MISHNAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening¹ 6:4–9 since it is written (v. 7) “You shall teach them to your children and speak about them when you sit in your house, when you go on the road, and when you are lying down and when you are getting up.” Since it says “when you are lying down” before “when you are getting up”, the obligation of the evening is discussed before that of the morning.? From the time that the priests enter to eat² their Terumah³, the heave, is the gift to the Cohen from agricultural produce (Num. 18:12) and also the Cohen’s part of the tithes given to the Levites from produce (Num. 18:26). These gifts must be eaten in ritual purity (Num. 18:13: “every pure person in your family may eat it.”) There are several stages in the cleansing from ritual impurity. Serious impurities (defilement by a corpse, a leper, or a sufferer from gonorrhea) need special rituals. More common defilements, such as touching a dead animal or coming in contact with a more severely impure person, need immersion in the ritual bath (miqweh). This immersion removes impurity but does not yet allow a person to touch sanctified food or to enter the Temple before nightfall, as it is said (Lev. 22:6–7): “He may not eat of sanctified food unless he immersed himself in water. When the sun leaves he shall be purified and after that he may eat of the sanctified food.” [For the more severe kinds of impurity, a sacrifice is needed before the Cohen may eat sacred food in the Temple; this does not concern us here.] The Halakhah will discuss the exact meaning of “the sun leaving” and its relation to sunset and nightfall. Today, no Cohen may eat any Terumah and the minimal amount set apart for Terumah must be burned; it is ritually unclean from the start since nowadays everybody is defiled by the impurity of dead bodies. That impurity can be removed only by sprinkling with water treated with the ashes of the Red Heifer (Num. 19). The Mishnah was edited approximately between 200 and 220 C. E. It must be assumed that the rules of the Mishnah are intended to be practical. It follows that 130 years after the destruction of the Temple there were still places in Israel where the Cohanim could purify themselves by the ashes of the Red Heifer (in Galilee which was only minimally damaged by the two wars with the Romans.), until the end of the first night watch⁴ are the words of Rebbi Eliezer⁵ is accepted by everybody. Rebbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus was one of the foremost students of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, the founder of the Synhedrion of Jabneh after the destruction of the Temple. He was the most conservative of all teachers of his time and reputed to transmit old traditions most reliably.. But the Sages say until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn⁶. It happened that his (Rabban Gamliel’s) sons returned from a wedding feast and told him: We did not recite the Shema‘. He said to them: If dawn has not yet come then you are obligated to recite. Not only that, but everywhere the Sages said “until midnight”, the obligation is to the start of dawn. The obligation of burning fats and limbs on the altar [and eating of the Passover sacrifice] is until the start of dawn.¹³⁴ 6:1). In the interpretation of the Mishnah, there is a fundamental disagreement between Rashi and Maimonides. Rashi (Berakhot 2a, s. v. להרחיק) כדי writes: “Concerning burning of the fats, the Sages did not restrict it to ‘until midnight’ at all and it is mentioned here only to emphasize that everything that has to be done in the night is kasher the entire night.” Maimonides, in his commentary on the Mishnah, writes: “They said about all of these activities ‘until midnight’, even though there would be time until the first signs of dawn, as a ‘fence’ that no one should come to act under pressure and prolong his actions until after the start of dawn; that is what they said ‘In order to remove people from sin.’ ” And he formulates this in his code (Maäse haqorbanot 4:2): “In order to avoid wilful transgression, the Sages said to bring to the altar the parts that have to be burned only until midnight.” Neither the Yerushalmi nor the Babli discuss the burning of sacrifices during the night. However, as Rebbi Ḥuna points out in the following paragraph, in his opinion the entire discussion in the Mishnah is about Rabbinic precepts, rather than Biblical commandments. This is compatible only with the point of view of Maimonides. It is a well known principle that Maimonides follows the Yerushalmi in all points in which there is no contrary opinion indicated in the Babli; he will take the silence of the Babli in this matter as an endorsement of the interpretation of the Yerushalmi. All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only could be eaten until the first dawn. In that case, why did the Sages say, only until midnight? In order to remove people from sin.

footnotes: ¹ The Mishnah presupposes that everybody knows that there is an obligation to recite the verses Deut. ² The spelling of the Yerushalmi is largely phonetic, in contrast to the Babli whose Hebrew spelling is historical. Since the א was silent in Galilean speech of the time and had lost its role as glottal stop, the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi has לוֹכֵל for classical לֶאֱכוֹל in the Babylonian Mishnah. ³ Terumah ⁴ The night is divided either into three (Babylonian) or four (Roman) watches. ⁵ The name of R. Eliezer is attached only to the statement about the night watch. The start of the time of the evening Shema ⁶ It will be seen that the difference between Rabban Gamliel and the other sages is practical rather than theoretical. They agree that “when you are lying down” means “all the time that you are lying on your bed” and not “when you are ready to go to bed”. The latter interpretation is that of R. Eliezer. ¹³⁴ This entire Mishnah, and the following one, are still the words of Rabban Gamliel. In the Venice print and the Leyden manuscript, the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the Mishnah preceding the chapter but it is in the Mishnah repeated before the Halakhah. The Biblical precept is to burn the remaining parts of the sacrifices on the altar “the entire night until morning” (Lev.

HALAKHAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening?. We have stated⁷ for Hebrew הגד “to tell formally”. It is a technical term that implies a statement of Tannaïm, the teachers of the oral law who were active from Maccabean times to the death of Rebbi Yehudah the Prince, the compiler of the Mishnah. The insistence on this being taught, or formulated, repeatedly, shows that a statement introduced by תני is a formal statement, carefully formulated for oral repetition, and not just an ad hoc statement in a discussion. The vocalization תַּנִּי is the prevalent one in the Yerushalmi Targumim.: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah”. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁸ is probably based on his material even though in the current form it is a Babylonian rearrangement. Now the Tosephta (Berakhot I,1) is quoted in the Babli (Berakhot 2b):מאימתי מתחילין לקרוֹת קרית שמע בערבית משעה שבני אדם נכנסין לאכוֹל פתן בערבי שבתוֹת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אוֹמרים משעה שהכהנים זכאין לאכוֹל בתרוּמתן. “When may one start to read the Shema in the evening? From the time that people enter to eat their meals on Friday Evening, says Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say from the moment that the Cohanim are allowed to eat their Terumah.” It seems that the Talmud does not indicate that R. Ḥiyya is reported here to quote the Tosephta but that there was a difference of opinion between Rebbi and Rebbi Ḥiyya about which opinion of those mentioned in the Tosephta should be accepted in the Mishnah as authoritative. There is a fundamental disagreement between the two Talmudim in the interpretation of R. Meïr’s opinion. The Babli quotes a second version of R. Meïr, “from the time that the Cohanim immerse themselves in order to eat Terumah.” Since the Cohanim have to concentrate on their status of purity between immersion and eating, in order not to touch unclean matter inadvertently, it is clear that they will immerse themselves at or shortly after sunset, when it is still clearly day and no stars are visible, and start to eat at the earliest moment which can be declared to be night. Hence, the other version of R. Meïr, that people start to eat Friday nights, must also mean an early time. Since people return from work early on Fridays, being notified of the approaching Sabbath by the sounding of trumpets (Babli Šabbat35b), they will eat early. In particular in Babylonia, where synagogues were out in the fields, Friday evening services were held so that people could return to town before the unlit roads became completely dark. In Israel, on the other hand, synagogues were in towns and often the sermon was held on Friday evening. It is told in Lev. rabba 9(9) that R. Meïr was preaching Friday evenings and even women came to hear the sermon at that time. Hence, the Sabbath meal was late. In Israel, R. Meïr’s pronouncement was taken to indicate a very late time.: “From the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal.” We have stated: “Their opinions are almost identical.” Come and see: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah” is still daylight and the stars start to appear⁹, “from the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal” is one or two hours into the night. You want to say that the two opinions are almost identical? Rebbi Yose¹⁰ said: Explain it by people in hamlets who usually leave the roads when there still is some daylight because they are afraid of wild beasts.

footnotes: ⁷ תני is the translation of Targum Yerushalmi ⁸ Rebbi Ḥiyya is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba bar Aḥa Karsala from Kufra in Babylonia, the greatest of the students and colleagues of Rebbi (Yehuda, the editor of the Mishnah). Rebbi Ḥiyya is credited with collecting the tannaitic material that Rebbi left out of the Mishnah. The collection known as the Tosephta ⁹ As noted in the preceding comment, the Cohanim start to eat when it is no longer day, but before it is completely dark. The exact definition of “day,” “twilight,” “night” will be given later in the present section. ¹⁰ This R. Yose is the late Galilean Amora R. Yose (probably, ben Zabida), not the Tanna R. Yose ben Ḥalaphta.

It was stated: “He who recites (the Shema‘) before that time did not fulfill his duty.” If that is so, why does one recite (the Shema‘) in the synagogue? Rebbi Yose said: one does not recite it to fulfill one’s duty but only to stand in prayer after the study of Torah¹¹ are recited in full daylight. R. Yose declares that after nightfall everybody has to recite the Shema‘ for himself (without benedictions) to fulfill the duty of reciting the Shema‘ at its proper time. In contrast to Shema‘, the daily prayers are not bound rigidly to their times, as will be explained later in the Talmud..

footnotes: ¹¹ This section is quoted by Rashi in his commentary of the Mishnah in the Babylonian Talmud. The old Ashkenazic ritual that has preserved the Israeli usages, in contrast to the Sephardic rituals coming from Babylonia, requires that afternoon and evening prayers be said consecutively in the synagogue any time after מִנְחָה קְטַנָּה, 5/4 hours before sundown (the hour computed as 1/12th of daylight hours.) Hence, evening prayers with Shema‘

Rebbi Zeïra¹² in the name of Rav Jeremiah¹³: One who is in doubt whether he said Grace after his meal or not, must say Grace, since it is written (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise the Eternal¹⁴. The vocalization of the Name is unknown. The root is certainly הוה “to exist”. The form of the name indicates either qal or pi‘el, with a meaning “Eternal” or a hif‘il, meaning “Creator”. Probably it means both but for purposes of translation it is convenient to follow Mendelssohn and use the first meaning. [The so-called “scholarly” hif‘il vocalization, yahweh“Creator,” is certainly false since theophorous names show that the first syllable is vocalized either yā, yô, or yĕ, never yah, and, hence, as is to be expected, the Name does not follow any normative grammatical rule.], your God¹⁵”. One who who is in doubt whether he prayed or not, may not pray, against the opinion of Rebbi Yoḥanan¹⁶ who said: If only one would pray the whole day long, why? Because prayer is never in vain¹⁷ three times a day is a rabbinic obligation. The majority opinion, reported here by R. Zeïra and anonymously in Babli Berakhot 21a, is that one may not recite this prayer more than three times a day (at least on weekdays) and that, therefore, when in doubt one may not pray since rabbinic ordinances are interpreted leniently in case of doubt. The contrary opinion of Rebbi Yoḥanan is also reported in the Babylonian Talmud (loc. cit.) but without the argument that prayer is never in vain. Rav Haï Gaon (Otzar HaGeonim Berakhot, Responsa p. 50, Commentaries p. 26) explains that Rebbi Yoḥanan thinks that prayer, as a supplication for Divine grace and in imitation of sacrifices, can be offered as fulfillment of a vow. It follows that, in his opinion, anyone who is in doubt whether he prayed already, should declare that his prayer should be counted as obligatory if he did not pray but as a voluntary offering if he already had fulfilled his obligation. This opinion is not acceptable to the Yerushalmi; since prayer is never in vain it does not need a prior declaration. There is a practical difference between the two Talmudim since according to Rav Haï’s interpretation, someone who started praying and remembered in the middle that he already had prayed, must stop in the middle even according to Rebbi Yoḥanan, but in the Jerusalem Talmud R. Yoḥanan is explicitly on record (Halakhah 4:3) that he goes on praying since prayer is never in vain.! About one who is in doubt whether he recited (the Shema‘) or not we may hear from this: He who recites (the Shema‘) before that time did not fulfill his duty. And before that time is it not doubtful¹⁸ during twilight cannot be said to certainly have violated the rule that the evening Shema‘ must be recited in the night and his case is equivalent to the one where the person is not sure whether he had recited the Shema‘ already during the current evening.? This means that one who is in doubt whether he recited (the Shema) or not must recite again¹⁹ one is stringent in case of doubt it seems that it is implied that the reading of Shema‘ is a rabbinic institution (though it might leave in doubt the status of the first sentence or the first section.).

footnotes: ¹² Rebbi Zeïra was a Babylonian who appears in the Babylonian Talmud as Rebbi Zera; he rose to be head of the Yeshivah of Tiberias after Rebbi Yoḥanan. ¹³ Rav Jeremiah appears in the Babylonian Talmud as Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, one of the outstanding students of Rav. He should not be identified with Rebbi Jeremiah, a Babylonian and student of Rebbi Zeïra in Galilee. ¹⁴ There is a problem how the Divine Name YHWH should be translated. The traditional “Lord”, taken from the Septuagint, is a translation not of the Name but of its substitute ădōnāi ¹⁵ The verse quoted shows that saying Grace is a Biblical obligation (at least for people who ate to be satiated). For Biblical obligations, we always follow the rule that in doubt one has to follow the most stringent alternative. ¹⁶ Rebbi Yoḥanan is the greatest authority among the Galilean Amoraïm of the second generation. It is rare to have a decision of later generations going against him. ¹⁷ Everybody agrees that praying the Amidah ¹⁸ Later it will be discussed that sometime between sundown and nightfall there is a time of twilight when it is doubtful whether it belongs to day or night. Hence, someone who recites the Shema‘ ¹⁹ Since the Talmud has to prove indirectly that in reading the Shema‘

A sign for it (nightfall) is after stars have become visible²⁰. And though there is no proof, at least there is a hint²¹ 9:2 (38d), Pesaḥim1:1 (27a), Moëd Qaṭan 1:4 (80c), Yebamot 4:11 (6a), Niddah 1:4 (49a). in (Neh. 4:15): “We were working; half of them were holding spears, from the beginning of dawn to the visibility of stars.” And it is written (v. 16): “The night was for us for watch duty and daytime for work.²² 7:1). The second verse, missing in the Tosephta, contains the proof: Neḥemiah declares that “day was for work” and, since he had defined his working day as dawn to dusk in the preceding verse, his definition at least for “day” is “dawn to dusk”. This is only a “hint”, not a proof, since his working day was irregular.”

footnotes: ²⁰ This is an extended quote from a parallel to the Tosephta (1:1) quoted in note 8. It is not from our Tosephta since the last sentence is missing there and the first sentence reads in the Tosephta, and in the Babylonian Talmud (2b), סימן לדבר צאת הכוֹכבים. Levi Ginzberg already has pointed out that the Biblical noun construction צאת הכוֹכבים “the emergence of stars” is never used in the Yerushalmi which prefers the verbal form. “It” referred to in this quote must be nightfall, the common time both for the criterion of R. Meïr and that of the Sages (Note 8). ²¹ This expression is found also in Yerushalmi Sheviït ²² The argument goes as follows: Nehemiah’s people worked from dawn to dusk (in contrast to hired workers who labor from sunrise to sunset; Baba meẓia‘

How many stars have to appear that it should be night? Rebbi Phineas²³ 35b), the criterion of three stars is attributed to Samuel, one of the two foremost Babylonian authorities of the first generation. This criterion is originally Babylonian since the criterion of Cohanim eating their Terumah was never applicable in Babylonia. in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Pappus: one star (visible) is certainly daylight. Two are doubtful as night. Three is certainly night. Are two doubtful? Is it not written (Neh. 4:15): “To the visibility of stars?²⁴, ed. P. Longworth, London 1967, pp. 171–196; Seder Olam, Northvale NJ 1998, p. 6) that every Biblical statement must have a definite meaning. Since numbers do not have an upper bound, the only definite number indicated by a plural is 2. Hence, the plural must mean two unless it is accompanied by a description like “many”, etc. The description in the Babli is: תפסת מוּעט תפסת תפסת מרוּבה לא תפסת “If you grab the minimum you have something in your hand; if you grab more you have nothing in your hand.” It follows that Neḥemiah can talk only about two stars in his description of night.” The minimum of “stars” are two! The first one does not count²⁵.

footnotes: ²³ R. Pinḥas Hacohen bar Ḥama, an Israeli Amora of the fourth generation. His source R. Abba bar Pappus was a Babylonian of the second Amora generation immigrating into Galilee. In the Babli (Šabbat ²⁴ The argument here is that Neḥemiah uses a plural in his definition of nightfall. So he talks about at least two stars. Now Talmudic interpretation of Scripture follows a principle that I have discussed repeatedly (“Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition” in: Confrontations with Judaism ²⁵ Since Venus often is visible in daylight, it cannot count in the determination of nightfall. Later it is stated that no star visible during daytime hours can be counted for the determination of nightfall. This naturally seems to eliminate the count of stars as a practical procedure.

Friday night, if someone saw one star and did work (forbidden on the Sabbath), he is free from punishment. Two, he brings a trespass offering for a sin in doubt²⁶ 5:17–19 for somebody who without premeditation commits an act of which he later has doubts whether it was sinful or not. By the preceding statement, at the time when exactly two stars are visible it is impossible to know whether it is day or not. The sin offering for sins committed in error is described Lev. 4:27–35.. Three, he brings a sin offering. Saturday night, if someone saw one star and did (forbidden) work, he brings a sin offering. Two, he brings a trespass offering for a sin in doubt. Three, he is free from punishment.

footnotes: ²⁶ The trespass offering described in Lev.

Rebbi Yose bar Abun²⁷ 35b) by R. Yose bar Zabida. The names Abun, Abba are often contracted to Bun, Ba in the Yerushalmi. investigated: If you say that two (stars) present a doubt, if someone saw two stars on Friday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, he also saw two stars on Saturday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and he would be guilty for the later work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and he would be guilty for the first work²⁸ 35b, one has to assume that the person did work the entire period during which exactly two stars were visible. Since it is not determined when exactly the changeover from Sabbath to workday occurs during this period, one has to exclude the possibility that he did the work during daytime the first time and during nighttime the second time. The first case discussed by R. Yose bar Abun deals with a criminal trial. In Jewish law, the Biblical penalties cannot be imposed unless the accused was duly warned by witnesses not to commit the crime that he was seen to start. However, such a warning must be given unconditionally. Since nobody can assert categorically that work in twilight is a Biblical prohibition on Friday night and Saturday night, R. Yose seems to assert that two conditional warnings, given in mutually exclusive circumstances which together make a certainty of the transgression, can be counted as an unconditional warning.. If someone saw two stars on Friday night and harvested about (the volume of) half a fig, in the morning he harvested about half a fig, and he saw two stars on Saturday night and harvested about half a fig, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and one would combine daytime with Saturday night and he would be guilty for his last work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and one would combine daytime with Friday night and he would be guilty for his first work²⁹ 10:15). Here it is understood that one uses the example of one who harvests for human consumption. Any forbidden work on the Sabbath is sinful even in the tiniest of amounts; the minimal amounts determine only whether there is a criminal liability or not. If the work was done inadvertently or the person forgot that it was Sabbath, he may bring a sin offering in the Temple as soon as the Temple will be rebuilt. However, a sin offering can only be brought if the same action, done intentionally, would have been a criminal act. Hence, no sin offering can be brought as atonement for doing less than a minimal amount of work which would qualify as criminal act. For such an action there can be no warning and the formulation of the problem also leaves out mention of due warning; one may speak here only about the obligation (or possibility) of bringing a sin-offering. It is spelled out in Leviticus (5:2–4) in respect to sin offerings for transgressions by speech (by oath, or non-speech, be refusing to be a witness) that the sin offering is brought if “(he did,) and it was forgotten by him, and he remembered and was guilty.” It is taken from here that in all cases there is one sin offering for all transgressions done in one forgetting; that any realization of the forbidden action in the time in between will cause a separate sin with a separate sin offering. Hence, it is assumed here that the person in question either was not aware that the day was a Sabbath or that harvesting on the Sabbath is forbidden, without any intermediate awareness of either Sabbath or the prohibition of harvesting. It is then asserted by R. Yose bar Abun that all acts committed during one forgetting do combine, since they will all be covered by one sin-offering. The certainty of guilt on the Sabbath is then established by the same argument as in the first case under the same conditions, viz., that in both cases the action was performed exactly during the entire time that exactly two stars were visible. The practical determination of such an action is made questionable by the next action..

footnotes: ²⁷ R. Yose bar Abun was the colleague of R. Yose bar Zabida and one of the last editors of the Yerushalmi. The first conclusion of R. Yose bar Abun is reported in the Babli (Šabbat ²⁸ As Rashi points out in Šabbat ²⁹ Harvesting is forbidden on the Sabbath. Like all such work, the minimal amount of work that is punishable depends on the intention of the person acting. If the harvest is to clear the field for a new crop then the most minute amount of work is punishable. If the harvest is for human consumption then the minimal harvest punishable is the volume of a dried fig. If the harvest is for animal feed then the minimal amount is to fill the mouth of a lamb (Tosephta Šabbat

That means (we judge) by those stars that are not usually seen during the day. But by those stars that are usually seen during the day we do not estimate. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: There must be three stars not counting Venus³⁰ 35b reads in the statement of R. Yose bar Abun: וּבלחוּד דיתחמוּן תלתא כוֹכבים בר מן חד כוֹכבתא, this is close to our text. R. Eliezer ben Joel (Ravia, Rhineland, 12th-13th Cent., § 199) reads וּבלחוּד דיתחמוּ תלתא כוֹכבין בדמוּת חד כוֹכבתא “only that three stars should look like one star” and explains in the name of Rebbi Yehuda (either the Pious of Regensburg or Sir Leon of Paris) that three stars have to appear in a group like feet of a tripod. The same text is quoted by the 14th cent. R. Nissim Gerondi (Ran) as דדמיין לחדא כוֹכבתא “which are similar to one star” and his contemporary Hagahot Maimuniot(Hilkhot Šabbat, 5:4 Note 3) that three stars should be seen כמין חד כוֹכבא “in the manner of one star”, to which reading the explanation of Ravia applies well. In fact, R. Zachariah Frankel in his commentary on the Yerushalmi points out that the feminine כוֹכבתא makes sense only if it refers to Venus. A “star” in general is כוֹכבא, masculine, and it seems that the text of Hagahot Maimuniot has been corrected by German Jewish attention to grammatical correctness. However, if we accept the reading כוֹכבתא the statement of R. Yose bar Abun is a duplication of the earlier remark that “the first star does not count.” Ran explains that the earlier statement determines the moment of nightfall from Biblical sources but that the requirement that three stars should be seen close together is a rabbinic ordinance “to add from weekday to the holy day” and, therefore, has a different status and is a legitimate addition..

footnotes: ³⁰ Here we take up the discussion from the penultimate section. The interpretation and the text are a matter of some controversy. Rabbenu Ḥananel (of Kairawan, 11th Century) in his commentary to Šabbat

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner³¹ in the name of R. Yehudah ben Pazi: One star (visible) certainly daytime. Two are night. Does he not allow for a period of doubt? He has a doubt between star and star³².

footnotes: ³¹ Amora of the fourth generation, from the region of Lod, contemporary of R. Phineas, who transmits a conflicting Babylonian statement. His source, R. Yehudah ben Simon, of the family Ben Pazi, is a Galilean source from the school of R. Yoḥanan. ³² The interval between the moment when only one star is clearly visible and when two stars are clearly visible is his time of dusk, of which it is not known whether it belongs to day or to night.

