken as a past tense, the waw not being conversive.
4. In the Palestinian schools.
5. Who cannot afford an artificial light.
6. That the day ends with the appearance of the stars.
7. Neh. IV, 15.
8. Ibid. 16.
9. The first verse seems to afford ample proof.
10. I.e., the time the 'poor man' mentioned in the first Baraitha comes home to take his evening meal is identical with that at which people generally come to eat their meals on Sabbath eve.
11. And not even twilight, v. Shab. 35a.
12. Tosef. points out that the ground for this statement is not clear.
13. In the Baraitha just quoted.
14. According to which definition it lasts as long as it takes to walk half a mil, v. Shab. 34b.
15. The evening.
16. The day.
17. And consequently the priests may bathe at twilight as defined by R. Jose since it is still day, and one may also read at that time the Shema' since it is practically night.