It was stated: All the time that the Eastern sky is red it is certainly daylight. If it became silver colored then it is dusk. If it became black, equally from zenith to horizon, then it is night³³ 34b) has a tannaitic statement: “What is dusk? From sundown all the time that the Eastern sky is red. If the lower part turns silver colored (pale grey) but the zenith is not yet silver colored, that is dusk. If the zenith is silver colored equal to the horizon then it is night; these are the words of R. Yehudah (bar Ilaï).” This statement looks somewhat garbled and it is explained in the name of Samuel as: “From sundown all the time that the Eastern sky is red it is daytime. If the lower part turns silver colored (pale grey) but the zenith is not yet silver colored, that is dusk. If the zenith is silver colored equal to the horizon, then it is night.” The text of the Yerushalmi is from a tannaitic source and supports Samuel’s reading. However, the Yerushalmi version is clearer since when the color of the sky at the horizon is equal to that at the zenith and is darker than pale grey, it is close to being dark..

footnotes: ³³ The Babli (Šabbat

Rebbi says: (When) the moon is at its turning point, and the sphere of the sun has started to disappear and the sphere of the moon to rise, that is dusk. Rebbi Ḥanina said: When the solar sphere finishes disappearing and the lunar sphere starts to rise. Samuel has a tannaitic statement: The moon does not shine at the moment of the disappearance of the sun nor does it go down at the moment that the sun shines³⁴, ed. Chavel, Jerusalem 1964, Torat Haädam, p. 154–251) insists that R. Ḥanina only explains Rebbi’s statement in popular terms. Since the Talmud quotes a teaching accepted by Samuel the astronomer as confirmation of R. Ḥanina’s position, it is difficult to accept that the first tradent and R. Ḥanina should have completely parallel statements.] A reasonable explanation of this section must start with a discussion of “the turning point of the moon.” Usually this is taken as the moment of the full moon, when the moon changes from increasing to decreasing. However, this interpretation is impossible since the orbit of the moon usually deviates from the ecliptic and only about every 223 months the full moon is in the ecliptic in opposition to the sun. Hence, the “turning point of the moon” is the only time when there is a possibility of a lunar eclipse and the full moon is directly opposite to the sun. R. Ḥanina and Samuel express the view of geometric astronomy, i.e., that the full moon cannot rise as long as the sun is still visible. The anonymous first tradent notes that in rare cases the refraction of the earth’s atmosphere can lead to a situation where the full moon starts to rise while the sun, geometrically below the horizon, is still visible. [In science, this phenomenon was first studied by Ibn al Haytham in the tenth Cent.; cf. R. Rashed, Optique et mathématiques, Variorum: Ashgate Publ. Co., Brookfield Vt, 1992] For practical purposes, both teachers seem to agree that in the consideration of “sundown” for Sabbath observance, the influence of refraction in the atmosphere should be disregarded..

footnotes: ³⁴ Rebbi is Rebbi Yehudah the Prince, the editor of the Mishnah. R. Ḥanina probably is the Amora R. Ḥanina, the student of Rebbi.The explanation of this section depends on whether one accepts that Rebbi and R. Ḥanina speak of the same tradition, only that R. Ḥanina insists that the correct tradition of Rebbi’s statement is that dusk starts only at the moment of the final disappearance of the sun and not at the moment of the disappearance of the lower rim of the solar disk as in the first tradition. This is the opinion of most commentators of the Yerushalmi; in the language of the Babli it means that two tradents, the first one anonymous and the second R. Ḥanina, give their versions of what Rebbi really said. [Nachmanides (Writings of Rabbenu Moshe ben Naḥman

Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When the solar disk starts to sink and a man is standing on top of Mount Carmel, he descends and immerses himself in the ocean, ascends and eats his Terumah, one may assume that he immersed himself during daytime³⁵.. Than is, if he used a shortcut³⁶ (scil. iter) “short cut”. The text cannot really mean “the top of mount Carmel” since even running down in a straight line from today’s Haifa University to the shore would take about an hour. The “top of Mount Carmel” here is more likely to be at today’s “Elijah’s cave”. In the Babylonian Talmud (Šabbat 35a) the statement of R. Ḥanina is given as illustration of the notion of dusk of R. Neḥemiah mentioned here in the next section. In the interpretation of Tosaphot (l. c., s. v. וירד), the statement means that just when the Cohen emerges from the sea then dusk starts. but when he went on the road³⁷ (scil. via), “paved road, pavement”. this does not apply.

footnotes: ³⁵ Therefore, he was cleansed from impurity at nightfall and is justified in eating Terumah ³⁶ Latin compendiarium ³⁷ Latin strata

What is dusk? Rebbi Tanḥuma³⁸ Midrash. His simile here is also of the nature of a sermon, illustrating the opinion of R. Yose that there is no real extended dusk but only day and night with a fleeting moment in between, the blinking of an eye in the terminology of R. Yose and the splitting of a drop of blood on the tip of a sword for R. Tanḥuma. said (it is comparable) to a drop of blood on the tip of a sword. The drop splits here and there, that is dusk. What is dusk?³⁹ 34b), the previous statement describing dusk as the time between the end of a reddish glow in the East to uniform dark greyness from Eastern horizon to zenith is attributed to Rebbi Yehudah (bar Ilaï), followed by the statements of R. Neḥemiah and R. Yose here, making the definition of dusk a triple disagreement. By contrast, it seems that the Yerushalmi accepts the criterion of the color of the Eastern sky as universally valid, only that Rebbi Neḥemiah qualifies it in time. The relationship between the statements of R. Neḥemiah and R. Yose is discussed in the next section. Since the standard for a normal person is to walk 10 parasangs [= 40 miles (mil)] in a day of 12 hours, the time allocated to a mil is 12/40 hours or (12×60)/40 = 18 minutes. [Maimonides counts the 10 parasangs from beginning of dawn to the end of dusk; his time for walking a mil is 24 minutes.] This refers to a day of 12 hours between sunrise and sunset, i.e., for the equinoxes if constant hours are used. In addition, the determination of time is valid only for the Land of Israel or other countries of the same latitude. For other latitudes, the length of dusk has to be determined by the angle of depression of the sun at the end of 9 or 12 minutes after sunset in Israel on March 21. The Babylonian Talmud (Šabbat 34b) replaces the time of ½ (Roman?) mil in Galilee by ⅔ Babylonian?) mil in Babylonia on the lower Euphrates. From after sundown the time a man needs to walk half a mil, the words of Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Yose said: dusk is a moment and the sages could not determine it.

footnotes: ³⁸ One of the latest authorities mentioned in the Yerushalmi, renowned as a preacher, and author of the basic Yelammedenu ³⁹ While the first statement here was a homily by a late Amora, now we are dealing with a legal statement by two of the outstanding students of Rebbi Akiba, of the fourth generation of Tannaim. Rebbi Yose here is Rebbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta, the highest authority in his generation.In the Babli (Šabbat

Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa⁴⁰ were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa: Is it not reasonable that the end of the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is the moment (of Rebbi Yose)⁴¹ 35a).? He answered: I also am of that opinion. Rebbi Ḥizqiah⁴² does not say so but every single moment in the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is in doubt. Rebbi Mana said: I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Ḥizqiah from what we have taught (Zabim I,6): “He saw one emission during daytime and one at dusk or one at dusk and the next one the next day; if he knows that the emission at dusk was partially during daytime and partially during nighttime, he certainly is impure and needs a sacrifice but if it is questionable whether the emission occurred partially during daytime and partially during nighttime he certainly is impure but it is questionable whether he owes a sacrifice.⁴³ deals with men suffering from gonorrhea or any other sexually related effluent (Lev. 15:1–15). In the interpretation of the school of Hillel there are three stages in the uncleanness of a zab. If he had one episode, he is unclean but may cleanse himself by immersion in water as with any other defilement. If he had two episodes not separated by a full day, he can cleanse himself only by immersion in running water after being free of symptoms for a full seven days. If he had three episodes (again, not separated by a full day from dusk to dusk without incident) then he not only has to immerse himself in running water after seven days but he also has to bring a purifying sacrifice (if there is a Temple.) There is a standard duration that is counted as an episode and a continuous emission during a longer period is counted as two (or more, depending on length) emissions. The Mishnah here states that an episode during dusk will be counted as two even if it is relatively short if part of the episode happened during the previous day and part during the following night. Hence, the exact determination of the boundary between day and night is essential.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef⁴⁴ asked before Rebbi Yoḥanan: Who is the Tanna who will split an emission into two? Rebbi Yose!⁴⁵ I,12–13: “If he had one long emission such that he would have had time to immerse himself in a ritual bath and dry himself then it is counted as two episodes; shorter than that it is only counted as one. Rebbi Yose says it is always counted as only one episode. However, Rebbi Yose agrees that if he had an emission during dusk, even though its duration was not long enough for immersion and drying himself, it is counted for two since it happened on different days. In this sense did R. Yose say: If he had an emission during twilight he is possibly defiled (unclean for seven days) but not obliged to bring a sacrifice. If he had two emissions during twilight he is possibly defiled and possibly obligated to a sacrifice. If he had one emission at another (certain) time and one during twilight or one during twilight and one at another time he is certainly defiled (for seven days) and questionable for a sacrifice. If he had two emissions at other times and one at twilight or two at twilight and one at another time he is certainly defiled and certainly must bring a sacrifice.” I said to him: Here is your problem since you say that every single moment in the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is in doubt.⁴⁶ What is his question good for? For the time when Elijah will come and say: that is dusk⁴⁷ and end of Sabbath.).

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Rebbi Aḥa was an Amora of the fourth generation, older than the Amora Rebbi Yose. ⁴¹ R. Yose considers all of Rebbi Neḥemiah’s “dusk” as being part of daytime and that the change-over to night comes instantly at an undefined time shortly after the end of R. Neḥemiah’s “dusk”. With Rebbi Yehudah instead of Rebbi Neḥemiah, this is the opinion of Samuel, the astronomical authority of the first Amoraic generation in Babylonia, in the Babylonian Talmud (Šabbat ⁴² Amora of the fourth generation in Galilee. R. Mana (II) is his only known student. ⁴³ Tractate Zabim ⁴⁴ A Babylonian, student of Rab and Samuel at the start of the Amoraic period, who at an advanced age emigrated to Israel and became a member of the Academy of R. Yoḥanan. ⁴⁵ Rebbi Yose mentioned here is the Tanna, ben Ḥalaphta. His opinion is given based on an explicit Tosefta Zabim ⁴⁶ Up to here, everything is R. Mana’s question to R. Ḥizqiah: Since the Tosephta clearly states that the Mishnah quoted is R. Yose’s opinion, if every moment of R. Neḥemiah’s twilight is questionable for R. Yose then the statement of the Mishnah: “if he knows that the emission at dusk was partially during daytime and partially during nighttime” is meaningless since it is never knowable by anybody whether anything occurred partially during daytime and partially during nighttime. ⁴⁷ While the prophet Elijah has no authority to change religious rulings he has transcendental knowledge of the true state of things. Hence, for someone instructed by Elijah the doubt of R. Yose does not apply and the Mishnah, while unlikely to be practical, is neither impossible nor void.This is the end of the discussion in the Yerushalmi, seemingly accepting R. Ḥizqiah’s position. In the Babylonian Talmud the decision is left explicitly open so that in any case one has to go with the more stringent rule (earlier start of Sabbath, later nightfall for Terumah

Who disagrees?⁴⁸ Rebbi Ḥanina the Colleague of the Rabbis⁴⁹ asked: Just as you say in the evening that it is night if three stars are visible even though the sun is in the middle of the sky it is night, so you must say the same thing in the morning. Rebbi Abba⁵⁰.) Hence, the different treatment of dawn and dusk in the Mishnah seems to contradict the principles of Rabbinic Bible interpretation. said: It is written (Gen. 19:23): “The sun went out over the earth and Lot came to Zoar.” And it is written (Lev. 22:7): “The sun will come and he shall be pure.” He brackets going out and coming. Since coming means that it is hidden from the creatures so also its coming out when it will be ascertained by the creatures. Rebbi Abba⁵¹ said, it is written (Gen. 44:3): “In the morning it was light.” The Torah called the light morning.⁵² Rebbi Ismael⁵³ 6): “ ‘They shall eat the meat during that night’; from here I understand during the entire night. The verse says ‘do not leave any leftovers until morning; but anything left over until morning you shall burn in fire.’ Why does the verse repeat ‘until morning’? To give a domain to the earliest part of morning. From here they said (Mishnah 3–4): ‘The consumption of the Passover sacrifice and all other sacrifices, the burning of their parts on the altar can be done until the start of dawn and all sacrifices that must be eaten within one day can be eaten until the start of dawn.’ Why did the Sages decree (that all must be done) until midnight? To remove people from transgression and to make a fence around the Torah.” This is an additional indication that the earliest possible sign of dawn is the Biblical start of a new day. stated: (Ex. 12:10) “In the morning, in the morning,” to give a domain to the very early morning.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ With the criterion of three stars for the start of night. ⁴⁹ He usually goes by the name of R. Ḥananiah the Colleague of the Rabbis, a Babylonian who was an important teacher of the leaders of the fourth generation of Amoraim but who never headed a talmudic academy. He insists that it is logical to assert that as long as three stars can still be seen at dawn it is night even though it is relatively light and (Mishnah 5) one may well distinguish between dark blue and white, or between dark blue and dark green. Hence, since the theory of the three stars contradicts the Mishnah it must be invalid. ⁵⁰ R. Abba also was a Babylonian, a student of Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah in Babylonia, who went to Israel and became a rich silk merchant and talmudic authority of the third generation of Amoraim, a contemporary of R. Ḥanina the Colleague of the Rabbis. His argument parallels the previous one but, since it is based on Biblical verses, it seems to be an attack on the Mishnah which gives different treatments to dawn and dusk.The first verse asserts that Lot came to Zoar at sunrise. The second verse asserts that the Cohen who had cleansed himself from impurity is purified at nightfall as explained earlier. The argument seems to center on the ambiguous statement “the sun will come and he will be pure.” Everywhere, the “coming” of the sun is its going, sundown or nightfall. In the first verse, the coming of Lot to Zoar is real coming, parallel to the going out of the sun. Hence, in the first verse coming and going out are the same. It would follow that, in the second verse also, coming must have the same status as going out since it is one of the principles of Rabbinic interpretation that Biblical expressions have the same meaning at every occurrence (a principle known as gĕzērāh šāwāh ⁵¹ It is not known if this Rebbi Abba, solving the puzzle, is the same as the author of the preceding question or another sage of the same name. The editorial principle of the Babli, to quote an authority the first time as פלוני אמר and the following times as אמר פלוני or ואמר פלוני does not apply to the Yerushalmi. ⁵² The Biblical text tells of Joseph’s brothers leaving Egypt to return to Canaan. Hence, it means the first dawn which was the first possible time for their leaving, and the Biblical verse connects the technical meaning of “morning” with the first light of dawn. Hence, the asymmetry of treating dawn and dusk is Biblical and Rebbi Ḥanina’s and Rebbi Abba’s arguments are unjustified. ⁵³ He is a Tanna, an older contemporary of Rebbi Akiba and head of his own school. The sentence is a quote from an anonymous statement in Mekhilta dĕRibbi Ishmaël, Bo,

Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: If you say to give the thickness of the sky⁵⁴ to the night both in the evening and in the morning then you must say that day and night are not of equal length; but we have stated: On the days of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, day and night have equal length. Rebbi Huna⁵⁵ 53b) is strictly of the opinion that the twilights of dawn and dusk are of equal length.] said: We may learn from the ways of the world since if the king leaves [his palace] one already states that he left before he left but when he returns one does not say that he did return until he actually entered [the palace].

footnotes: ⁵⁴ The “thickness of the sky” is twilight, the time that the sun is no longer seen over the earth before it has disappeared behind the gates of heaven that are closed for the night.R. Yose bar Abun argues that if twilight is treated the same way for dawn and dusk then at the equinox the days are not evenly split between day and night. Since it is accepted that at the equinox day and night are equal it follows that any part of twilight given to the night at dusk must be given to the day at dawn. ⁵⁵ A Babylonian who in most other tractates of the Yerushalmi appears as Rebbi Ḥuna (רבי חונא, חונה), a student of Rav Yosef in Babylonia, who emigrated to Israel. His argument is from popular usage, that as the king is said to be leaving before he left, so the sun is said to be setting although three stars can still be seen; but the king is not reported to have returned until he actually did. Hence, day cannot end before the sun has disappeared beyond the heavenly gates and three stars are visible. [The Babylonian Talmud (Pesaḥim

He who prepares to pray must equalize his feet⁵⁶ 10b) brings only the opinion that in praying the ‘Amidah prayer one has to equalize one’s feet like the angels; and this is the name of R. Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob.. Two Amoraim, Rebbi Levi⁵⁷ and Rebbi Simon⁵⁸; one of them says like angels⁵⁹ were one straight foot.” However, Sefer Haëshkol (part 1, p. 17) quotes an opinion, possibly of Rav Hai Gaon, that the heels should be together but the toes separated to form a semicircle since the verse quoted from Ezechiel continues “the sole of their feet was like the foot sole of a calf.” and one of them says like priests. He who says like priests, (Ex. 20:23): “You shall not ascend my alter by stairs;” that means that they were walking with their heel next to the great toe and great toe next to the heel. He who says like angels (Ez. 1:7)” “Their feet were a straight foot.” Rebbi Ḥanina bar Andrei in the name of R. Samuel ben Soṭar⁶⁰: angels have no moving joints. What is the reason? (Dan. 7:16) “I approached one of those standing,” the fixed ones⁶¹ 65(17), the lexical note is attributed to the slightly older authority R. Reuben: Rebbi Reuben said: It is written (Ez. 1:25) “When they were standing their wings became limp.” Is there any sitting in heaven (that standing should be remarkable)? Does not R. Samuel say: there is no sitting in heaven since it says (Ez. 1:7) “their feet were a straight foot.” They have no moving joints: (Dan. 7:16) “I approached one of those standing קאמיה,” the fixed ones קיימיא. It also says (Is. 6:2): “Seraphim are standing over Him;” (2Chr. 18:18): “All the hosts of Heaven were standing,” and here it says “when they are standing”; this is astonishing. What really means “when they are standing” (בעמדם), it means “the people come, silence” (בא עם דם), i.e., when Israel are saying “Hear o Israel” the angels are silent and then their wings drop. Midrash Bereshit rabba is an old Yerushalmi source and one may speculate that the Midrash precedes the editing of the Talmud; otherwise it would be incomprehensible why a statement on the Amidah prayer intrudes on the discussion of the rules of Shema‘..

footnotes: ⁵⁶ The Babli (Berakhot ⁵⁷ A preacher in the Academy of R. Yoḥanan. ⁵⁸ An older preacher, R. Simon ben Pazi, student of R. Joshua ben Levi. ⁵⁹ It is usually explained that this means that both legs have to be parallel and together so that they would look like one foot, from the verse quoted: “their feet ⁶⁰ Rebbi Ḥanina bar Andrei seems to have been a contemporary of R. Levi and R. Yose bar Ḥanina; he is mentioned only two times in Talmudic literature. R. Samuel bar Soṭar seems to be identical with R. Samuel bar Sosarṭa, another contemporary of the preceding. The entire discussion in the Yerushalmi is between sages of the same generation. ⁶¹ In Midrash Bereshit rabba

Rebbi Huna said: He who sees the priests in the synagogue, at the first blessing he must say (Ps. 103:20) “praise the Lord, His messengers.” At the second blessing (v. 21) “praise the Lord all His hosts.” At the third blessing (v. 22) “praise the Lord all His creatures.” At Musaf at the first blessing he must say (Ps. 134:1) “A song of ascent. Praise the Lord all servants of the Lord, who are standing in the Lord’s House in the nights.” At the second blessing (v. 2) “lift your hands in holiness.” At the third blessing (v. 3) “May the Lord bless you from Zion.” When there are four blessings then for the third he repeats the first, for the fourth the second⁶², the instruction on how to behave during the blessing is added here. The Babli (Soṭa 39b) gives separate verses also for days of three and four blessings and rejects the last selection of the Yerushalmi..

footnotes: ⁶² Since the priestly blessing is regular part of the morning Amidah

Rebbi Ḥinnena⁶³ said: From the appearance of the “morning hind⁶⁴ 22) denotes the zodiacal light; see the next section.” until the first rays of light in the East a man can walk four mil⁶⁵. From the first rays of light in the East until sunrise four mil⁶⁶ 94a), there one speaks of עלוֹת השחר, “the coming up of the morning”. איילת השחר is not a technical term used in the Babli.. From where do we know that from the first rays of light in the East until sunrise there are four mil? Since it is written (Gen. 19:15) “about when the morning came etc.⁶⁷” And it is written (v. 23) “the sun rose over the land and Lot arrived at Zoär.” From Sodom to Zoär there are four mil. It is farther than that.⁶⁸ 93b), Rebbi Ḥanina testifies that he checked out the distance and found it to be five mil. The Babli finds that the time of an average person walking five mil is too long for dawn but he does not try to harmonize the interpretation of the verses with the current observations of twilight. Rebbi Zeïra said: the angel was flattening⁶⁹ in the technical sense of “levelling” by surveyors who for exact measurements use only yardsticks that are exactly horizontal. R. Zeïra wants to say that they walked only absolutely flat roads where the usual speed is higher. the road before them. And from where do we know that from the appearance of “the morning hind” until the first rays of light at the East there are four mil? “About when”, “when”, compares one thing to another⁷⁰.

footnotes: ⁶³ The prints and the Leyden manuscript have ר׳ חצנ׳, referring to an otherwise unknown scholar. The reading chosen is that of the Rome manuscript. The bearer of that name was a Galilean Amora of the third generation. ⁶⁴ This Biblical allusion (Psalm ⁶⁵ For the determination of the time implied by the distance, see the paragraph after the next. ⁶⁶ This statement is found also in the Babylonian Talmud (Pesaḥim ⁶⁷ The verse describes the time when the angels pushed Lot to leave Sodom. ⁶⁸ In absence of a reliable tradition about the locations of Zoar and Sodom, it is difficult to know the real distances. In the documents found with the Bar Kochba letters in the desert of Judea, a locality Zoar is mentioned. Hence, in Mishnaic times the location of Zoar was still known. In the Babli (Pesaḥim ⁶⁹ The verb מקדר is used in tractate Eruvin ⁷⁰ One can apply the principle of גזרה שוה, that in general a certain expression has the same meaning in all contexts.

Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Anybody who identifies the “morning hind” with the planet Venus is in error; that planet sometimes is too early and sometimes too late⁷¹. What is it? It is like two double horns of light that arise from the East and give light. Explanation⁷² for one another are extremely rare in Greek words coming into Aramaic. Also, no action is reported here.: The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta⁷³ were walking in the valley of Arbela before morning and saw “the morning hind” that started radiating. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta, the great man: so will be the deliverance of Israel; it starts out very little and grows and longer as it goes on. What is the reason (Micha 7:8): “When I shall dwell in darkness, the Lord is my light.” So also at the start (Esther 2:21): “Mordocai was sitting at the king’s gate.” After that (6:11): “Haman took the garment and the horse.” After that (6:12): “Mordocai returned to the king’s gate.” After that (8:15): “Mordocai left the king’s presence in royal garb.” After that (8:16): “The Jews had light and joy.”

footnotes: ⁷¹ That means, sometimes Venus sets still during the night and sometimes it is still seen after sunrise. ⁷² This is the explanation of Frankel in his “Introduction to the Yerushalmi”, from Greek δήλωμα. Levy in his dictionary refers to Greek δίλημμα, which means only “proposition of two difficult alternatives.” Brüll in his critique of Levy’s dictionary proposes Greek δράμα “action”. Frankel’s choice is difficult since both long vowels should be expressed, דילומא. (In Midrashim, the spelling דילמא is found.) Brüll’s explanation is more difficult to accept since substitutions of the liquids l,r ⁷³ Rebbi Ḥiyya the Great is Rebbi Ḥiyya, the student and colleague of Rebbi, the collector of the Tosephtah. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta is a contemporary who like Rebbi Ḥiyya does not appear in the Mishnah (except for the aggadic very last Mishnah.)

The statement of Rebbi Ḥanina⁷⁴. In the Leyden ms. and the prints, the reference here is to R. Ḥiyya; the correct reading is in the Rome ms. and the commentary of R. Eleazar Askari. is parallel to that of Rebbi Yehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Yehudah: the thickness of the sky is a walk of 50 years⁷⁵ 6(9), it is asserted that the entire sky represents a distance of 500 years and that between each sky and the next there is a distance measured by 500 years. It is not clear how the “distance of 500 years” is meant to be computed.. An average person walks 40 mil during a day⁷⁶ is 2000 cubits. Therefore, the exact length of a mil depends on the length of a cubit. Based on a length of 55 cm for a cubit, the mil would be 1100 meters. The Roman mile was 1473.2 m. A mil of 1100 m would give a daily trip of 27.34 English miles. Determination of the mil by modern Rabbinic authorities vary from 960m (Rav Naeh) to 1152m (Ḥazon Ish) and 1296m (Ḥatam Sopher). In the Babli Pesaḥim 94a, Rava quotes a tradition that the circumference of the earth is 6000 parasangs or 24’000 mil. It is not clear at which latitude this length is computed. Based on a Greek παρασάγγης of 5.523 km, the computed 33’078 km would fit well with the circumference of the earth at about the latitude of Jerusalem or Southern Babylonia. The corresponding mil would be 1380 m.. Until the sun breaks through in the sky it passes the distance of 50 years; during that time a man can walk four mil. If follows that the thickness of the sky is one tenth [of the path of the sun] in one day. And just as the thickness of the sky is a walk of 50 years so the thickness of the earth and that of the abyss is a walk of 50 years⁷⁷. What is the reason? (Is. 40:22) “He Who thrones over the circle of the earth,” and it is written (Job 22:14): “He passes by the circle of the sky.” And it is written (Prov. 8:27) “When He carved out a circle on the face of the abyss.” “Circle” (חוּג) always has the same meaning.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Here the argument returns to the prior statement of R. Ḥanina, that the twilight at dawn is the time to walk four mil ⁷⁵ In the parallel version of this argument in the Babli, Rebbi Yehudah is quoted only as saying that the thickness of the sky, the distance the sun covers between the start and the end of dawn, is one-tenth of the entire day (from beginning of dawn to end of dusk). In the next section and in the parallel Bereshit rabba ⁷⁶ A mil ⁷⁷ The abyss being below the mantle of Earth.

Is has been stated: The Tree of Life is wide a parcourse of 500 years. Rebbi Yehudah ben Rebbi Ilaï⁷⁸ said: not only its crown but even its stem.All the splitting of primeval waters splits under it since (Ps. 1:3) “He shall be like a tree planted on split waters⁷⁹.” It has been stated: The Tree of Life is one sixtieth of the Garden. (Gen. 2:10) “And a river originated in Eden to irrigate the Garden.” The remainder of a kur is a triple qab, a sixtieth⁸⁰ 10a. Rashi explains there that with what remains in watering vessels used for a kur of grain one can still irrigate three qab. (A kur is 180 qab.). The remainder of Africa is Egypt, a sixtieth. We find that it is said that Egypt can be traversed in 40 days⁸¹. The distance is in the order of magnitude of 1000 km or about 650 miles.. Black Africa can be traversed in slightly more than seven years⁸². But the teachers say [the sky is determined] by the days of the patriarchs (Deut. 11:21) “like the days of the sky over the earth.”⁸³ And just as the sky over the earth is at a distance of a way of 500 years so between one sky and the next is a way of 500 years and its thickness is a way of 500 years. Why did you see fit to say the thickness of the sky is a way of 500 years?⁸⁴ Rebbi Abun said⁸⁵ 4(1). There we read: “The rabbis say in the names of R. Ḥanina, R. Pinḥas, R. Jacob bar Abun, in the name of R. Shemuel bar Naḥman: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said: ‘there should be a spread’, the middle drop jelled and separated upper and lower waters.” After that the opinion of Rav is quoted. The opinion of R. Yehudah ben Pazi is given there by R. Yehudah bar Simon (the full name is R. Yehudah ben R. Simon ben Pazi where either “ben Pazi” is a family name or Pazi is one of R. Ḥiyya’s twin daughters, Pazi and Martha). So possibly R. Abun here is the father of R. Jacob bar Abun in the second generation of Amoraïm and not the late R. Abun. (Gen. 1:6): “There shall exist a spread-sky within the water.” The spread-sky shall be in the middle. Rav said: the sky was wet on the first day and jelled on the second day. Rav said: “There shall exist a spread-sky”: the sky shall strengthen, the sky shall jell, the sky shall solidify, the sky shall be spread. Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi said: The sky (רקיע) shall be made like a piece of cloth, just as it is said (Ex. 39:3) “They stretched (וירקעו) out the gold sheets.”

footnotes: ⁷⁸ He is Rebbi Yehudah quoted in both Talmudim without his father’s name. ⁷⁹ Taken as an allusion to paradise. It is clear from the text that the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life are not earthly creations. ⁸⁰ From here on there is a parallel in Babli Taänit ⁸¹ Egypt is defined as the country between the Mediterranean and Aswan (Syene). The distance was determined by the Alexandrian astronomer Eratosthenes to be approximately 5000 stadia. The length of the Greek stadion is no better defined than the Jewish mil ⁸² All commentators are at a loss here since it should say “slightly less than seven years” (2400 days) but there is no manuscript evidence for such a reading. ⁸³ The full verse reads: “that your days and the days of your descendants should increase on the Land that the Eternal had sworn to your forefathers to give to them, like the days of the sky over the earth.” The days of the forefathers were 175 years for Abraham, 180 for Isaac, and 147 for Jacob, together 502 years. The time when Abraham recognized God as the Creator is a matter of controversy in midrashic sources; our source here seems to side with the opinion that Abraham recognized the futility of idol worship at age 3; then his years as the Lord’s servant were 173 and the sum is 500. ⁸⁴ I.e., to take the part of R. Yehudah against the anonymous Sages who had earlier defined the thickness of the sky as the equivalent of 50 years. The question remains unanswered. ⁸⁵ This section is given in greater detail in Bereshit rabba

It has been stated in the name of Rebbi Joshua⁸⁶ that the world was created in Nisan. Here he disagrees with the opinion of the later rabbis, discussed up to now, that the width of the sky is a parcourse of several years. In the Babylonian Talmud Ḥagigah 15a, R. Joshua seems to oppose the opinion of Simeon ben Zoma who defines the spread between the lower (terrestrian) and the upper (heavenly) waters to be three digits; smaller measures there are only given by late Amoraïm.: the thickness of the sky is two fingers wide. The words of Rebbi Ḥanina⁸⁷ disagree, as RebbiAḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina (Job37:18) “Go to spread the skies with Him; they are strong like a cast mirror.” “Go to spread”, that shows that they are made like sheet metal. I could think that they are not sturdy but the verse says “strong”. I could think that they might weaken⁸⁸ to Job translates “mirror of refined metal”. The implication here seems to be from the passive participle מוצק “being cast” (or “refined”) in a timeless manner., the verse says “like a cast mirror;” at every moment they appear recast.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah, one of the two foremost students of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, of the first generation after the destruction of the Second Temple. He is known for his cosmological opinion, explained in the first chapters of Seder ‘Olam, ⁸⁷ Even though his words are reported by Rebbi Aḥa of the fourth generation of Amoraïm, R. Ḥanina here is R. Ḥanina bar Ḥama of the first generation. The verse from Job is ambiguous as are most verses of that book. The verb תרקיע is usually taken to mean “to reach the sky”; here it is taken in the sense “to work metal into thin sheets” indicated in the previous section by R. Yehudah ben Pazi. ⁸⁸ At some time in the future. The Targum

Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁸⁹. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: Usually when someone stretches the ropes of a tent, in time the ropes will loosen. But here (Is. 40:22) “He stretched them like a tent to sit in,” and it said (Job 37:18): “they are strong.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said: “Usually if someone casts a vessel, in time it will rust. But here “like a cast mirror,” all the time they look like newly cast. Rebbi Azariah⁹⁰ 12, R. Azariah explicitly objects to the opinion that everything that has generations will wilt and die, including sky and earth. His statement here seems to say that the generations of the sky are the astronomical periods and that nevertheless everything is as on the day when sky and earth were created. comments on the remark of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Gen. 2:1–3) “The sky and the earth and all their hosts were completed. God finished on the Seventh Day … and God blessed the Seventh Day.” What is written after that? (Gen. 2:4) “These are the generations of the skies.” What has one to do with the other? Only that a day comes and goes, a week comes and goes, a month comes and goes, a year comes and goes⁹¹. And it is written (Gen. 2:4) “These are the generations of the skies and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Eternal, God, created earth and heaven.”

footnotes: ⁸⁹ The brother-in-law and, according to Babylonian tradition, student of R. Yoḥanan. They both elaborate on the verse from Job treated by R. Yoḥanan’s teacher R. Ḥanina. ⁹⁰ One of the teachers of the fifth generation of Galilean Amoraïm. In Bereshit rabba ⁹¹ The use of masculine forms for both masculine and feminine is not uncommon in the Yerushalmi.

Rebbi⁹² as the first watch in the night, the discussion of the Mishnah now turns to the legal determination of the length of a nightwatch. The text here is composed of two sources. The statement about the number of watches in a night according to Rebbi and Rebbi Nathan is a Tosephta (Berakhot1:1). This Tosephta also has the division of the hour and its subdivisions by 24 parts each. This seems to belong to Rebbi’s statement since this subdivision and the division of the night (and possibly the day) is Roman practice. Rebbi Nathan, a contemporary of Rebbi known as “the Babylonian”, follows a Babylonian tradition that also seems to have been the old Israelite practice since the verse from Judges speaks of one “middle watch” which is possible only if there are an odd number of watches in the night. According to Rebbi, a watch is three hours and it has been noted that R. Joshua, who allows Shema‘ to be recited during the first three hours of daylight, follows Rebbi in the division of the day. said: There are four watches during daytime and four at nighttime. The period is one twenty-fourth of an hour. The time is one twenty-fourth of a period. The moment is one twenty-fourth of a time. How much is a moment? Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo said: as long as one needs to pronounce it. The Sages say the moment is like the blink of an eyelash. Samuel did formulate: the moment is one in 56,848 of an hour⁹³ on Threni 2:19. Midrash Samuel 3(1)], all of which have an identical text and the definition of the number of moments in an hour by Rebbi as 243= 13824, by Samuel as 56848, and by others either as the time needed to say the word or as the blinking of an eye. In Babylonian sources (Berakhot 7a, Abodah zarah 4a) the numbers are quoted anonymously and are given as 58888 (printed editions), 56880 (Munich manuscript), 56800 (Koronel manuscript) in Berakhot and 53848 (printed editions), 56884 (R. Ḥananel), 56888 (Munich ms.) in Abodah zarah. In Sefer Agadot Hatalmud the reading is 5845. The opinion that a moment is the length of time needed to pronounce the word is attributed in the Babli to Rebbi Abin (who might be identical with Rabin, a Galilean authority who escaped persecution by an emperor and became an authority in Babylonia.) Only the numbers given in the Yerushalmi tradition are composites of simple numbers; Samuel’s number is 16×11×17×19, whereas the Babylonian numbers have no decomposition into small factors. Now most of the numbers in the Babylonian sources (who have been copied and edited much more than the Yerushalmi and, therefore, are more likely to contain scribal errors) are close to Samuel’s number. One may, therefore, assume that the original number in all Talmud texts was 56848. In the Babylonian Talmud, the number given is from an anonymous Tannaïtic source which also adds: “Nobody can determine the moment exactly; only Bileam the sorcerer could do that.” In Antiquity (and the Middle Ages), all astronomical computations were done in the technique of the old Babylonians, in a number system based on subdivisions by 60. In general, divisions were executed only for numbers that have an easy reciprocal in the sexagesimal system, i.e., they are composed by factors of 60 (2, 3, 5, and their multiples). Instead of dividing, people looked up the reciprocal in a table and then multiplied. Samuel is the astronomer of most authority in the Talmud. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that his number, which is not invertible by the Babylonian method, is a good example that “nobody can exactly determine the moment” because 1/56848 is an infinite sexagesimal fraction. Hence, the comment of the Tanna, that “nobody can determine the moment exactly,” is implied in the number of Samuel and the Babylonian text is a derivative of the Yerushalmi text here.. Rebbi Nathan said three: (Jud. 7:19) “at the start of the middle watch.”

footnotes: ⁹² Since Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah had defined the time of the recital of Shema‘ ⁹³ Of this part there exist three Yerushalmi sources [the Talmud here, Midrash Ekha rabbati

Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Ammi⁹⁴ 3b) is a shortened version of the Yerushalmi (in particular, in the Ashkenazic manuscript tradition.)] in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi is (Ps. 119:62): “At midnight I get up to thank You for Your just laws.” And it is written (Ps. 119:148): “My eyes preceded night watches.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Abba, one explained the reason of Rebbi, the other the reason of Rebbi Nathan. He who explained the reason of Rebbi: “at midnight”. He who explained the reason of Rebbi Nathan (Jud. 7:19): “at the start of the middle watch.”⁹⁵ How does Rebbi Nathan uphold the basis of Rebbi’s reason, “at midnight”? Sometimes “at midnight,” sometimes “my eyes preceded night watches.” How is that? When David had a state dinner, “at midnight.” When he ate by himself, “my eyes preceded night watches.” In no case did dawn come and found David asleep. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9): “Wake up, my honor, wake up, o harp and lute, I shall awake dawn.” My honor has to be awake because of the honor of my Creator. My honor counts for nothing before the honor of my Creator. I shall awake dawn, dawn will not awake me. His evil instinct was trying to seduce him and told him: David, usually dawn awakes kings and you say “I shall awake dawn!” Usually kings sleep until three hours into the day and you say “at midnight I get up!” But he answers, “for Your just laws.” What did David do? Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Menaḥem⁹⁶ 4a. The Yerushalmi version is also found in *Pesiqta dRav Kahana,*ויהי בחצי הלילה, 13 and in Midrash Tehillim 119.: He took a harp, put it on his headboard, got up at midnight and started playing on it so that his companions in the study of Torah should hear it. What were his companions in the study of Torah saying? When king David studies Torah, certainly we have to do it also! Rebbi Levi⁹⁷ 3b. The verse quoted talks about the prophetic extasy of Elisha before king Jehoshaphat. R. Elazar Azkari explains that the verse from Kings can be taken to be parallel to Psalms 57:9 since in the latter verse the harp is also addressed directly, as a living being. said: a lute was hanging in David’s window and in the night the North wind was blowing and moving it and it was playing by itself. This refers to what is written (2Kings 3:15): “It happened when the musical instrument was playing.” It does not say “when he played on the musical instrument” but “when the instrument was playing”; it was playing by itself.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Rebbi Ammi (or Immi) was the successor of Rebbi Yoḥanan as head of the academy of Tiberias. Rebbi Zeriqan was another student of Rebbi Yoḥanan. Their argument goes as follows: King David declares that he is used to get up at midnight and also that he gets up at the start of some night watch. But if midnight is the start of a watch then the number of watches has to be even. [The parallel in the Babli (Berakhot ⁹⁵ See the preceding paragraph. ⁹⁶ Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Menaḥem was an Aggadist of the generation of Rebbi Ammi; Rebbi Phineas belongs to the following generation. A parallel Babylonian tradition is given in Babli Berakhot ⁹⁷ The preacher in the academy of R. Yoḥanan. A shortened version, without the reference to the story of Elisha, is a Babylonian tradition, by contemporary Babylonian teachers, in Babli Berakhot

How does Rebbi uphold the basis of Rebbi Nathan’s reason, “at the start of the middle watch”?⁹⁸ Rebbi Huna said: the end of the second and the start of the third split the night into two. Rebbi Mana said: Is this true? Does it say “watches”? No, it says “watch”! The first watch does not count since there the creatures are still awake.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ This is the logical end of the previous discussion that was interrupted by the aggadic interpretations of the verses sustaining the opinion of Rebbi. Both Rebbi Huna and Rebbi Mana belong to the fourth generation of Galilean Amoraïm, rather later than the authors of the previous section.

**New Section.**⁹⁹ “But the sages say until midnight.” Rebbi Yasa¹⁰⁰ 8b), Rav Yehudah says in the name of Samuel that practice follows Rabban Gamliël who allows the recital of Shema‘ after midnight in emergency cases. From the next “New Section” in the Yerushalmi it is clear that this is not the Israeli position; they forbid the recitation of the Shema‘ after midnight. The opinion of Samuel represents either the autochthonous Babylonian practice or the teaching of the Academy of Nahardea founded by Ḥananiah ben Ḥananiah, the nephew of Rebbi Joshua, at the time of the revolt of Bar Kokhba. in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows the Sages. Rebbi Yasa commanded his colleagues: if you want to study Torah then you should recite the Shema‘ before midnight and then study¹⁰¹ 1:2 that one interrupts everything he is doing to recite Shema‘ at its proper time. Hence, we may assume that all these scholars did recite Shema‘ in the synagogue. It was stated at the start that one reads Shema‘ in the synagogue, when Minḥa and Maäriv services are held together while it is still before sundown, to stand in prayer after studying words of Torah. [This Israeli practice was followed by Ashkenazic Jewry, whose ritual basically was Galilean, until the sixteenth Century as can be seen from Rashi to the first Mishnah, Ṭur Oraḥ Cḥayyim235 and the glosses of R. Moshe Isserls Oraḥ Cḥayyim 235. Because of the disapproval of the main commentators of Shulḥan Arukh, Magen Abraham and TaZ, the practice has disappeared in all Ashkenazic congregations except those of the old German rite.] The question here is whether the recitation of Shema‘ after nightfall is needed in order to fulfill the obligation of Shema‘ or whether it is needed to protect one’s sleep from evil influences. In the first case, one recites Shema‘ as soon as possible and then continues one’s normal activities; in the second case one may say Shema‘ only when one actually goes to sleep and then cannot say anything anymore before actually sleeping.. His words imply that the practice follows the Sages. His words imply that one may speak after Emet Weyaẓiv¹⁰² in the morning is אמת ויציב but in the evening אמת ואמוּנה; in Israel the same version, אמת ויציב, was recited morning and evening. We find a disagreement between Rashi and his grandson Rabbenu Tam about the practice of praying Maäriv immediately after Minḥah, before sundown. According to Rashi on the Mishnah, the practice of reciting the Shema‘ is exclusively to start the Amidah prayer after words of Torah. Hence, the only valid recitation is in the night. According to Rabbenu Tam (Tosafot Berakhot 2a), the prayers are held after plag haminḥah, not more than 1.25 variable hours before sundown, and according to an opinion of R. Yehudah mentioned later in the Mishnah, both Amidah and Shema‘ are valid prayers. According to Rashi, it is possible that the original minhag of the Jews in Israel did not imply that the benedictions before and after Shema‘ were recited in the synagogue and that, therefore, they had to be recited at home and could be combined with other prayers. It follows that “one may speak after אמת ויציב” can mean that one does not have to mention the praise of God for the redemption of Israel from Egypt immediately before starting the Amidah prayer. This interpretation is given by several commentators of the Yerushalmi, foremost among them R. Eleazar Askari. However, since the obligation to “connect the redemption to the Amidah” in evening prayers is given in the name of R. Yoḥanan in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 9b) it is difficult to state the opposite opinion here in the name of R. Yoḥanan.. It was stated: He who reads the Shema‘ in the synagogue during the morning service has fulfilled his duty; during the evening service he did not fulfill his duty¹⁰³, the foremost Ashkenazic authority of the early thirteenth century, writes that “I have received in tradition from Rabbenu Tam that practice does not follow any of these statements but R. Yehudah in Mishnah Berakhot 4:1.”. What is the difference between him who reads in the morning and him who reads in the evening?¹⁰⁴ (#1, vol. 1, p.5) and in Midrash Tehillim(4[9]) do not contain the sentence. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Joseph:¹⁰⁵ Why did they say, a man has to read the Shema‘ in his house in the evening? In order to make evil spirits flee. His words imply that one may not speak after Emet Weyaẓiv. The words of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥmani say the same. When R. Samuel ben Naḥmani descended for the intercalation¹⁰⁶, he was received by Rebbi Jacob the groats miller. Rebbi Zeïra was hiding among the crates to hear how he read [the Shema‘]; he read it over and over again until he drifted away in sleep. What is the reason? Rebbi Aḥa and his father-in-law Rebbi Taḥlifa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani (Ps. 4:5): “Tremble, do not sin, talk in your hearts on your couches and be silent, Selah.”¹⁰⁷’s notes in Shulḥan Arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim 239,1, as noted by the Gaon of Wilna.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Quote from the next part of the Mishnah that is going to be discussed. ¹⁰⁰ Rebbi Yasa in the Yerushalmi is Rabbi Assi in the Babli, the head of the Academy at Tiberias after the death of R. Yoḥanan. It seems that the procedures which R. Yasa recommended to his colleagues were not explicitly given by Rebbi Yoḥanan but reflected the general tradition of the Academy of Tiberias. In the Babli (Berakhot ¹⁰¹ One talks here about studying in the night. It is stated in Mishnah Šabbat ¹⁰² In the Babylonian ritual followed today, the benediction after Shema‘ ¹⁰³ This supports Rashi’s opinion. However, Raviah ¹⁰⁴ This question has no answer in the text and seems to be a marginal gloss copied into the text since the quotes of this section in Raviah ¹⁰⁵ Rebbi Ḥuna is a younger Galilean Amora and is not to be confused with Rav Ḥuna, the student of Rav and leader of the second generation of Babylonian Amoraïm. Rav Joseph is the Babylonian (bar Ḥiyya), leader of the third generation in Babylonia. Rebbi Ḥuna often quotes Babylonian authorities and, therefore, possibly was a Babylonian immigrant to Israel. ¹⁰⁶ Rebbi Shemuël bar Naḥmani (or Naḥman) was a student of the early Israeli Amora Rebbi Jonathan and one of the creators of the Midrash. The declaration of the addition of a month to the twelve month lunar year before the publication of the computed calendar was always made by an assembly of the leaders of the generation at a place called Callirrhoe (Ḥamat Gader). Rebbi Zeïra probably was too young at that time to be invited to the procedings but came to attend the gathering of the Sages, in order to learn from their ways.While in the Babylonian Talmud נחת means “to leave the Land of Israel”, in the Yerushalmi it can mean simply “to descend”, in this case into the Jordan valley from his residence in Lod. ¹⁰⁷ This paragraph is the basis of Rema

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi¹⁰⁸2:1). It follows that his way of reading the nightly Shema‘, which is the one followed today, is the oldest. In the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 4b) he is only reported to have stated the duty to read the Shema‘ before sleeping, with the reason of R. Samuel ben Naḥmani given by a Galilean Amora by the name of R. Yose or R. Assi. The psalms read by R. Joshua ben Levi are detailed in Babli Shevuöt 15b where it is noted that, while it is forbidden to use Biblical verses as charms in healing, it is admissible to recite them for protection. disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers¹⁰⁹” mean any insertion between the benediction גאל ישׂראל and the Amidah prayer. It does not follow that the expression must have the same meaning in the preceding section., since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah¹¹⁰ 42a) in the name of Rav.: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering¹¹¹, immediately after hand-washing comes benediction¹¹² 52b to the School of Shammai; this interpretation of the Yerushalmi is implied by R. Aqiba Eiger in his notes to Babli Berakhot42a.] In the Babli, Berakhot 42a, the same expression means that immediately after washing one’s hands after the meal one has to say Grace and is not allowed to eat anymore., immediately after redemption comes prayer¹¹³ prayer. This creates no problems in the morning prayers but is impossible in the evening since after the benediction (starting Emet Weëmunah or Emet Weyaẓiv) there follows at least one more benediction and a Qaddish to separate the recital of Shema‘ and its benedictions, an unconditional obligation at least from the institutions of the Men of the Great Assembly, and the Amidah prayer that in the night is of conditional Rabbinical character. When the principle “immediately after redemption comes prayer” was adopted also for the evening prayers (see preceding section), the intermediate pieces were declared to be “extensions of the thanksgiving for redemption.” The benediction immediately preceding the Qaddish was fixed by Babylonian Geonim to be a benediction for future redemption. The Qaddish itself may be a Gaonic institution.. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5)¹¹⁴. Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.¹¹⁵” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.”¹¹⁶”. The next psalm, disregarding the title “For the director, a psalm of David,” starts: “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Since psalms in ancient manuscripts were written without paragraph divisions, the description of God as redeemer and the mention of help through prayer are consecutive. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day¹¹⁷ 9b), in the name of the holy congregation of Jerusalem, i.e., the Tanna R. Yose ben Hammeshullam. To it is appended the story about Rebbi Zera (Zeïra)’s complaint, only there he had to bring myrrh to the king himself. Since R. Zeïra was a Babylonian immigrant to Israel, it is not clear whether his forced labor occurred in Babylonia, on the occasion of a visit of the Persian king, or in Galilee where he only had the opportunity to see the interior of the governor’s residence. The language of the story in the Yerushalmi points to its happening in Israel, while the language of the Babli points to the Persian empire. It cannot be decided where the incident happened.. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi¹¹⁸ 4b. said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ One of the great sages of the first generation of Amoraïm. He lived in the valley of Beth Shean (Demay ¹⁰⁹ Here it is obvious that “words after Emet Weyaẓiv ¹¹⁰ R. Abba bar Jeremiah seems to have been a Babylonian whose father (or uncle) was a contemporary of Rav and who was the teacher of Rebbi Zeïra (Rebbi Zera in the Babli) when the latter was still in Babylonia. The parallel teaching is mentioned, in the same wording but with a different meaning, in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot ¹¹¹ In the usual process of bringing a sacrifice in the temple, the votary has to press with his hand on the head of the sacrifice before the slaughter. ¹¹² It is clear from the following that the meaning here is that immediately after washing one’s hands, while drying them, one has to pronounce the appropriate benediction. [Possibly, it could mean that immediately after washing the hands one has to pronounce the benediction over bread that starts the meal. The urgency of starting the meal directly after washing one’s hands is ascribed in Babli Berakhot ¹¹³ This means that immediately after reciting the benediction: “Praise to You, o Lord, Who redeemed Israel,” one has to start the Amidah ¹¹⁴ Leaning and slaughtering are two obligations of the votary given in two consecutive verses. (However, leaning must be performed by the votary himself but slaughtering can be delegated to a third party.) ¹¹⁵ Hands lifted in holiness are washed hands. An allusion to this is found in the benediction that does not read “to wash the hands” but “to lift the hands.” ¹¹⁶ This derivation is a good example for the tendency of the Talmud to assume that everybody knows his Bible by heart and that it is enough to quote the start of a sentence in order to recall the entire sentence. The last sentence of Psalm 19 reads in its entirety: “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill before You, o Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer ¹¹⁷ This third statement is quoted in the Babli (Berakhot ¹¹⁸ In the Babylonian Talmud, he appears as Rebbi Ammi, colleague of Rebbi Assi/Yasa. In the Yerushalmi, his name usually is Immi. His simile is quoted by Rashi, Berakhot

New Section. “Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn.” The statement of Rabban Gamliel is parallel to that of Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon¹¹⁹ 8b), the statement occurs in two versions, either “sometimes a person reads the Shema‘ twice during the night”, or “sometimes a person reads the Shema‘ twice during the day” and there they have to explain that either the few minutes before the start of dawn are already counted as day because some people already get up or that the first minutes of dawn are counted as night because most people still are asleep. The statement in its Babylonian form is also in the Tosephta (Berakhot 1:1); in general, our Tosephta seems to be a Babylonian version. The Yerushalmi version avoids the ambiguity but in parallel to the Babli one has to assume that R. Simeon accepts that one may read Shema‘ twice within the span of a few minutes and fulfill two distinct obligations by the readings.: “Sometimes a person reads the Shema‘ [twice], once before dawn and once at dawn, and has fulfilled his obligation for day and night.” Hence Rabban Gamliel is like Rebbi Simeon for evening prayers, is he also like him in the morning? His position might be that expressed¹²⁰ by Rebbi Zeïra the Tanna¹²¹, the brother of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi¹²², and of Rav Abba bar Ḥana¹²³ in the Babli Yoma 37b. It seems to be a Tosephta from the collection of the Academy of Rav.: He who reads with the men of the Mishmar did not fulfill his duty because they were too early¹²⁴ were the priests who kept watch during the night at the Temple service. Since the Temple service started at the first signs of dawn, the men of the Mishmar [and the laymen accompanying them, the Maämad], had to finish their prayers before the start of service, i. e., before the first sign of dawn. The Yerushalmi does not try to answer the question raised, whether Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Simeon are of the same opinion for morning prayers, since it already had decided in the preceding section that the practice follows the Sages and, therefore, one may not recite the Shema‘ after midnight. Hence, the opinions of both Rebbi Simeon and Rabban Gamliel are of purely theoretical interest and no answer is required. In the Babli, the quote from Rebbi Simeon is given as a support to their decision that practice follows Rabban Gamliel. It seems to be the position of the Yerushalmi that in Temple times practice followed Rabban Gamliel in the Temple precinct and the Sages everywhere else..

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ He is Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥay, one of the students of R. Aqiba. In the Babli (Berakhot ¹²⁰ The Aramaic/Hebrew כיי דמר should be read as equivalent of Babylonian: כְּהַאי דְּאָמַר. ¹²¹ Meaning a person specializing in the memorizing and recitation of tannaïtic statements in the amoraïc period. A Tanna of the tannaïtic period never has the title “Tanna”. ¹²² One of the foremost students of Rav in Babylonia. ¹²³ First cousin and colleague of Rav and student of their common uncle Rebbi Ḥiyya. Their statement, slightly enlarged, appears as an anonymous baraita ¹²⁴ The Mishmar

Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the Sages and acts upon his opinion?¹²⁵ 23:2) “to yield to the majority”, a religious authority is not allowed to act upon his personal opinion if it disagrees with the majority. This principle is then illustrated by several examples. It therefore is a big question why Rabban Gamliel’s action is mentioned in the Mishnah without a disapproving remark. [The position of the Babli here is quite different: Since the action of Rabban Gamliel is mentioned in the Mishnah without a disapproving remark, it follows that general practice follows Rabban Gamliel since the practice of a religious authority overrides theoretical arguments.] Did not Rebbi Meïr disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion, did not Rebbi Aqiba disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion?

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Since it is written (Ex.

So we find that Rebbi Meïr disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. We have stated: One rubs olentia¹²⁶ “sweet smelling things” (E. G.). There are at least two kinds, one mixture used for medical purposes, and one, mentioned in Halakhah 6:6, to be used as air freshener in a house. The Babli (Šabbat 140a) defines medical אלונתית as a mixture of wine, olive oil, and balsamum, used to reduce fever. [Brill derives the Hebrew word from Latin (unguentum)oleamentum, an ointment made with a base of olive oil. Jastrow (followed by Krauss, Löw, and Lieberman) derives the word from Greek οἰνάνθη, οἰ̓νανθίς, Latin oenanthe, which however means only “bloom of the wild grape” and clearly is inapplicable here.] The entire quote is from Tosephta Šabbat 13 where it belongs to a sequence of statements that one may not use edibles for medicinal purposes on the Sabbath except if used also as food. For example, for a toothache it is possible to rinse the tooth with vinegar on condition that the vinegar then be swallowed; it is not admissible to spit out the vinegar after use. Hence, it is not allowed to mix wine and oil with balsamum on the Sabbath since that would make it inedible. The parallel quote in the Babli is Šabbat134a; the only difference in the texts is that the Babli and Tosephta have a purely Hebrew text while the Yerushalmi has the connecting remarks in Aramaic. on a sick person on the Sabbath; but only if it was mixed with oil and wine before Sabbath eve. But if he did not mix it before Sabbath eve it is forbidden. We have stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said: Rebbi Meïr did allow to mix wine and oil and to rub it onto a sick persion on Sabbath. When he fell sick, we wanted to prepare the same for him but he did not let us do it. We said to him: Our teacher, are you going to invalidate your words when your life is in danger? He said to us: even though I am lenient for others, I am stringent for myself because my colleagues disagree with me.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Latin olentia

So we find that Rebbi Aqiba disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ahilot 2:6): “Spine and skull from two dead bodies, a limb composed of limbs of two dead bodies, limbs taken from two living persons, Rebbi Aqiba declares them to be impure and the Sages declare them to be pure.”¹²⁷ 2:1. Flesh is causing impurity down to the volume of an olive but bones do so only if they are either the volume of a quarter qab (about .55 liter), most of the bones composing the skeleton in number or in importance, or skull and/or spine. [Whether one has to read שדרה וגלגולת as “skull and spine” or “skull or spine” is discussed inconclusively in Babli Nazir 52b ff.] We have stated:¹²⁸ 4:2; there the full name Theodoros is given to the chief surgeon. The Tosephta starts: “Rebbi Yehudah said: Six cases did Rebbi Aqiba declare impure and he changed his opinion; it happened …”, and ends: “Rebbi Simeon said: Until the time of his death did Rebbi Aqiba maintain that it should be impure; whether he changed his opinion when dying I do not know.” This means that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the vote at Lod showed that Rebbi Aqiba changed his opinion but, according to Rebbi Simeon, Rebbi Aqiba did not change his opinion, only he did not want openly to defy the opinion of the majority. We assume that the Yerushalmi here accepts the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, otherwise there is no proof here. It follows that also when the Yerushalmi quotes the Tosephta, sometimes the proof comes from the omitted parts. “It happened that they brought a chest full of bones from Kefar Tabi¹²⁹ to Lod and deposited it in the open air [the courtyard] of the synagogue. Theodoros the physician entered and with him all physicians. Theodoros declared that there was no complete spine from one dead person and no complete skull from one dead person. They said: Since we have here some who declare this pure and others who declare it impure, let us vote upon it. They started with Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it to be pure. They said: Since you had declared it impure, but now you vote for it to be pure, it is pure.”

footnotes: ¹²⁷ Purity and impurity mentioned here refer to transmission of impurity by a “tent”, since automatically everybody under the same roof with a corpse becomes impure; the “pure” bones mentioned here will still transmit impurity by touch. The conditions of impurity are spelled out in Ahilot ¹²⁸ Tosephta Ahilot ¹²⁹ Former Arab village Kafr Ṭab East of Lod.

So we find that Rebbi Simeon disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ševiït 9:1) “Rebbi Simeon says: all aftergrowth is allowed except the aftergrowth of cabbage because nothing similar grows wild¹³⁰, a Jew who cannot be trusted with the careful fulfillment of all his religious obligations. The Torah says not only that it is forbidden to plant and sow during the Sabbatical year but also (Lev. 32:5): “Do not harvest the aftergrowth of your harvest,” i. e., it is forbidden to commercially exploit the produce growing on one’s field from the seeds of the preceding year. It is, however, acceptable to collect from one’s fields small amounts for one’s daily needs (and even for storage as long as wild animals can find similar food on the fields.) Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that a poor person may offer anything for sale since he might (or probably did) collect them from wild growing plants which do not fall under the prohibition. The only exception is produce which is never found growing wild; such vegetables are forbidden for commerce in the production of one’s own field. The Sages, while agreeing that Rebbi Simeon’s position is the one which follows the Biblical precept closely, nevertheless as a Rabbinic ordinance forbid any such buying from untrustworthy people since it is too difficult to enforce the fine distinction made by Rebbi Simeon. Our example shows that Rebbi Simeon refrained from disagreeing in practice from the rest of the Sages even in purely Rabbinical ordinances. The man cursed by him probably did collect wild aftergrowth, or maybe was known to Rebbi Simeon as a landless person who, therefore, collected from growth on other people’s land that was declared ownerless (הפקר), otherwise his opponent could not have invoked R. Simeon’s own ruling. [This explanation follows Maimonides on the Mishnah. Babli Pesaḥim 51b has a different text, see the discussion in Mishnah Ševiït 9:1, and Kilaim, Halakhah 1:9, and the notes to the Mishnah edition of the Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud, Ševiït 9:1. The Rome ms. has here “forbidden,” influenced by the Babli.]. But the Sages say that all aftergrowth is forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai acted on this in a Sabbatical year. He saw a man harvesting aftergrowth. He said to him: Is that not forbidden, is that not aftergrowth? The man answered him back: Are you not the one who allows it? He retorted: Do not my colleagues disagree with me? He recited over him (Eccl. 10:6): “He who breaches a fence may be bitten by a snake”, and this is what happened to that man.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ The Mishnah deals with produce of the Seventh year offered for sale by an Am Haäreẓ

And Rabban Gamliel disagreed with the Sages and did act on his own opinion! There is a difference here since the recitiation of the Shema‘ is for study¹³¹. But then they could have read also after the start of dawn¹³²; the question seems to be whether it is preferable to read the Shema‘ twice if one forgot to recite it in the preceding period.] The question remains unanswered but this cannot be taken as rejection of the explanation.. Some want to say that in the other cases it was possible to uphold the words of the Sages. But here it was after midnight and they could no longer fulfill the precept of the Sages; so he told his sons to act according to his opinion¹³³.

footnotes: ¹³¹ As explained at the end of Mishnah 5. ¹³² And why did he tell them only to read before dawn? [Naturally, after dawn there already is an obligation to read the morning Shema‘ ¹³³ Since the Sages will agree in this situation.

We have stated “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”. Some people do not formulate “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”. Who formulates “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”? The Sages. Who does not formulate “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”? Rebbi Eliezer.¹³⁵ 9a], there is a Biblical prohibition of celebrating the Exodus after midnight. (Cf. the discussion in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 263–264.) Rebbi Eliezer’s argument goes as follows: The Bible prescribes that the Passover sacrifice should be eaten “in that night.” It also reports that the death of the Egyptian firstborn was “in the middle of the night”. Since the second occurrence of “night” is qualified by “middle” but the first is left indeterminate, and we subscribe to the opinion that, unless explicitly given otherwise, words in the Pentateuch have an invariable meaning, the first occurrence must also mean “midnight.” The Sages follow Rebbi Aqiba in pointing out that the first Passover had to be eaten “in a hurry”, the hurry of the Exodus that happened only the following day. Hence, the notion of “night” here is opposed to “day” and not restricted to the first half. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It is written here (Ex. 12:8) “in the night”, and it is written there (Ex. 12:29) “in the night”. Just as there it means midnight, so also here it means midnight. Rebbi Ḥuna¹³⁶ and in Pesaḥim (37d), the prohibitions mentioned in the Mishnah are Rabbinical. But the Babli in both cases (Berakhot 9a, Pesaḥim 120b) refers only to the opinions of Rebbis Eliezer and Eleazar ben Azariah that the prohibition is Biblical. says: “The eating of the Passover sacrifice” cannot be here even for the Sages since we have stated (Pesaḥim 10:9) “the Passover sacrifice after midnight makes one’s hands impure.”¹³⁹ at the end of his votary period when he cut his hair. Hence, all “holiest of holies” sacrifices are covered by our Mishnah but only a minority of “simple sacrifices”. There might be some justification for the reading “simple sacrifices” referring to the obligation of laity only who never ate “holiest of holies”; but then no special determination would be necessary.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ For the Sages, the obligation of eating the Passover sacrifices lasts during the entire Seder night; the limitation to the first half of the night is a Rabbinical ordinance. According to Rebbi Eliezer [and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Babli, Berakhot ¹³⁶ This is the form in which the name of the Galilean Amora R. Ḥuna appears most frequently in the Yerushalmi. It is probable that the Babylonian Amora Rav Huna (הוּנא) also originally was called חוּנא “the gracious one”, but in Babylonia every ח was pronounced as ה.Rebbi Ḥuna points out that, since we are agreed that this Mishnah and the following one deal only with Rabbinical ordinances, the mention of the Passover sacrifice is impossible since, by Rabbinical ordinance, the Passover sacrifice is ritually impure after midnight, for the same reason that voluntary offerings cannot be eaten after midnight as explained in the next Halakhah. Here is another fundamental difference between the Yerushalmi and the Babli. According to the Yerushalmi both in Berakhot ¹³⁹ This is the reading of the שׂרידי ירוּשלמי from the Cairo Genizah. The Leyden manuscript and the printed editions have קדשים קלים “simple sacrifices”. Zachariah Frankel already conjectured that the correct reading must be the one before us, as will be explained now.There were four kinds of animal sacrifices in the Temple. Of certain sacrifices of atonement, only the blood was sprinkled on the altar; the rest was burnt outside the Temple precinct. The flesh of the עוֹלה, “holocaust” (totally burnt), was all burnt on the altar. The usual sacrifices of atonement had to be eaten by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct, except that blood, fat, and certain organs had to be burnt on the altar. These sacrifices are called “holiest of holies” and had to be consumed during the day of sacrifice or the following night. Family sacrifices, שׁלמים, “peace”, or “payment”, or “wholeness” sacrifices, were eaten by the family of the votary (except for the blood and fat, which was burnt on the altar, and certain parts which were to be eaten by priestly families.) These family sacrifices were called “simple sacrifices”; most of them had to be eaten during two days and the intervening night. The only “simple sacrifices” to be eaten during one day were thanksgiving sacrifices and the sacrifice of the Nazir

“All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only,” these are the holiest of holies.¹³⁹ at the end of his votary period when he cut his hair. Hence, all “holiest of holies” sacrifices are covered by our Mishnah but only a minority of “simple sacrifices”. There might be some justification for the reading “simple sacrifices” referring to the obligation of laity only who never ate “holiest of holies”; but then no special determination would be necessary. “In that case, why did the Sages say, etc.?” If you would say until the start of dawn, one might think that dawn did not yet start and it would turn out that he eats in sin.¹⁴⁰ When you say to him: “only until midnight,” even if he does eat after midnight he will not incur guilt.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ This is the reading of the שׂרידי ירוּשלמי from the Cairo Genizah. The Leyden manuscript and the printed editions have קדשים קלים “simple sacrifices”. Zachariah Frankel already conjectured that the correct reading must be the one before us, as will be explained now.There were four kinds of animal sacrifices in the Temple. Of certain sacrifices of atonement, only the blood was sprinkled on the altar; the rest was burnt outside the Temple precinct. The flesh of the עוֹלה, “holocaust” (totally burnt), was all burnt on the altar. The usual sacrifices of atonement had to be eaten by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct, except that blood, fat, and certain organs had to be burnt on the altar. These sacrifices are called “holiest of holies” and had to be consumed during the day of sacrifice or the following night. Family sacrifices, שׁלמים, “peace”, or “payment”, or “wholeness” sacrifices, were eaten by the family of the votary (except for the blood and fat, which was burnt on the altar, and certain parts which were to be eaten by priestly families.) These family sacrifices were called “simple sacrifices”; most of them had to be eaten during two days and the intervening night. The only “simple sacrifices” to be eaten during one day were thanksgiving sacrifices and the sacrifice of the Nazir ¹⁴⁰ The determination of dawn was possible only for professional astronomers. In many cases, people would think that is was night when it was already dawn and then incur guilt by eating the sacrifices. In mid-month, with a large moon, the determination of the start of dawn is practically impossible for a non-professional. Midnight is no better defined than the start of dawn but a deviation from the true midnight would be harmless.

MISHNAH: From when on does one read the Shema‘ in the morning? From when one can distinguish between dark blue¹⁴¹ as a color obtained by dying with the blood of some marine snail but since the snail has not been clearly identified, the color cannot be established by experimentation. From the second paragraph in the Halakhah, it would seem that תכלת could also be green, like color of the sea or like grasses. Since both in Babli (Soṭa 17a, Menaḥot 35b, Ḥullin 89a, Sifri 115) and in Yerushalmi (here, Bemidbar rabba 14) sources the final comparison is with the sky, in modern Hebrew תכלת means “sky-blue” in contrast to כָּחוֹל “dark blue, color of kohl”. The old Greek Septuagint translation gives ὑάκινθος “hyacinth, a blue stone, perhaps aquamarine; also a blue flower.” Ashkenazic tradition has the color of תכלת as almost black since the stripes of our prayer shawls that symbolize the unavailable תכלת stripes of the tzitzit, are traditionally dyed black. Hence the chosen translation of “dark blue”. and white; Rebbi Eliezer says, between dark blue and the color of leeks; (he may read it)¹⁴² to Rosh. For its meaning, I am following here Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon and Rabbenu Tam who admit לגמוֹר אח ההלל, “to read the Hallel”, as benediction of the Ḥazan even if only half the Hallel is recited. until sunrise. Rebbi Yehoshua says, until three hours of the day since it is the rule of (sons of)¹⁴³ kings to rise at three hours. He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah.

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ The translation of תכלת is problematic. It is defined in Babli Menaḥot ¹⁴² The word in parentheses is found in the Mishnah preceding the chapter but is missing in the Mishnah here in the Halakhah. The word is also missing in most manuscripts of the Babli and in all early authorities, from Halakhot Gedolot ¹⁴³ Here again, the word in parentheses is found in the Mishnah preceding the chapter but is missing in the Mishnah here in the Halakhah, as well as in the Mishnah in the Babli. The story of the discussion of David with his יצר הר, fol. 2d, proves that the correct text does not contain the words “sons of”.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Between its¹⁴⁴, dealing with the obligation of tzitzit, was in Israel recited in abridged form during evening prayers. Hence, the tzitzit characterized the morning prayers. Each tzitzit contained three strands of white thread with one of tĕkhēlet. dark blue and its white. What is the reason of the Rabbis? (Num. 15:39) “You shall see it”¹⁴⁵., from what is close to it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “You shall see it”, that it should be recognizable among colors¹⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ “It” is the צצית, the fringes of the garment. We shall see later that the third section of the Shema‘ ¹⁴⁵ I. e., the תכלת thread among the white threads of the tzitzit ¹⁴⁶ That תכלת should be recognized not only as a color, but as its specific color.

We have stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: It does not say “you shall see it”¹⁴⁷. but “you shall see Him”. This tells you that anyone who keeps the obligation of tzitzit is as if he were admitted to the presence of God’s glory. This tells that tĕkhelet is similar to the sea. But the sea is similar to grasses, grasses are similar to the sky, the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, and the Throne is similar to sapphire¹⁴⁸ to the Throne of Glory, and the verse from Ezechiel provides the characterization as similar to sapphire., as it is written (Ez. 10:1): “I saw, and here by the spread that was on top of the Cherubim like sapphire stone, the looks of the form of the Throne.”

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ In Rabbinic Hebrew, ציצית is clearly feminine, plural ציציוֹת. Rebbi Meïr notes that the verb referring to ציצית in this verse is in the masculine form. Usually, this is taken to mean that in Biblical Hebrew, ציצית is masculine (parallel to masculine קֹהֶלֶת “the preacher”); but many dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew refrain from assigning a gender to the word. Rebbi Meïr votes for taking ציצית as feminine; hence the suffix in “and you shall see” cannot refer to the tzitzit ¹⁴⁸ The extended list is found only here; the other sources (quoted in the discussion of תכלת) only have the comparison of sea and sky.The Gaon of Wilna has noted that the last two items in the list are in inverted order; one should read: the sky is similar to sapphire, sapphire is similar to the Throne of Glory. We are interested in connecting tĕkhēlet

Others say: “ ‘You shall see it’, that a man should be four ammot¹⁴⁹ (cubit) has not been definitely established; it is between 18 and 24 inches. It is uncertain whether the Galilean and Babylonian ammot were the same measurements. distant from another man and recognize him.” Rav Ḥisda¹⁵⁰ says: (the practice follows)¹⁵¹ the statement of “Others”. What are we talking about? If he knows the other person, even at a great distance he will recognize him. If he does not know him, even close by he will not recognize him. We must talk about an occasional acquaintance, like a man who visits a hostelry at intervals.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ The size of the Talmudic ammah ¹⁵⁰ One of the greatest of the students of Rab, a leader of the second generation of Amoraïm in Babylonia. ¹⁵¹ אמר in the Yerushalmi often can mean “establishes practice to be followed”, parallel to the statement of Rav Huna, contemporary of Rav Ḥisda, in the Babli: “The practice follows ‘Others’ ”.

Some Tannaïm formulate: “Between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey.”¹⁵². In the Babli (9b), the first criterion is given by Rebbi Meïr, the second one by Rebbi Aqiba, and both are given independently of the Mishnah. In the Yerushalmi, no names are attached since both opinions are identified as alternatives “between dark blue and leek colored”, which is not the practice anyway. “Others” (אחרים) usually denotes Rebbi Meïr. In the Babli, the problem remains that the statement attributed to “Others” cannot belong to Rebbi Meïr. However, in the Yerushalmi it may well be that “between wolf and dog” is Rebbi Meïr’s restatement of Rebbi Eliezer’s criterion in the Mishnah, and “to recognize at 4 ammot” the same authority’s restatement of the criterion of the First Tanna in the Mishnah. But some Tannaïm formulate: “That a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him”. That is what we have¹⁵³ (R. Moshe Margalit) reads הוּא בָּעֵי מֵימַר “he (Rav Ḥisda, mentioned earlier) wants to say.” Then the entire statement is tentative, and רב חסדא אמר will simply mean “Rav Ḥisda said”, not as an authoritative statement. However, the commentary Pne Moshe (R. Moshe ben Ḥabib) reads הווּן בּעי מימר “they (or we) want to say.” to say that he who says between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey is parallel to him who says between dark blue and the color of leeks; he who says that a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him is parallel to him who says between dark blue and white. But they said that its preferred obligation is at sunrise so that one may join the mention of redemption to prayer and pray at daytime¹⁵⁴ as soon as one recognizes a person at a distance of 4 ammot. Hence, “they said” refers to those who adopt the criterion mentioned last. If one recites the Shema‘ slowly at sunrise and then says the benediction of Emet weyaẓiv, he will just say the Amidah prayer when the sun is clearly above the horizon and it is visibly day.. Rebbi Zeïra said: I found the reason (Ps. 72:5): “They will fear You with the sun.”¹⁵⁵ is “acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven”, this is in essence fear of God, and, hence, the verse refers to the reading of Shema‘ and not the prayer. It is clear that the prayer to be performed preferably at sunrise is the recitation of Shema‘. Mar Uqba¹⁵⁶, the Davidic ruler of the Jews in Babylonia, in the first generation of Amoraïm. It is interesting to note that this statement of the Babylonian Mar Uqba is reported in the Babli (9b) in the name of the later Rebbi Yoḥanan. Maybe each Talmud wanted to ascribe the deeds of ותיקין to an external source, not to be held to their standards, as explained in the next section. The explanation of ותיק has been given by A. Kohut in his ערוּך השלם, from the Arabic וַתִ֗ק “to have confidence, faith”. As explained by the Babylonian Talmud, they had faith in God that all the time spent in His service would not detract from their ability to earn a livelihood, and so they were rewarded with earning enough money for their needs in the time left over after religious services and deeds. said: The very religious were getting up early and reading the Shema‘ so that they could follow it directly at sunrise with the Amidah prayer.

footnotes: ¹⁵² Meaning the earliest time for reading the Shema‘ ¹⁵³ Pne Mosheh ¹⁵⁴ This is from the Tosephta (1:2) and is the end of the statement that in the morning one may say the Shema‘ ¹⁵⁵ The same explanation is given in his name in the Babli, hence he is really the author and not only the tradent. Since the first section of Shema‘ ¹⁵⁶ Resh Galuta

We have stated¹⁵⁷ 1:3; there R. Aqiba (who was the greater scholar) is mentioned before R. Eleazar ben Azariah (the vice president of the Synhedrion), and it is spelled out that they were occupied to attend to some public needs. We have a principle that he who is fulfilling a religious duty is free from engaging in any conflicting religious duty. The two sages therefore would have had the possibility of not reciting Shema‘ at all. The fact that they recited the Shema‘ shows that they considered the obligation of this recitation in full force until the end of the third hour and that, therefore, their prior occupation did not reduce the later obligation. This is explained more thoroughly in the next section. It seems that the text of the Yerushalmi is superior to the Tosephta since the vice president has precedence over a simple member and the mention of their being engaged in religious obligations is more to the point.: Rebbi Yehudah said: It happened that once I was walking behind Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba when they were occupied with duties and time came to recite the Shema‘ and I got the opinion that maybe they had given up on reciting the Shema‘, so I recited it and went over my studies¹⁵⁸; but after that they started and the sun was already over the mountain tops.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ Tosephta Berakhot ¹⁵⁸ Reciting from memory the material he had learned earlier from his teachers.

“Until sunrise.” Rebbi Zabida the son of Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Jonah¹⁵⁹: until the sun starts to appear¹⁶⁰ at the mountain tops. “Rebbi Joshua says, until three hours of the day.” Rebbi Idi, Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Ada bar Aḥava¹⁶¹. The name mentioned in the printed editions, אדא בר אחא, is not mentioned again in any Talmudic source. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa (Yerushalmi) is called Rav Ada bar Ahavah in the Babli; all teachers quoted here are students of Rav. In the Babli (10b), Rav Yehudah says in the name of Samuel: the practice follows Rebbi Joshua, without qualifications. It seems that in Israel one was reluctant to give up the recitation of the Shema‘ at sunrise but in Babylonia the practice of very early prayers was never established. in the name of Rav: The practice follows Rebbi Joshua for one who forgets. Rebbi Ḥuna told of two Amoraïm of whom one said ‘for one who forgot.’ His colleague responded: Do you ever fix practice for one who forgets¹⁶²? In fact, it is the practice. Why did they say, for one who forgot? That everybody should make an effort and read it at its best time.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ Of the leaders of the fourth generation of Amoraïm in Galilee. The first tradent was his student. ¹⁶⁰ Literally: “drips”, meaning that the first rays of the sun start to appear at the lower parts of the mountain silhouette. ¹⁶¹ The last name is correct in Seridé Yerushalmi ¹⁶² Since rules are made to be followed, not to be forgotten.

There (Šabbat 1:2) we have stated: “One interrupts for the recitation of Shema‘ but one does not interrupt for prayer.”¹⁶³ 9b. Of those who give the reasons for the difference in the treatment of Shema‘ and Amidah, Rebbis Aḥa and Yose belong to the fourth generation of Amoraïm in Israel, hence Rebbi Abba will also belong to that group. [There were too many Amoraïm by the name of Rebbi Abba to clearly distinguish between them.] The entire section here and the following one also appear in Yerushalmi Šabbat 1:2. Rebbi Aḥa said: The recitation of Shema‘ is a Biblical obligation; prayer is not a Biblical obligation¹⁶⁴ is Biblical, at least for the first verse [following the Babli (Teshuvot ha Rashba, #320)] or the first three verses [following the Yerushalmi, as seen here]. There is disagreement on the status of prayer. The Yerushalmi at the beginning of Chapter 4 follows the Sifri in the interpretation of the “service of the heart” mentioned in Deut. 10:12, 11:13 as prayer, which, therefore, is Biblical. Rebbi Aḥa does not accept this derivation; similarly, the Babli (Berakhot 21a) declares prayer to be a Rabbinical obligation.. Rebbi Abba said: The time for the recitation of the Shema‘ is fixed, the time for prayer is not fixed.¹⁶⁵ 1:1) who writes: “It is a positive commandment that one should pray every day as it is said: ‘you shall serve the Eternal, your God.’ Tradition teaches us that this service is prayer, as it is said: ‘to serve Him with all your heart’; the sages explain that the service of the heart is prayer. But the number of prayers is not from the Torah, neither is the formulation of the prayer from the Torah. Prayer has no fixed time from the Torah.” [Everybody agrees that the obligation of offering prayer three times a day is historical (Daniel 6:11) and the form of prayer is an institution of the Men of the Great Assembly.] This interpretation of the disagreement between Rebbis Aḥa and Abba is given by the great Sephardic commentators, Rabbis Eleazar Azkari and Moshe ben Ḥabib. There is a different interpretation possible, namely that Rebbi Abba wants to state that the time of Shema‘ is narrowly fixed, as we have seen, and once that time is passed, the omission cannot be repaired. For prayer, however, the rules are much more elastic. First, there is much more time given for the recitation; then it is possible to pray in advance of the time (as in the evening prayers held before sundown), and a missed prayer can be compensated for by praying the next time twice. Hence, in a real sense, even prayer in the Rabbinical sense has no fixed time compared to Shema‘. Rebbi Yose said: The recitation of Shema‘ does not need concentration, prayer needs concentration.¹⁶⁵ 1:1) who writes: “It is a positive commandment that one should pray every day as it is said: ‘you shall serve the Eternal, your God.’ Tradition teaches us that this service is prayer, as it is said: ‘to serve Him with all your heart’; the sages explain that the service of the heart is prayer. But the number of prayers is not from the Torah, neither is the formulation of the prayer from the Torah. Prayer has no fixed time from the Torah.” [Everybody agrees that the obligation of offering prayer three times a day is historical (Daniel 6:11) and the form of prayer is an institution of the Men of the Great Assembly.] This interpretation of the disagreement between Rebbis Aḥa and Abba is given by the great Sephardic commentators, Rabbis Eleazar Azkari and Moshe ben Ḥabib. There is a different interpretation possible, namely that Rebbi Abba wants to state that the time of Shema‘ is narrowly fixed, as we have seen, and once that time is passed, the omission cannot be repaired. For prayer, however, the rules are much more elastic. First, there is much more time given for the recitation; then it is possible to pray in advance of the time (as in the evening prayers held before sundown), and a missed prayer can be compensated for by praying the next time twice. Hence, in a real sense, even prayer in the Rabbinical sense has no fixed time compared to Shema‘. Rebbi Mana said: I objected before Rebbi Yose: Even if you say that the recitation of the Shema‘ does not need concentration, the first three verses need concentration. Since they are so few, one will concentrate upon their meaning.

footnotes: ¹⁶³ It is implied by the following discussion that one talks about groups of people engaged in the study of Torah. This situation is made explicit in Babli Šabbat ¹⁶⁴ Everybody in this discussion seems to agree that the basis of the recitation of Shema‘ ¹⁶⁵ Rebbi Abba is among those who accept prayer as a Biblical obligation. The clearest statement of that position is given by Maimonides (Hilkhot Tefillah ¹⁶⁵ Rebbi Abba is among those who accept prayer as a Biblical obligation. The clearest statement of that position is given by Maimonides (Hilkhot Tefillah

Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, we do not interrupt even for the recitation of Shema‘.” Rebbi Yoḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah¹⁶⁷, we do interrupt even for prayer.” This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Yoḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Yoḥanan says: “if only a man would pray the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain!”¹⁶⁸ Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said: “If I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that he should create two mouths for man; one for him to exert himself in Torah and the other one for his other needs.” But he changed his mind and said: “With one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of its denunciations¹⁶⁹, a, um, adj. to delatio, in late Latin delatura “accusation, information, denunciation,” the act of a delator, “government informer.” Because of an informer about his anti-Roman feelings, Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai and his son had to spend 12 years hidden in a cave (Babli Šabbat 33b, Yerushalmi Ševiit 9:1, fol. 38d). When he left the cave, he was so upset that people would engage in farming and commerce and not study Torah all day long that a heavenly voice ordered him back to his cave for another 12 months in order to get used to the world again. Both Talmudim consider his position appropriate only for exceedingly holy people.; if there were two how much more would there be? Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Yoḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabiah, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shema‘ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabiah said: just as they interrupt for Shema‘, so they interrupt for prayer, tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah”.¹⁷⁰ 2:6, cf. also Babli Sukkah 26a. The Tosephta also brings the opinion of Rebbi, that they do not interrupt for Shema‘, and a testimony that Rabban Gamliel and the Synhedrion at Yavneh did not interrupt sessions dealing with communal matters. Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies in order to do¹⁷¹ and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Yoḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the afterbirth he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and he does not push aside one study for the other study.¹⁷² recite Shema‘ since its recitation was replaced by his studies, but he did pray, even though the Mishnah seems to indicate that one omits prayer more easily than Shema‘. But did we not formulate:¹⁷³. “He is like a man reading in the Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. One is like the other.¹⁷⁴ Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was permanently studying Torah, did not prefer Shema‘ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not formulate: “He who reads (Shema‘) after that did not lose, he is only like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said: He who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.¹⁷⁵ in its proper time transcends both for everybody including scholars of the rank of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Mishnah here stands for the entire Oral Law, which was called Mishnah in the time of Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai. (See the parallel in Babli Baba meẓia‘ 33a.)

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Since we spend some time every day not studying. ¹⁶⁸ See Note 17. ¹⁶⁹ Latin delatorius ¹⁷⁰ While we have the principle that “he who is engaged in the fulfillment of a commandment does not have to worry about other commandments,” this does not apply to people whose entire occupation is the fulfillment of a commandment.The source is Tosephta Berakhot ¹⁷¹ He who does is one who fulfills the commandments of the Torah. He who does not is one who does not fulfill the commandments of the Torah. Someone who studies Torah with the intent of not fulfilling its commandments certainly has no part in the future world since he does not have the excuse of everybody else that he did not know enough to fulfill all commandments. This is clearly spelled out in the following lines. The question here is, how can Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai take a position that for all practical purposes identifies the actions of the most holy man with that of the deliberate sinner? ¹⁷² But he certainly will interrupt for all other obligations. In fact, the story of his stay in the cave notes that he and his son took off their clothes and sat covered with sand up to their necks in order not to wear out the clothes, and used them only for the times of prayer. This means that Rebbi Simeon did not ¹⁷³ In our Mishnah here in Berakhot ¹⁷⁴ This is a preliminary answer. Rebbi Yudan (Amora, colleague of R. Yose) tries to relativize the answer that it applies only to someone like Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai who spends his entire life studying and memorizing Torah. R. Abba Mari, one generation after R. Yudan, points out that this interpretation of the Mishnah is impossible but that one must take the statement of R. Simeon as an indication of his attitude in general. ¹⁷⁵ Studying Scripture is equal to studying the Oral Law in merit. Hence, reciting the Shema‘

MISHNAH: The school of Shammai say: In the evening, everyone must bend down¹⁷⁶ since, as a technical term, it is used only for formal recitation of Biblical texts. and recite and in the morning they should stand up since it is said (Deut. 6:7): “when you sit in your house or go on the road, when you are lying down and when you are getting up.” But the school of Hillel say: everyone should recite in the position he is in, since it says “or go on the road.” In that case, why does it say: “when you are lying down and when you are getting up;” this means the time when people go to sleep and the time when they are getting up.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁶ Means to lie down on a couch, or as on a couch. “Reciting” always refers to the Shema‘

HALAKHAH: They of the school of Hillel are able to explain both parts of the verse. How do those of the school of Shammai explain “when you sit in your house or go on the road”? “When you sit in your house”, to exclude those who are occupied with other religious commandments, “or go on the road” to exclude bridegrooms.¹⁷⁷ 11a. The bride is exempt from reciting the Shema‘ since women are freed from all positive commandments which have to be performed at set times. The bridegroom himself fulfills a divine commandment by getting married, but that fulfillment is really restricted to the short act of actual marriage and then to the first married intercourse; the exemption of the bridegroom from saying Shema‘ refers to the entire wedding feast when he is unable to concentrate even on the first verses.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ An almost exact parallel is found in the Babli, Berakhot

We have stated¹⁷⁸ 11a, Tosephta Berakhot 1:4, Sifri Deut. 34), R. Eleazar ben Azariah at first is sitting up and R. Ismael is reclining. This means that in the Babylonian version, the discussion was in the evening (also indicated in the Babylonian Talmud by a change in language, not “that they stayed at the same place” but that “they had dinner together.”) In our version, the discussion takes place in the morning. While R. Ismael, after R. Aqiba the greatest scholar of his generation, did certainly exceed R. Eleazar ben Azariah in scholarship, the latter was the vice president of the Synhedrion; it is more likely that R. Ismael was sitting upright at the start. They might have got up very early, before the start of dawn, when it still was possible to eat before praying. It is impossible to decide which of the two versions is the original.: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Ismael stayed at the same place and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was reclining while Rebbi Ismael was standing. When the time for the recital of the Shema‘ arrived did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah stand and Rebbi Ismael reclined. Rebbi Eleazar said to Rebbi Ismael, this is as when one says to someone in the market place, your beard is overgrown, and he says, that is against those who shave¹⁷⁹. I, who was reclining, stood up and you, who were standing, went on to recline. He answered him: You stood up following the school of Shammai, I reclined following the school of Hillel. Another explanation: That the students should not see me and make it the permanent practice to follow the school of Shammai.¹⁸⁰

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ In the Babylonian parallels (Berakhot ¹⁷⁹ I do it deliberately. Why did you do the opposite of what I am doing? ¹⁸⁰ Both explanations are necessary. R. Ismael did recline, not because it was required by the school of Hillel, but to spite the followers of the school of Shammai. He had to do this, even though the school of Hillel would have allowed him to continue standing, to give an example to the students. This shows that in all cases where there is a disagreement over practice, the actions of the leading Torah scholars count more than all theoretical arguments.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ṭarphon¹⁸¹ said: I was on the road and reclined to recite the Shema‘ following the school of Shammai. There I put myself in danger because of the robbers. They told him: It would have served you right to be in mortal danger since you transgressed the words of the school of Hillel.

footnotes: ¹⁸¹ The oldest of the Tannaïm of the second generation, who started his studies still before the destruction of the Temple, at the time of the ascendency of the school of Shammai. It seems that he was slow to adapt the practices he had learned as a child to those of the school of R. Yoḥanan ben Zakkai of the school of Hillel which was the only one to survive the war against the Romans.

HALAKHAH: In the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan¹⁸² 2:5 (fol. 41c) where Song of Songs 1:2, “May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth since your friendship is better than wine”, is discussed. In the transcription here, the first word fell out. It should read: The fellows (of the Yeshivah) in the name of R. Yoḥanan. In traditional interpretation, the Song of Songs is a dialogue between God and the people of Israel (represented by the girl); the question of the Mishnah was whether one reads דּוֹדָיִךְ (feminine) or דּוֹדֶיךָ (masculine) for “your friendship, your relations.”: The words of the scribes are related to the words of Scripture and are pleasant like the words of Scripture. (Song of Songs 7:10) “Your throat is like the good wine”; Simeon ben Abba in the name of R. Yoḥanan¹⁸³: The words of the scribes are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture. (Song of Songs 1:2) “Since your friendship is better than wine”; Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Pazi: You can know that the words of the scribes are more pleasant than those of Scripture because if Rebbi Tarphon did not recite at all he would have transgressed only a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the school of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says: (Proverbs 10:8) “He who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake.”

footnotes: ¹⁸² This entire Halakhah, until the next Mishnah, really belongs to Avodah zarah ¹⁸³ The members of the Yeshivah are of the second (colleagues of R. Yoḥanan) or the third (his students) generations of Amoraïm. R. Simeon bar Abba is one of the outstanding students of R. Yoḥanan. The two Amoraïm who explain the latter’s words are of the fourth and fifth generations, respectively.The “throat” of the Jewish people are the sayings of its sages; wine in both verses are the words of the Torah.

Rebbi Ismael did formulate: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sages all are severe¹⁸⁴, the men of the Great Assembly headed by Ezra and their successors before the period of the Rabbis, to be more restrictive than the original precepts of the Torah.. You can realize that this is so since we have stated (Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5): “If he¹⁸⁵ 10:5. The interpretation of the law is much more restrictive in the Babli than in the Yerushalmi. says there is no obligation of Tefillin against the words of the Torah he is not criminally liable. If he says that Tefillin have five sections, to add to the words of the Sages, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Ada¹⁸⁶, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets, since it is written (Micah 2:6): “Do not preach, they preach; Do not preach to those, that shame does not reach you.¹⁸⁷” And it is written (Micah 2:11) “I shall preach to you for wine and liquor.”¹⁸⁸ The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two of his palmatars¹⁸⁹ notes the word but gives no explanation. Mussaphia, in his Notes to Arukh, proposes the impossible Greco-Latin hybrid πόλεμο-- notarius, “secretary of war.” The best explanation seems to be that of A. Kohut, diplomatarius; the first syllable di was interpreted as Aramaic relative pronoun (Hebrew שֶׁ) and, therefore, dropped. Diplomatarius is a late (Byzantine) form of diplomarius, the holder of an imperial diploma, a “doubly folded” imperial order or privilege which gave its holder the right to use the imperial mails for transportation. The two diplomatarii arrive in the province by imperial mail but this does not imply that they are plenipotentiaries (since, sometimes, the privilege of using the mails was given to private citizens.) to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήθιον¹⁹⁰, do not believe him. About the other one he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal, believe him without seal and σημαντήθιον. So about a prophet is written (Deut. 13:2) “He gives you a sign or miracle.” But here it is written (Deut. 17:11): “According to the teachings that they will teach you”¹⁹¹ 25b, Sifri Devarim 153)..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ Since their essential duty is to build “a fence around the Law”, it is in the nature of the institutions of the Sopherim ¹⁸⁵ The Mishnah speaks about the זקן ממרא, the rebellious religious leader, who does not accept the rulings of the supreme court sitting in the Temple court. If he asserts something that goes against the text of the Torah, he is not dangerous and not criminally liable since every child that has learned to read realizes his error. But if he asserts something in contradiction to an authoritative teaching of the oral law asserted by the Synhedrion, then he has committed a capital crime.In the Babli, the reference is to Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹⁸⁶ A preacher of the fourth generation of Galilean Amoraïm whose name is quoted also as Ḥanina or Ḥinnena. His teacher R. Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya was from Kefar Agin (Umm Junia) South of the Sea of Galilee. ¹⁸⁷ Only false prophets will preach to such a generation, whereas the true prophet gets his orders from God not to preach. According to Rashi, טיף means “speak about your visions”, rather than the commonly used “preach”. ¹⁸⁸ The real inference is from the rest of the verse that is not quoted but assumed to be known to every student: “You shall preach to this people.” It follows that the prophet sometimes is ordered to be silent and sometimes to speak but the sage is ordered to teach at all times. ¹⁸⁹ The Arukh ¹⁹⁰ Hebrew word (חוֹתם) “seal” and its Greek equivalent given as parallels. ¹⁹¹ The reference is to the tradition attached to v. 9, that obliges one in cases of doubt to go the the Temple and ask “the judge who shall be in those days”. Since it is impossible to ask a judge who does not live in one’s days, this is taken to mean that any chief judge, even if not the most competent one, has the same status as any other living in another time. (Babli Rosh Hashanah

That means¹⁹² after the divine voice¹⁹³ was heard. But before the divine voice was heard, ¹⁹⁴ 2:3 (in a different version Sukkah 2:3). The main discussion in the Babli is Eruvin 6b. The 24 instances of restrictions of the school of Hillel where the school of Shammai is more lenient are enumerated in Tosephta Idiut 2. It is reported there that the most conscientious one of the followers of Shammai in the years before the destruction of the Temple, R. Yoḥanan ben Haḥoranit, followed the rulings of the school of Hillel in practice. The man who rebuilt Jewish learning after the destruction of the Temple, R. Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, was a student of Hillel. it was said of anyone who wanted to restrict himself and follow the restrictions both of the school of Shammai and that of Hillel: (Eccl. 2:14) “the fool walks in darkness;” anyone who followed the leniencies of both of them¹⁹⁵ was called an evildoer. But one had to follow either the leniencies and restrictions of one school or the leniencies and restrictions of the other. That was before the divine voice was heard. But after the divine voice was heard¹⁹⁶, practice always follows the school of Hillel and everyone who transgresses the rulings of the school of Hillel merits death. We have stated: “A divine voice came and said: Both of them are the words of the Living God but practice follows the school of Hillel”.¹⁹⁷ 6b. The language is tannaïtic, but the origin of the phrase is unknown. Where was the divine voice heard? Rebbi Bibi¹⁹⁸ in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The divine voice came in Jabneh¹⁹⁹ for the adoption of the rules of the school of Hillel by all of Judaism. It seems that the exact point in time was the reconstitution of the Synhedrion after the war of Bar Kokhba. While Talmudic literature is full of disagreements on practical points of Jewish practice, there is unanimity that the principles underlying all discussions are those fixed by the school of Hillel in Rabbinic (Pharisaic) Judaism. After the war of Bar Kokhba, we do not hear of any followers of the school of Shammai in practice, nor of Jews that are Sadducees in practice. In the Talmud (Babli Nidda 33b), R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) states that the Sadducees in his time follow Rabbinic practice. We know that the sect at Qumran were Sadducees and their Tefillin follow Sadducee rules; characteristically, they have many more Biblical quotes in addition to the required verses (cf. Y. Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran, Jerusalem, 1978). The Tefillin found with the Bar Kokhba letters in the caves of the Judean desert are of the same type. Hence, Sadducee practice did not completely stop until the war of Bar Kokhba. As far as Sadduceeism goes, its disappearance in practice can be dated to the aftermath of the war of Bar Kokhba. It is not believable that a man of the stature of Rebbi Tarphon would transgress a generally accepted practice supported by a divine pronouncement and by popular consent. Hence, the episode of Rebbi Tarphon must be dated in time before the bat qol. It is generally accepted that Rebbi Tarphon did not live to see the war of Bar Kokhba. This narrows the time of the bat qol to close to that war..

footnotes: ¹⁹² Referring to the statement in the Mishnah, that Rebbi Tarphon was told that he incurred guilt by following the teachings of the school of Shammai (with which he probably grew up). ¹⁹³ A בת קוֹל, “daughter of a voice”, is a sound carrying information of indeterminate origin. ¹⁹⁴ Tosephta Idiut ¹⁹⁵ In the opinion of the Babli, only in the case of two leniencies whose theoretical bases contradict one another. Similarly, the fool is one who follows contradictory rigidities. ¹⁹⁶ This is an explanation of the Tosephta, rather than a duplication of the earlier note on the Mishnah. ¹⁹⁷ The same statement is in Babli Eruvin ¹⁹⁸ Since in Talmudic times every ב or בּ was pronounced /v/ in Galilee under the influence of Byzantine Greek, his name probably is a shortening of Latin Vivianus, חַיִּים. R. Bibi was one of the notable students of R. Yoḥanan. ¹⁹⁹ The Synhedrion was at Jabneh between the two wars against the Romans and held there its first meeting when it was reconstituted after the persecutions that followed the war of Bar Kokhba. Afterwards, it moved to Galilee permanently. This gives a terminus ad quem

MISHNAH: In the morning he offers two blessings before [the Shema‘] and one after. In the evening he offers two blessings before and two after, one long and one short. At a place where they²⁰⁰ said to make it long he is not allowed to make it short, short he is not allowed to make it long. To seal²⁰¹ he is not allowed not to seal, not to seal he is not allowed to seal.

footnotes: ²⁰⁰ The men of the Great Assembly. ²⁰¹ “To seal” means to start the last sentence of the benediction with the words “Praise to You, o Eternal, …”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Because of²⁰². The first opinion, ascribed to an early Amora, gives the reason why the two recitations should be parallel and why each one has to include a benediction of thanks for the Torah, since the recitation of the Shema‘ also helps to fulfill the obligation of Torah-study in a minimal way. The second opinion, by a late Amora in the name of one of the first ones, explains the asymmetry in the numbers since they must add up to the odd number of 7. Since in Halakhah 9 (and in the Babli, Berakhot 14b) it is reported that in Israel one did not recite the entire last section of Shema‘ in the evening, Rebbi Simon also gives a reason for the asymmetry: In the evening one recites 4 benedictions and 2 sections, in the morning 3 benedictions and 3 sections, for a total of 6 morning and evening. In the next section it is clear that Rebbi Simon makes a distinction between the first two and the third sections of Shema‘, a distinction rejected by Rebbi Levi from the circle of Rebbi Yoḥanan. (Jos. 1:8): “You should think about it day and night”, that the thinking of day and night should be equal. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of (Ps. 119:164): “Seven times a day I praise You for Your just laws.” Rebbi Nachman in the name of Rebbi Mani²⁰³ with its benedictions regularly, every evening and every morning, cannot be considered transgressing the obligation of Torah study even if he does not study otherwise. In contrast to the first two statements, this one has practical consequences.: Everybody who keeps “seven times a day I praise you” is as if he kept also “you should think about it day and night”²⁰⁴ 99b, Rebbi Yoḥanan reports in the name of R. Simeon bar Yoḥai that reading the Shema‘ alone is enough; no mention of the necessary benedictions..

footnotes: ²⁰² The reason is sought for benedictions before and after the recitation of Shema‘ ²⁰³ Usually, Rebbi Mani in the Yerushalmi is R. Mana the first, an Amora of the first generation. However, Rebbi Naḥman, the preacher, is an Amora of the last generation in Galilee, a student of Rebbi Mana the second. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that R. Mani here is R. Mana the second. However, since the late R. Yose bar Abin transmits in the name of the very early R. Joshua ben Levi, it is not impossible that the name of R. Mani is transmitted correctly.The statement of R. Mani implies that anybody who recites Shema‘ ²⁰⁴ In the Babli, Menaḥot

Why does one read these two sections every day? Rebbi Simon says because they mention lying down and getting up. Rebbi Levi said, because the Ten Commandments are contained in them²⁰⁵, he cannot agree that in the evening one should recite only two sections. In the Babli (Berakhot 12b), the third section of Shema‘ is singled out for its importance because five of the Ten Commandments are alluded to in it.. “I am the Eternal, your God.” - “Hear²⁰⁶, o Israel, The Eternal, our God.” “You should not have any other gods before me.” - “The Eternal is One.” “Do not take the name of the Eternal, your God, in vain.” - “You must love the Eternal, your God.” He who loves the king will not swear in his name and lie. “Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it.” - “So that you shall remember;” Rebbi said: that is the commandment of Sabbath which is as important as all other commandments of the Torah together, as it is written (Neh. 9:14): “You informed them about Your Sabbath, commandments, laws, and Torah you commanded them, …” to show that it is as important as the other commandments of the Torah²⁰⁷. “Honor your father and mother” - “So that your days and the days of your children should increase.²⁰⁸” “Do not murder” - “You will soon be lost.” He who kills will be killed. “Do not commit adultery” - “Do not stray after your hearts and after your eyes.” Rebbi Levi said: heart and eye are the two agents of sin. It is written (Prov. 23:26) “My son, give Me your heart; your eyes should watch My ways.” The Holy One, Praise to Him, says: If you give me your heart and eyes I know that you are mine²⁰⁹. “Do not steal” - “You shall harvest your grain,” not your neighbor’s grain²¹⁰ 86a, that the Ten commandments forbid kidknapping, a capital crime like murder and adultery. The Babli’s opinion is found also in Mekhilta deR. Ismael (Jithro 5), which possibly was edited in the Academy of Rav in Babylonia. The same attitude as here, that all stealing is prohibited, is found in Mekhilta deR. Simeon bar Yoḥai, p. 153.” “Do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness,” - “I am the Lord, your God.” And it is written (Jer. 10:10) “But the Lord is the God of truth.” What is truth? Rebbi Abun said: that (Jer. 10:10) “He is God of life and king of the world.” Rebbi Levi said: The Holy One, praise to Him, said, if you gave false testimony against your neighbor, I count that against you as if you gave testimony against Me that I did not create heaven and earth²¹¹ 14b, on the statement that one is required to end the recitation of Shema‘ with “the Eternal is the God of truth.” Rabbi Abun (Rabin) was a younger contemporary of R. Levi.. “Do not covet your neighbor’s house” - “You shall write them on the doorposts of your house,” your house and not your neighbor’s house.

footnotes: ²⁰⁵ Since Rebbi Levi depends heavily on the third section of Shema‘ ²⁰⁶ As R. Shelomo ben Adrat (Rashba) points out, שמע can mean “hear, understand, or accept.” ²⁰⁷ Since the Sabbath alone is given a parallel status to “Torah” in this verse. ²⁰⁸ This promise is connected with honoring father and mother in the Ten Commandments of Deuteronomy. ²⁰⁹ The connection seems to be from the following verse: “Because a dark ditch is the harlot and a source of trouble the strange woman.” ²¹⁰ This contradicts the opinion of the Babli, Sanhedrin ²¹¹ This argument is the base of Rashi’s commentary on Berakhot

There it was stated (Tamid Mishnah 5:1): “The official in charge told them²¹² for the Ninth of Av.: recite one benediction! and they recited one benediction.” What benediction did they recite? Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel²¹³: that is the benediction for the Torah. “Then they recited the Ten Commandments and the three sections of Shema‘.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: that means that the benedictions are no obstacle²¹⁴, it follows that the non-recitation of the benedictions preceding and following the Shema‘ does not invalidate the recitation of Shema‘ itself. The Babli (11b) has a totally different approach. First, they note that Rav Mattanah did not know what benediction was recited in the Temple and then they report that Rav Yehudah said in the name of Samuel that the second of the daily benedictions preceding the Shema‘ was recited. Rebbi Ammi in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted that “benedictions do not invalidate one another”, i. e., the recitation of the second before the first is not an obstacle. The essential difference is that for the Babli, the last benediction before Shema‘, which is praise for the Torah and its study, may take the place of the explicit benediction for the Torah (e. g., for somebody who came late to the Synagogue and is reciting that benediction before he had a chance to recite the benediction for the Torah), whereas the Yerushalmi requires two benedictions unless one starts studying after the recitation of the Shema‘ without interruption; see below and Tosaphot Berakhot 11b, s. v. שכבר.. Rebbi Abba said: From here you cannot draw any inference because the Ten Commandments contain the essence of *Shema‘*²¹⁵ were instituted for Shema‘ only, they are not applicable to the Ten Commandments; hence, the Ten Commandments, if recited at the start of the service, require the benediction for the Torah. On the other hand, in the preceding section is was shown that Shema‘ contains allusions to all of the Ten Commandments. Hence, Shema‘ is in a sense a duplication of the Ten Commandments and a separate benediction would be out of place.. Rav Mattanah and Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman both say that it would have been logical to require that the Ten Commandments should be recited every day. Why does one not recite them? Because of the arguments of the Christians²¹⁶, that they should not say that only these were given to Moses at Sinai.

footnotes: ²¹² This Mishnah deals with the details of the Temple service, in particular the prayers of the priests before the start of dawn and beginning of services. The official in charge was one of the small permanent staff of the Temple; the priests themselves were divided into 24 “watches”, one of which served in the Temple from the placing of new show-bread on the Sabbath to its removal the next week. These “watches” are remembered in several kinnot ²¹³ Rav Mattanah was a student of Samuel, the head of the Academy of Nahardea and representative of the Babylonian tradition in Talmudic studies. ²¹⁴ Since it is implied that the priests fulfilled their duty of reciting the Shema‘ ²¹⁵ Since the benedictions for the Shema‘ ²¹⁶ מִין always denotes a Jewish Christian. In the Babli (12a) it is said that “the reading of the Ten Commandments was stopped because of the propaganda of the (Jewish) Christians.”

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Yehudah bar Zebida²¹⁷: It would have been logical that one also would have to recite the chapter of Balaq and Balaam every day²¹⁸ 23:7–24:25.. Why does one not recite it? Not to incommodate the public too much. Rebbi Ḥuna said, because it mentions lying down and standing up²¹⁹ 23:24, 24:9.. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, because it contains the Exodus and God’s kingdom²²⁰ 24:8, 23:21.. Rebbi Eleazar said, because it is written in the Torah, in the Prophets, and in the Hagiographs.²²¹ 6:5, in the Hagiographs Neḥemiah 13:2

footnotes: ²¹⁷ A Galilean Amora of the second generation, possibly a student of Rav in Babylonia. He is also the author of the parallel statement in the Babli (12b). The statement of Rebbi Ḥuna is given in the Babli in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Abun. The reasons of Rebbi Yose bar Abun and Rebbi Eleazar in the Yerushalmi are missing in the Babli. The quotes in the Babli are all in the name of Galilean authorities. ²¹⁸ The blessings of Balaam, Num. ²¹⁹ Num. ²²⁰ Num. ²²¹ In the Torah as indicated; in the Prophets Michah

²²².“The official in charge told them: recite one benediction! and they recited one benediction.” What benediction did they recite? Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel: that is the benediction for the Torah. But they did not yet recite “Creator of the Lights!²²³, a celebration of God’s creation of the sun. The corresponding benediction in the evening is a celebration of God’s making the world revolve alternatingly into darkness and light.” Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: there is no light yet and you want to recite “Creator of the Lights”?

footnotes: ²²² In the Babli, this piece would be introduced by גוּפא “let us return to our main theme.” Such a reference is always missing in the Yerushalmi. In the Babli, this argument is an anonymous tentative statement (12a). Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, is an Israeli Amora of the fourth generation. His brother, Rebbi Berekhiah, is one of the authors of the oldest sections of Midrash Rabba ²²³ The first benediction before the Shema‘

(Tamid Mishnah 5:1) On the Sabbath they add one benediction for the departing watch. What kind of benediction? Rebbi Ḥelbo²²⁴ said, that is it: May He Who resides in the Temple plant among you brotherliness and love, peace and neighborliness.

footnotes: ²²⁴ A Babylonian, student of Rav Huna and colleague of Rav Sheshet, who emigrated to Galilee and became student of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman and Rebbi Ammi. He was the main teacher of Rebbi Berekhiah. His statement appears in the Babli in identical form (12a).

Samuel said: If one got up early to study before he recited the Shema‘ he has to recite the benediction. After the recitation of Shema‘ he does not have to recite the benediction. Rebbi Abba²²⁵ is no substitute for the benediction on the Torah. The statement of Rebbi Abba, Babylonian immigrant to Israel, former student of Rav Yehudah, the student of Samuel, harmonizes Babylonian practice, expressed by Samuel, with Israeli theory by accepting the Babylonian practice but making it impracticable. על אתר is the same as Babylonian לאלתר “on the spot, immediately.” said, that is only if he studied immediately. Rebbi Ḥuna²²⁶ said: It is reasonable to say that for exegesis²²⁷ one has to recite the benediction, for practical rules²²⁸ one does not have to recite the benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Both for exegesis and for practical rules one has to recite the benediction. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: When we were sitting before Rav, he always required us to recite the benediction both for exegesis and for practical rules²²⁹ on the Torah, thus combining all aspects of Torah study. In the version of the Babli, the statement of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi is separate from the preceding discussion and seems to indicate that the different aspects of Torah study should not be separated, in contrast to the Yerushalmi version..

footnotes: ²²⁵ The opinion of the Yerushalmi is that the benediction before Shema‘ ²²⁶ From the parallel in the Babli (11b) and the order of statements it seems that “Rebbi” here in the Yerushalmi is a scribal error for Rav; the author of the statement is Rav Huna, the student of Rav from the family of the Resh Galuta. The discussion in the Babli is much more detailed, starting with the study of Scripture and going into the details of the sections of the Oral Law. ²²⁷ It seems that here מדרש includes both exegesis of the Torah and exegesis of the Oral Law, anything that is not obvious either from a biblical verse or from a Mishnaic statement. ²²⁸ Practical rules, הלכה, refers to the memorization of fixed statements which are immediately applicable, whether a Mishnah, Tosephta, or a deciding statement of an Amora. ²²⁹ In the Babli (11b), Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the student of Rav, notes that for his early morning class, Rav washed his hands, recited the benedictions, and proceded to teach the Midrash Halakha

It was stated²³⁰ is in Babli Yoma 37b.: He who recites with the men of Maämad²³¹, were the representatives of the Jewish people at the daily sacrifices. Since these sacrifices started very early, the men of Maämad had to participate before they could hold their prayers. Therefore, they started their morning prayers only after the daily morning sacrifice was completed. By that time, it was later than three hours into daylight and anyone else would be too late in their recitation. has not done his duty since they were too late. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ammi: In the days of Rebbi Yoḥanan we went out for a fast-day and recited Shema‘ after three hours and he did not oppose us²³², was said. By the time that a great many people were assembled and the sermon was given, it was rather late, later than three variable hours (one quarter of the time between sunrise and sundown).. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa went out for a fast-day. The public came and recited Shema‘ after three hours. Rebbi²³³ Aḥa wanted to oppose them. Rebbi Yose said to him: Did they not recite at its due time²³⁴, now they only recite it in order to stand in prayer after words of the Torah. He answered back: It is because of the uneducated, who should not say that the recitation was in its correct time²³⁵.

footnotes: ²³⁰ A somewhat different version of this baraita ²³¹ The land of Israel was divided into 24 districts, corresponding to the 24 families of priests, and every week a select group of laymen from the district in charge of the week came to Jerusalem to be present at the sacrifices. Since public sacrifices were brought on behalf of the entire people, a sacrifice must be brought with its owners being present. The lay delegation, the Men of Maämad ²³² In Israel, a fast day usually meant a day of fasting for rain. The services for these fast days were always held in the public square, therefore one had “to go out”. Also, the sermon was given before the start of prayers since a sermon after prayers would not do much good and on fastdays the regular service, with an extended Amidah ²³³ The reading רב that is found in all printed editions and manuscripts is clearly a copyist’s error; the entire discussion is about rain fasts in Israel and only Israeli scholars are involved. ²³⁴ At the time of the morning benedictions that were said at home, not in the synagogue. ²³⁵ The disagreement between Rebbis Yose and Aḥa is not resolved in the Yerushalmi.

These are the benedictions that one makes long²³⁶ 1:6. In Tosephta 1:7, the list of the short benedictions is repeated as that of benedictions which do not have a separate ending (where, however, Rebbi Yose Hagalili disagrees about the fourth benediction of Grace.) Towards the end of the Halakhah here, Rebbi Yudan will explain that Tosephta 1:7 gives the definition of “short” in the Mishnah and Tosephta 1:6; hence, it follows that “long” is identical with “having a separate ending: Praise to You, o Eternal, …” That identification has been accepted by most Medieval authorities. However, originally the definition seems to have been the one given here and in Tosephta 1:6, viz., that there exist benedictions, those of Musaph of Rosh Hashanah, all prayers of Yom Kippur with the Confessions, and the additional benedictions in the prayer of a public fast for rain (a lengthened Seventh benediction followed by six additional ones, detailed in Mishnah Taänit 2:4) which were not those of the congregation, but of the cantor who in Israel at that time was supposed to present his own compositions, and those of the list had to be long. Then there exists a short list of short benedictions that may not be lengthened by poetic insertion. And finally, there exist the benedictions not mentioned here at all, like the benedictions before and after the recitation of Shema‘, where it seems the cantor may produce poetic insertions without being characterized either as scholar or as uneducated.: the benedictions for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and the benedictions for a public fast day. From his benedictions one can tell whether someone is a scholar or is uneducated. These are the benedictions that one makes short: He who makes a benediction over a commandment and on fruits, the introductory paragraph of Grace²³⁷, Hilkhot Seüdah, #16) read “the benediction over food (מזון)” instead of zimmun (זימון), the introductory paragraph. This reading would explain the seemingly redundant “Grace after a meal” but is it not supported by any manuscript either of the Yerushalmi or the Tosephta. Sefer**Hamanhig explains this “benediction over food (מזון)” as the benediction before the meal., and the last benediction in Grace after the meal²³⁸, Alfassi Berakhot 36a). The extensions that today make the benediction short in form but long in text are mainly of Babylonian origin; cf. the discussion in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 358–359.. Hence, all other benedictions one should make long. Ḥizqiah²³⁹ said: From what we have stated: He who makes it long is despicable, he who makes is short is praiseworthy, which means that this is not a principle²⁴⁰. We have stated: One has to make long the benediction “Who saves Israel” on a fast day²⁴¹. Hence²⁴²., the six additional benedictions he should not make long. Rebbi Yose said: You should not say: because this is part²⁴³ of Shemoneh Esreh one should not make it long, therefore it is necessary to say: One has to make long the benediction “Who saves Israel” on a fast day.

footnotes: ²³⁶ In a different order (short, long, recognize) the statement is found in Tosephta Berakhot ²³⁷ Some Medieval authors (e. g. Sefer Hamanhig ²³⁸ The last benediction was originally only “Praise to You, o Lord, King of the Universe, Who is good and does good” (Talmid Rabbenu Yonah ²³⁹ One of the twin sons of Rebbi Ḥiyya, collaborator of Rebbi Yehudah the Prince. ²⁴⁰ The benedictions not mentioned may be enlarged by poetic insertions but do not have to be long. ²⁴¹ With poetic or Biblical insertions. ²⁴² Since the next six benedictions are not mentioned in this baraita ²⁴³ Of the everyday prayers. One has to assume that Rebbi Yose would classify the קרובץ insertions on Purim as short.

These are the benedictions for which one bows down²⁴⁴ and its benedictions at all but about the eighteen benedictions of the Amidah, the subject of Chapters 3 and 4. In the Babli, the place of this discussion is in Chap. 4, p. 34a. The reason that the subject is taken up in this context in the Yerushalmi is that in the Tosephta (Berakhot 1:8) it is dealt with immediately after the discussion of short and long benedictions. (In Tosephta and Babli, the verb “to bow down” is שחה, not שחח as in the Yerushalmi. This is another indication that the Tosephta in our hands today is a Babylonian edition of an originally Israeli text.): The first²⁴⁵ and before the benediction “Shield of Abraham.”, beginning and end; “thanks”, beginning and end. One who bows down for every benediction is taught that he should not bow down²⁴⁶. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman²⁴⁷ in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The High Priest bows down at the end of every benediction; the king at the start and the end of every benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Once the king bows down deeply he does not get up until he finishes his entire prayer²⁴⁹ 5:4 where it is reported that Rabban Gamliel, on occasion of the joyous dance for the drawing of water on Sukkot not only had a fire dance with eight different torches swirling in the air but also showed “bowing down to one’s knees” as making a push-up by supporting oneself not on two hands but only on two fingers. This introduction has fallen out here and the two termsכריצה, בריכה have been switched. What the Yerushalmi calls בריכה, the parallel in the Babli (Megillah 22b, also Berakhot 34b) calls קידה, “falling on one’s face”.. What is the reason? (1Kings 8:54) “It was when Solomon finished all this prayer and supplication to the Eternal, he got up before the Eternal’s altar and did no longer bow down on his knees.”

footnotes: ²⁴⁴ Here one does not talk about the recitation of the Shema‘ ²⁴⁵ At the very start of Shemone Esre ²⁴⁶ Either because he imitates behavior reserved for the High Priest or because he is ostentatious in his religiosity, an objectionable behavior. ²⁴⁷ One of the students of R. Joshua ben Levi in the early Talmudic period. ²⁴⁹ The origin of this short insertion is Sukkah

²⁴⁹ 5:4 where it is reported that Rabban Gamliel, on occasion of the joyous dance for the drawing of water on Sukkot not only had a fire dance with eight different torches swirling in the air but also showed “bowing down to one’s knees” as making a push-up by supporting oneself not on two hands but only on two fingers. This introduction has fallen out here and the two termsכריצה, בריכה have been switched. What the Yerushalmi calls בריכה, the parallel in the Babli (Megillah 22b, also Berakhot 34b) calls קידה, “falling on one’s face”. What is bowing down to one’s knees and what is kneeling? The great Rebbi Ḥiyya demonstrated kneeling before Rebbi, he got up lame and was healed. Rebbi Levi ben Sisi demonstrated bowing down to his knees before Rebbi, he got up lame and was not healed.

footnotes: ²⁴⁹ The origin of this short insertion is Sukkah

(1Kings 8:54) “His hands raised to Heaven.”²⁵¹ Rebbi Ayvu said: He was standing as if inanimate. Rebbi Eleazar bar Avina said: He made clear that these palms did not get at all dirty during the building of the Temple²⁵² 29:1–9) not a penny was sticking to his own palms..

footnotes: ²⁵¹ This is the end of the verse quoted earlier for Solomon’s prayer. The text of the Venice edition here is inferior to that of the Rome manuscript that has been followed. (In the Venice print: הזהיר is missing, נטפו for ינטפו.) As Levy recognized, נטף is the same as טנף. ²⁵² He seems to emphasize that Solomon raised his “open hands”, not his “hands”, to show that from all the riches that David had assembled for the building of the Temple (1Chr.

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaül²⁵³. The Babli (Berakhot 34b) quotes that Rava, Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet actually fell down on their knees for modim; the Talmud quotes a baraita which explicitly forbids falling down on one’s knees. Louis Ginzberg assumes that in Israel, falling on one’s knees was always strictly forbidden since their synagogues were built of stone with stone floors and falling on one’s knees on a stone floor outside the Temple is forbidden. In Babylonia, where synagogues were brick with hardened dirt floors, falling on one’s knees was permitted. stated: Everybody bows down with the cantor for the benediction of thanksgiving. Rebbi Zeïra said: But only for the word modim. Rebbi Zeïra was attentive to the Qeroba²⁵⁴ is the cantor, the שליח ציבור, who presents his own poetic offering of the prayer, the qerovut, קרובות or קרובץ, to the congregation for the repetition of the Amidah, as noted by L. Ginzberg. סבר here seems to mean “to be attentive”, as in the exclamation before the qiddush סברי “please pay attention”. It seems that Rebbi Zeïra timed his thanksgiving, one of the longer texts given here, so he could end his benediction in unison with the cantor. to bow his head at the beginning and at the end. Rebbi Yose when he came up here²⁵⁵ from Babylonia to Israel. The Babli (Soṭa 40a) also reports very short texts by Rav, Samuel, Rebbi Simai (also of the generation between Tannaïm and Amoraïm) and a slightly longer one by Rav Aḥa bar Jacob (a student of Rav Huna, the student of Rav). Most of these texts are so short that they do not lead to the congregation whispering for any length of time. saw them bowing down and whispering. He said to them: What is this whispering? He had not heard what Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Simeon said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah²⁵⁶, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Miasha²⁵⁷, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simai, and some say, the colleagues²⁵⁸ in the name of Rebbi Simai: We thank You, Master of all creatures, God of praises, eternal Rock, Life of the Universe, Creator, Who resurrects the dead, that You have made us alive, kept us, gave us merit, supported us, and brought us near to give thanks to Your name; praised be You, o Eternal, God of thanksgiving. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda²⁵⁹ in the name of Rav: We thank You since we are obliged to give thanks; may my lips sing, for I shall sing to You with my soul that You have redeemed; praised are You, o Eternal, God of thanksgiving. Rebbi Samuel bar Inia²⁶⁰ in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Thanksgiving and praise to Your name, Yours is greatness, Yours is strength, Yours is glory! May it please You, o Eternal, our God and God of our fathers, that You may support us in our fall, straighten us up from our bent state, because You support the falling and straighten up the bent ones, You are full of mercy and nothing exists except You; praised are You, o Eternal, God of thanksgiving. Bar Qappara²⁶¹, Ktav 1992, Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, München 1996, both p. xviii. While the previous texts were quoted in historical order, the text of Bar Qappara should have been the first. The reason may be his extensive use of Biblical verses that were a matter of controversy, see below (and in all Yerushalmi versions this is a formal benediction.) said: For You we fall down, for You we bend down, for You we prostrate ourselves, for You we kneel, to You every knee should fall down and every tongue swears. (1Chr. 29:11–13): Yours, o Eternal, is greatness, strength, glory, victory, and majesty, truly all that is in heaven and on earth; Yours, o Eternal, is the kingdom, and You lift Yourself over all as head. Riches and honor are before You, You rule over all; in Your hand is power and strength, it is in Your hand to make great and strengthen everything. And now, our God, we thank You and praise Your glorious name; with all our heart and soul we prostrate ourselves before You. (Ps. 35:10) My entire self shall say: O Eternal, who is like You, Who saves the destitute from one who is stronger than he is, the destitute and poor from the one who robs him. Praised are You, o Eternal, God of thanksgiving. Rebbi Yudan said: the rabbis used to say all of these²⁶² 40a. It appears from here that Rav Papa (fifth generation in Babylonia) had good precedent for his ruling from Rebbi Yudan (fourth generation in Israel). The method of Rebbi Yudan/Rav Papa is more adequate to a collection of short statements as given in the Babli than to the very long pieces quoted here in the Yerushalmi.. But some say, either one or the other.

footnotes: ²⁵³ An Amora of the first generation in Israel who occasionally is quoted as a Tanna. His opinion is the only one given here, to the effect that one has to bow down at modim ²⁵⁴ Qeroba ²⁵⁵ “Coming up” means making aliyah ²⁵⁶ A Tanna of the last generation, student of R. Yehudah ben Batyra. ²⁵⁷ One of the first Tannaïm with the title of “Rebbi”, from the last times of the Second Temple. ²⁵⁸ The collective of scholars in the Yeshivah. ²⁵⁹ An Israeli Amora who received his training in the Babylonian academy of Rav. ²⁶⁰ A student of Rebbi Aḥa, Israeli Amora of the fourth generation. The name of his father cannot be determined with certainty; the form given here is from the Rome manuscript. In the Venice print it appears as Mina, at other places in the Yerushalmi it appears as Ina, ldi, Bina, Yonah, Yanna, Yannai. The fourth generation of Galilean Amoraïm saw the Roman empire become Christian and lived through the first persecutions that finally forced the following generation to abandon the work on the Jerusalem Talmud. ²⁶¹ A contemporary of Rebbi who also made his own compilation of Mishnayot. His full name was R. Eleazar, son of R. Eleazar the Qappar. Since his name is identical to that of his father it is clear that he was a posthumous child; cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and Their Origins ²⁶² Statement of Rav Papa in Babli Soṭa

We have stated: Only that one should not bow down too much²⁶³, the discussion now returns to the statement that one has to bow twice at the beginning and the end of the Amidah.. Rebbi Jeremiah said: On condition that one should not behave like that large lizard²⁶⁴ 12b in the Venice print quote this Yerushalmi as הירוגא and declares it to be the Yerushalmi translation of צָב (Lev. 11:29). In the Wilna Talmud Babli, the word was changed to הרדונא following our text. In the Targum Yerushalmi (Pseudo-Jonathan), the translation of צב is חַדְרוֹנָא. It seems that the Targum Yerushalmi takes Hebrew צב as parallel to Arabic צַ֗בּ “lizard” (of all sizes), not as “turtle” as in late Biblical and modern Hebrew. Rebbi Jeremiah means that, while one should not bow down too much, on the other hand one should not behave like a lizard which keeps its body quiet and moves only the head when it is catching flies. He requires that one should bow down enough so that all bones of one’s spine are moved in God’s praise., but (Ps. 35:10) “All my bones should say, o Eternal, who is like You?” The word of Ḥanan bar Abba²⁶⁵ and remain bowed to the end of their private supplication, even though he formulates his statement in terms of the first benediction of Shemone Esreh which starts and ends with “Praised are You, Hashem”, but his statement is applicable to all other situations, that one never should be bowed when mentioning the Name. disagrees since Ḥanan bar Abba said to the colleagues: I shall tell you one of the good things that I saw Rav do and, when I told it before Samuel, he got up and kissed me on my mouth. At “praised are You”, he bows down. When he comes to mention Hashem, he straightens up. Samuel said: I shall give the reason (Ps. 35:10): “The Eternal straightens the bent ones.” Rebbi Ammi²⁶⁶ said: It is not reasonable, but (Mal. 2:5): “Before My Name he is low.”²⁶⁷ Rebbi Abun said: If it were written “at My Name he is low” then you would be right, but it is written “before My Name he is low”, before he mentions Hashem he is low.

footnotes: ²⁶³ After the digression about the text of the private prayer during modim ²⁶⁴ Arabic חַרְד̇וֹן, חִרְד̇וֹן “large lizard”. Tosafot Berakhot ²⁶⁵ Ḥanan bar Abba appears in the Babli as Rav Ḥanan bar Rava, son-in-law of Rav and father-in-law of Rav Ḥisda. He disagrees with those who bow down at modim ²⁶⁶ Since Rebbi Ammi and Rebbi Abun the first (Ravin) were contemporaries, R. Abun here is the first, not his posthumous son of the same name. Rebbi Ammi also is the contemporary of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba mentioned in the next section and, as successor of R. Yoḥanan as head of the Yeshivah of Tiberias, he is the higher authority. ²⁶⁷ The verse in Maleachi refers to Levi, son of Jacob, or Aharon, the High Priest. Most commentators of Psalms, including Rashi, derive נחת from the root חתת “to tremble” but the Amoraïm take it as derived from (Aramaic) נחת “to descend”.

Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan²⁶⁸ 9:4, see Kesef Mishneh on that text). It is difficult to decide the opinion of the Yerushalmi about whether in practice one removes or simply scolds such a cantor since Rebbi Ammi is in general the higher authority but Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba is quoted in the last, preferred, position. in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: It happened that one bowed down too much and Rebbi removed him. Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Yoḥanan did remove. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, he did not remove but scold.

footnotes: ²⁶⁸ A student of R. Ḥama bar Ḥanina, the son of R. Ḥanina ben Ḥama of the generation of Rebbi. Since Rebbi Yoḥanan did know Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in his old age, it follows that the two stories are complementary, not that there is a difference of opinion on who removed the cantor because of his excessive bowing. It is clear that we are talking about a cantor because only he can be removed from office by the Rabbi. This does not imply that any congregant would be allowed to bow down too much, only that he cannot be removed. This is the interpretation of Maimonides (Hilkhot Tefillah

These are the benedictions one begins with “Praised”. All benedictions one begins with “Praised”, but a benediction following another one, e. g., the recitation of Shema‘ and Amidah, one does not begin with “Praised”.²⁶⁹ 46a) it reads: All benedictions one begins with “Praised” except for benedictions over fruits, obligations, benedictions following another one and the last benediction of the recitation of Shema‘. In the Tosephta (Berakhot 1:9) it reads: All benedictions one begins with “Praised” except for benedictions following another one and the last benediction of the recitation of Shema‘. The versions of the Tosephta and the Babli are essentially identical, except that the Babli for completeness includes the short benedictions of one sentence for the execution of a mitzwah and for eating food, whose form otherwise is taken for granted. The main difference between the Babli/Tosephta and the Yerushalmi is that the last benediction for the Shema‘, the one recited after Shema‘, is considered by the Yerushalmi to be the continuation of the second benediction before Shema‘ but for the Babli it needs special mention. The consequence is that for the Yerushalmi all prayer benedictions separated by Scriptural readings from a preceding benediction are considered consecutive (the benedictions after the morning Psalms and Hallel) whereas for the Babli each one needs special treatment. The first objection to the rule given in the next paragraph is therefore impossible for the Babli.

footnotes: ²⁶⁹ This statement exists in two additional versions. In the Babli (Berakhot

Rebbi Jeremiah objected: But there is “redemption”²⁷⁰ in the Seder night: “Praised are You, o Eternal, our God, King of the Universe, Who has redeemed us and has redeemed our forefathers from Egypt and let us attain this night to eat mazzah and bitter herbs. May it please You, o Eternal, our God and God of our fathers, to let us attain in peace more festive seasons and holidays, when we shall rejoice in the rebuilding of Your city and enjoy Your service. There we shall eat from the family offerings and the pesaḥ sacrifice whose blood shall reach the wall of Your altar for goodwill. Then we shall thank You with a new song for our redemption and the liberation of our persons. Praise be to You, o Eternal, Who did save Israel.” This benediction follows the recitation of the first two Psalms of Hallel. It is clear from here, and from the parallel in the last Chapter of Yerushalmi Pesaḥim that in Israel in Talmudic times one preceded the recitation of Hallel by a benediction (the details are discussed in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 317–318). Hence, by the principle of the Yerushalmi, this benediction should not start with “Praised”.. There is a difference since Rebbi Yoḥanan said²⁷¹ 9:1, fol. 37c. In Galilee there existed congregations which were illiterate except for the cantor, where no one could recite the Hallel or the entire Haggadah at home. For these people it was instituted that Hallel should be recited in the synagogue after evening prayers (with its benedictions before and after); then the people could go home and just recite the benediction for redemption, drink four cups and go to bed. The text there seems to imply that the required recital of the Exodus likewise was read to them in the synagogue. The generally accepted implication of this and the following arguments is that any benediction which under some circumstances could be recited by itself has the status of a benediction that is not following another one (Rashba on Babli Berakhot 36a).: If he heard Hallel in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Rebbi Yose, objected before Rebbi Yose, but there is its ending.²⁷² and refers simply to the concluding statement “Praise be to You, o Eternal, Who did save Israel.” Since this follows the entire text, it certainly is a benediction following another one, so why does it repeat “Praise be to You, o Eternal”? He said to him: there are two, one for the future and one for the past.²⁷³ 117b notes that the benediction for redemption after Shema‘ and in the Haggadah is גאל ישׂראל but that in the Amidah prayer is גואל ישׂראל. The same formulation, גאל ישׂראל, is found in the Mishnah Pesaḥim and is followed by the Haggadah texts with the exception of the Yemenite ones. The unvocalized text of Mishnah and Talmud is read גָּאַל יִשְׂרָאֵל in the past tense. Then Rebbi Yose’s statement makes sense. Since the text concentrates on the future after a perfunctory mention of the past, the conclusion by a benediction for the past is a change of theme and, therefore, the concluding phrase has to be considered a separate benediction. [Rebbi Yose belongs to those authorities who require that the topic of the final benediction should be repeated immediately before the final sentence. His opinion is superseded here by that of Rebbi Mana later in the discussion but is taken up again by Rebbi Aḥa.] The very conservative Yemenite tradition, strictly based on the Babli, cannot be expected to disregard a prescription of that Talmud. Hence, it is possible that Rava did read גָּאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל, a pa’el form of the present [cf. S. Morag, בנין פָּאֵל וּבנין נִתְפָּאֵל, Tarbiẓ 26(1957), 349–356 and the material quoted in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, p. 322.] The Yerushalmi here shows that the Israeli reading was גָּאַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. Hence, identical (consonantal) wording in Babli and Yerushalmi does not necessarily imply same text and same meaning. Since Italian and Northern European Jewry obtained their prayer texts from Israel, probably in the Mishnaic period, it is the rule that their prayer texts follow Yerushalmi sources.

footnotes: ²⁷⁰ The answer shows that the question is about the benediction at the end of the recitation of the Haggadah ²⁷¹ Pesaḥim ²⁷² There is much controversy about the meaning of this question; every commentator has another interpretation. In the author’s opinion, this is a complete parallel to the identical question asked later for Qiddush ²⁷³ A statement of Rava in Babli Pesaḥim

They objected: There is Havdalah.²⁷⁴ benediction at the end of the Sabbath is preceded by benedictions over wine, spices, and light. These are all short sentences and it is universally agreed that they should start with “praise”. The only problem is the Havdalah benediction itself, which follows the other ones. The answer is that the benedictions over spices and fire are recited in order only for convenience, not out of necessity, and that Rebbi did recite them separately. Hence, Havdalah is a potentially freestanding benediction, but it follows always the benediction for wine. The objection based on this is not raised, but it will be raised for Qiddush and the answer given there also applies here. It is explained in Babli Pesaḥim54a that Rebbi was collecting the other benedictions on the cup for his family, not for himself. There is a difference since Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rebbi was dispersing them and collecting them on the cup. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya was collecting them²⁷⁵.

footnotes: ²⁷⁴ The Havdalah ²⁷⁵ Being a Babylonian, he never gave up Babylonian practices even though he spent his life in Galilee.

They objected: There is Nevarekh.²⁷⁶ There is a difference, because if there were two sitting together and eating they would not say Nevarekh. There is “He Who feeds all”²⁷⁷. The lack of an answer here is provisional; the final answer of the Amoraïm of the last Galilean generation covers all these cases.; that is difficult.

footnotes: ²⁷⁶ The introductory section of Grace after meals, known as ברכת הזימוּן, “the benediction of preparation”. This introductory paragraph is recited only when at least three people are eating together who are obliged to recite Grace in the same degree of obligation. Hence, Grace itself must start with “Praised”. ²⁷⁷ This is the concluding benediction of the first paragraph of Grace; the question is parallel to that asked for the concluding paragraphs of “redemption” and Qiddush

There is “He Who is good and does good”²⁷⁸. There is a difference since Rav Ḥuna said: When permission was received to bury the slain of Bethar, “He Who is good and does good” was fixed, “He Who is good” because they did not rot, “He Who does good” because permission was received to bury them.

footnotes: ²⁷⁸ The fourth section of Grace that clearly follows the third but nevertheless starts with “Praised”. The answer is that the first three sections constitute Grace as required by the Torah, while the fourth starts Rabbinic Grace.

There is Qiddush²⁷⁹ during a meal does not require the benediction over wine even though there is an interruption in the meal since one is forbidden to eat and drink after sundown Friday night before making Qiddush. The Babli does not take up this question, hence practice follows this Yerushalmi, Shulḥan Arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim 271, Sec. 4. The Qiddush starts with “praised” and its final sentence again starts with “praised.”. There is a difference since if one was sitting and drinking when it still was day and the holy day came upon him, he does not say “Creator of the fruit of the vine.” But there is its final sentence? Rebbi Mana said, the type²⁸⁰ of benedictions is like that. Rebbi Yudan said: A short form starts with “Praised” and does not end with “Praised”, a long form starts with “Praised” and ends with “Praised”.

footnotes: ²⁷⁹ The main benediction follows the benediction over wine (or over bread) and, nevertheless, starts with “Praised”. The answer is that Qiddush ²⁸⁰ Greek τύπος, “pattern, model, prescribed form”. Rebbi Mana was a student of Rebbi Yudan who uses the Hebrew מטבע “coin” for “form”. The students of Rebbi Mana were the collectors of the Yerushalmi in the form it came down to us. Hence, his answer is final: All long benedictions end with “Praise to You, o Eternal, …” as a matter of principle (going back to the Men of the Great Assembly). Between this sentence and the next, a “since” should be mentally interpolated.

All benedictions after their seals²⁸¹; one does not say a verse as benediction. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar objected before Rebbi Yose: Because you say after their seals, one does not say a verse as benediction²⁸², there should be a logical connection between them but there seems to be none.? They said, that young man is intelligent because he thinks! What is the meaning of “after their seals”? It is that when he was standing in the morning prayer and forgot and mentioned the text of evening prayers but he caught himself and finished with the text of morning prayers, then he did his duty²⁸³ does not deal with it; its correct interpretation is by Rebbi Aḥa. About the rule itself, there is disagreement between the Yerushalmi and the parallel Babli, Berakhot 12a, where it is stated: “If in the morning one started with ‘Creator of light’ and ended with ‘Making evenings dark’, he did not do his duty. If in the evening he starts with ‘He Who makes evenings dark’ and ends with ‘Creator of light’, he did not do his duty. But if he started with ‘Creator of light’ and ended with ‘Making evenings dark’, he did his duty. The principle is: Everything is determined by the seal.” The Babli asserts that if in evening prayers one started out wrongly with the text appropriate for morning prayers then everything is O.K. if only the final doxology is correct. But the Yerushalmi speaks of one “who is standing in morning prayers and forgot”, i. e., that he started out correctly, forgot himself in the middle, and remembered in time to close with the correct text. The principles of prayer texts were instituted by the Men of the Great Assembly. They determined the contents of the prayers but not, in general, their texts. (For the Amidah, the Mishnah even reports that Rebbi Eliezer says that one who repeats the same text for more than 30 days cannot really be an honest supplicant). The question is whether, in addition to the contents, the Men of the Great Assembly only determined the “seals” (following the Babli) or also the introductory sentences (following the Yerushalmi).. Rebbi Aḥa said, all benedictions in the kind of their seals.²⁸⁴ 104a) this principle is spelled out only for Havdalah [and in the Yerushalmi the treatment given for Havdalah, (Berakhot 5:2, fol. 9b) supports R. Eleazar Askari.] Most Medieval authorities extend the principle of the Babli to all longer benedictions. But those who say (Is. 12:6): “Jubilate and sing, inhabitant of Zion …” do not violate the rule that no benediction is a verse²⁸⁵ 41, p. 450) has published a Yerushalmi prayer text from the Cairo Genizah which uses this verse in the third benediction of the ‘Amidah, קדושת השם. From what is left of the original Galilean minhag it seems clear that the standard text of longer benedictions always ended with a Biblical verse just preceding the “seal”. For example, in Grace, the verses were Ps. 145:16, *Deut.*8:10, Ps. 147:2. In the morning prayers, the verses have survived in the first benediction for Shema‘ in all minhagim and for the benediction after Shema‘ in most of them. The text states that the only acceptable place for a Biblical verse is before the “seal”. Even the Mishnah prescribes benedictions whose text is a Biblical verse (Taäniot 2:2); what is prohibited here is using a verse in the final doxology..

footnotes: ²⁸¹ This is a continuing discussion of the statement of Rebbi Yudan. The “seal” of a longer benediction is the last sentence “Praise to You, o Eternal, …” It is stated that this “seal” is what makes the benediction valid and it cannot be a Biblical verse. ²⁸² Since the two statements appear together in one baraita ²⁸³ “They” are the members of Rebbi Yose’s Yeshivah. They do not disagree with the rule which they state, but they note that the baraita ²⁸⁴ The language is difficult. R. Eleazar Askari explains that Rebbi Aḥa insists that only the “seal” counts and, therefore, the text preceding the “seal” is unimportant; the text of the “seal” cannot be a verse. R. Shelomo Cirillo and R. Moshe ben Ḥabib explain, on the contrary, that the “seal” must fit the text of the benediction just preceding and that this text cannot be a verse. In the Babli (Pesaḥim ²⁸⁵ Ezra Fleischer (Tarbiẓ

MISHNAH: One must mention the Exodus in the night. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah²⁸⁶ said to them²⁸⁷ the Yerushalmi text is preserved only in the text of Maimonides and the Yemenite Haggadot. Nevertheless, the phrase cannot refer to the discussion at Bne Beraq reported in the Haggadah. As R. Saul Lieberman points out, the Yerushalmi takes R. Eleazar ben Azariah at his word that he made his statement when he was close to 70 years old and it is quite impossible that R. Eliezer should still have been alive at least 50 years after the deposition of Rabban Gamliel and the elevation of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. The most likely interpretation is that the Israeli Haggadah, but not the Mishnah, read “to them” and that the copyist of the Yerushalmi followed his memory from the Haggadah instead of the text before him. For a similar occurrence in the Septuagint, see The Scholar’s Haggadah, p. 257–258.: Here I am about 70 years old and I could not succed in proving that the Exodus must be mentioned every night²⁸⁸ and the mention of the Exodus are obligatory as an institution of the Men of the Great Assembly. The only question is whether the benediction was instituted as a Rabbinic ordinance or was formulated in fulfillment of a Biblical commandment. until Ben Zoma²⁸⁹ derived it from the verse (Deut. 16:3): “… that you should remember the day of your leaving Egypt the entire days of your life.” The days of your life - the days. The entire days of your life - the nights. But the Sages say, the days of your life - this world; The entire days of your life - this includes the times of the Messiah.

footnotes: ²⁸⁶ A descendant of Ezra in the tenth generation who was appointed vice president of the Synhedrion at age 18 (according to the Babli) or 13 (Yerushalmi). ²⁸⁷ Neither the Mishnah in the Babli nor manuscripts of the Mishnah have “to them”; in the Haggadah ²⁸⁸ Everybody agrees that the third benediction of the Shema‘ ²⁸⁹ A mystic of the first generation of Tannaïm who died young.

HALAKHAH: Even though he entered high office he lived long. This means that high office shortens one’s life.

There²⁹¹ they say one should not start wayyomer²⁹² 15:37–41. This is the only part of Shema‘ that mentions the Exodus. The statement of “there” is reported in the Babli by Rav Cahana in the name of Rav (Berakhot 14b). but if one did start he has to finish. The rabbis here²⁹³ say one starts but does not finish. The Mishnah disagrees with the rabbis here²⁹⁴ in the next section seems to imply that one does not mention the third section at all, against Israeli practice.: “One must mention the Exodus in the night.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav: We thank You that You took us out of Egypt and redeemed us from the house of slavery to give thanks to Your Name.²⁹⁵. It is the answer to the objection raised in the first sentence. The obligation of mentioning the Exodus does not refer to the recitation of the third section of Shema‘ but to the benediction after the Shema‘ and, therefore, would be fulfilled even if the third section were to be omitted completely. The text in the Babli is longer. A baraita disagrees with the rabbis there: Wayyomer is used only during daytime. The entire section of wayyomer is used only during daytime²⁹⁶.

footnotes: ²⁹¹ “There” always means Babylonia; “here” is the Land of Israel. ²⁹² The third section of the Shema‘, Num. ²⁹³ The Israeli practice is reported in the Babli (loc. cit.) as reciting only the first and last sentences of the section; our text also requires one to start, i.e., to recite the first verse, and to mention the Exodus, the last words of the last verse. ²⁹⁴ Both R. David Oppenheim and R. Moshe ben Ḥabib note that in this section and the next, “here” and “there” should be switched since the first question is against those who say that one does not have to recite the third section at all, against the Babylonian practice, and the baraita ²⁹⁵ This is the proposed text of the evening benediction after the recitation of Shema‘ ²⁹⁶ But in the night one recites only first and last verses.

Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa²⁹⁷ descended there and saw them start and finish; he had not heard that there they say one does not have to start but if he started he has to finish. The rabbis here²⁹⁸ say one starts and does not finish.

footnotes: ²⁹⁷ An early Israeli Amora who went to study in Babylonia, probably in the Yeshivah of Rav. Hence, he did not know of the rule established by Rav before he arrived at the Yeshivah. ²⁹⁸ This sentence is superfluous here, it is inserted only in parallel to the previous section. This is frequent in the Yerushalmi and not a sign of dittography.

They asked before Rebbi Aḥiyya ben Rebbi Zeïra: How did your father do in practice, like the teachers here or the teachers there²⁹⁹. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, like the teachers here. Rebbi Yose³⁰⁰ said, like the teachers there. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is reasonable like R. Yose, since R. Zeïra always chose the harder way³⁰¹8:7, fol. 12c. and they chose the harder way, so he did what he was used to, like them.

footnotes: ²⁹⁹ Since Rebbi Zeïra was a Babylonian immigrant to Galilee. Note that they speak to his son in Babylonian Aramaic. ³⁰⁰ Both Rebbis Ḥizqiah and Yose are from the fourth generation, students of Rebbis Jeremiah and Ilaï who in turn were students of Rebbi Zeïra. The answer of Rebbi Zeïra’s son has not been recorded. ³⁰¹ He tended to follow the stricter Babylonian rules, cf. later Halakhah

We have stated³⁰² 2:1) containing the statements of the anonymous first Tanna, Rebbi, and “Others” (usually: Rebbi Meïr), and then the comment by the Amora R. Joshua ben Levi. In practice, the ruling of R. Joshua ben Levi applies to both morning and evening prayers.: “He who recites Shema‘ in the morning must mention the Exodus in Emet veyaẓiv. Rebbi says, he must mention [God’s] kingdom. Others say, he has to mention the splitting of the Reed Sea and the slaying of the firstborn.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, he has to mention all these and has to say “Rock of Israel and its Redeemer”.³⁰³ 117b). This formula has survived in the poetic forms of Ashkenazic evening prayers for the holidays, while in ordinary prayers the form prescribed by the authoritative Babylonian Talmud has prevailed.

footnotes: ³⁰² This section is composed of a Tosephta (Berakhot ³⁰³ The formula was the Israeli conclusion of the benediction of redemption, in contrast to the Babylonian “He Who redeemed Israel” (Babli Pesaḥim

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: If someone did not mention Torah in the benediction on the Land³⁰⁴ 48b) is a Tannaïtic text in different order. The Amoraïc text of the Yerushalmi is in strict chronological order: R. Joshua ben Levi of the very early second generation, R. Abba bar Aḥa of the second, and Rebbi Ilaï of the third generations. The second statement of R. Abba bar Aḥa is attributed by the printed editions and most Medieval authors of the Babli to Rebbi Eliezer but in the Munich ms. to Rebbi, as in the Yerushalmi. The first statement is attributed to an otherwise unknown Tanna Naḥum the elder. The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi is attributed to Rebbi Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) but without the verse that gives the reason. The Yerushalmi gives a statement of Amoraïm, not to claim that the required topics were introduced by Amoraïm (that is quite obvious from the mention of Rebbi), but in order to point out the Scriptural basis and to fix the exact place where Torah has to be mentioned in Grace. one tells him to repeat. What is the reason? (Ps. 105:44) “He gave them the lands of peoples”; why? “That they should keep His decrees and preserve His teachings.” Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi: If one did not mention the covenant in the benediction on the Land or the kingdom of David’s dynasty in “Builder of Jerusalem”³⁰⁵, cf. The Scholar’s Haggadah, p. 357–358., one tells him to repeat. Rebbi Ilaï said: if he said “He Who consoles Jerusalem”³⁰⁶, he did his duty.

footnotes: ³⁰⁴ Since the Talmud started discussing required topics of otherwise personal texts, they continue with a discussion of the relevant parts of Grace. The benediction of the Land is the second benediction, and that on Jerusalem the third. The parallel in the Babli (Berakhot ³⁰⁵ The old doxology of the third benediction was: “Praised be You, o Eternal, Builder of Jerusalem.” The final adoption of the text “He Who in His mercy builds Jerusalem” is on the authority of Shulḥan Arukh ³⁰⁶ In the text, not in the final sentence.

Bar Qappara³⁰⁷ and Grace); now we turn to required language in general speech. In the Babli, the parallel (13a) appears also at the end of the first Chapter, somewhat disconnected. One may assume that it is mentioned in parallel to the Yerushalmi. In the printed editions of the Babli, the text is: “Bar Qappara stated”, a Tannaïtic statement. However, in the Munich ms. and the Pisqe RYD the text reads דרש בר קפרא “Bar Qappara preached”, an Amoraïc statement. (It also seems that Rebbi Eliezer, who completes the statement of Bar Qappara in the Babli in parallel to Rebbi Levi in the Yerushalmi, is “Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Bar Qappara’s sister”.) The people who object are determined in the Babli to be Rebbi Yose bar Abin or Rebbi Yose bar Zabida, of the later generation of Galilean Amoraïm. The statements of Bar Qappara and Rebbi Levi/Rebbi Eleazar are not mentioned in any of the Medieval codes, Halakhot Gedolot, Alfasi, Mishneh Torah; their authors took also the text in the Babli as Amoraïc sermon. said: He who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Levi said, a positive and a negative commandment. (Gen. 17:4) “Your name shall not in the future be called Abram”, that is the negative commandment, “But your name shall be Abraham”, that is the positive commandment. They objected: But the Men of the Great Assembly called him Abram, (Neh. 9:7) “You are, o Eternal, the God Who selected Abram”. There is a difference, while he was still Abram You selected him.

footnotes: ³⁰⁷ Bar Qappara belongs to the generation of transfer between Tannaïm and Amoraïm. In the Yerushalmi his words are presented as those of an Amora. The place was chosen here because we discussed required language for benedictions (Shema‘

Similarly, does he who calls Sarah Sarai transgress a commandment? He³⁰⁸ 17:15): “God said to Abraham: Your wife Sarai, do not call her name Sarai but Sarah is her name.” The commandment to call Sarai Sarah was directed to Abraham alone. was commanded regarding her. Similarly, does he who calls Israel Jacob transgress a commandment? The second name was given him in addition, the first was not taken away from him³⁰⁹.

footnotes: ³⁰⁸ Abraham alone was commanded not to call Sarah Sarai as it is written (Gen. ³⁰⁹ Since the Torah continues to call him Jacob even after he received his new name of Israel.

Why were the names of Abraham and Jacob changed but Isaac’s name was not changed? The former were given their names by their fathers; but Isaac was called Isaac by the Holy One, Praise to His Name, as it is said (Gen. 17:19) “You shall call his name Isaac”. Four were given names before they were born, and they are Isaac, Ismael, Josiah, and Solomon. Isaac, (Gen. 17:19) “You shall call his name Isaac”. Ismael as it is written (Gen. 16:11): “You shall call his name Ismael”. Josiah, (1Kings 13:2): “Behold, a son will be born to the dynasty of David; his name will be Josiah”. Solomon, (1Chr. 22:9) “Solomon will be his name”³¹⁰ 12:24–25 it seems that David gave the name Solomon to his son and Nathan called him Yedidiah after his birth; it is clear from Chronicles that the name Solomon was not David’s invention but prophetically pre-ordained.. All this for the just. But the wicked (Ps. 58:4) “The wicked are perverted from the womb.”

footnotes: ³¹⁰ While in 2Sam.

Ben Zoma said: There will be a future time when Israel will no longer mention the Exodus. What is the reason? (Jer. 23:7–8) “Therefore, days will come, says the Eternal, that one no longer will say, by the Eternal Who brought the Children of Israel up from Egypt, but rather, by the Eternal Who raised and brought the descendants of the House of Israel from the Northern land …” They said to him, not that the Exodus will be eliminated but the Exodus will be additional to the Kingdoms³¹¹. The Kingdoms will be principal and the Exodus additional. And similarly it was said (Gen. 35:10): :Your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” Not that the name Jacob will be taken away but Jacob will be additional to Israel. Israel will be principal and Jacob additional. And so it says (Is. 43:18–19): “Do not remember the first things”; this means the Egyptians, “And what was earlier do not dwell on”; this means the Kingdoms, “Behold, I create something new, now it will grow”; this refers to Gog. They gave a simile: to what can this be compared? To someone who encountered a wolf and was saved from it. He started telling about the wolf when he encountered a lion and was saved from it. He forget about the wolf and started telling about the lion.After that, he encountered a snake and was saved from it. He forgot about both of them and started telling about the snake. So it is with Israel, the last troubles make them forget the earlier ones.

footnotes: ³¹¹ “Kingdoms” is short for שעבוד מלכיות “subjugation by alien kingdoms,” a general term for the sufferings of the Jewish people inflicted by Gentiles.