משנה: מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע בָּעֲרָבִין. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָתָן עַד סוֹף הָאַשְׁמוּרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עַד חֲצוֹת. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. מַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ בָנָיו מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא קָרִינוּ אֶת שְׁמַע. אָמַר לָהֶן אִם לֹא עָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר חַייָבִין אַתֶּם לִקְרוֹת. וְלֹא זוּ בִלְבַד אֶלָּא כָל־שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵיבָרִים [וַאֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים] מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. כָּל־הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עֲמוּד הַשַּׁחַר. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעֲבֵירָה. MISHNAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening1The Mishnah presupposes that everybody knows that there is an obligation to recite the verses Deut. 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 eat2The 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. their Terumah3Terumah, 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 watch4The night is divided either into three (Babylonian) or four (Roman) watches. are the words of Rebbi Eliezer5The name of R. Eliezer is attached only to the statement about the night watch. The start of the time of the evening Shema 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 dawn6It 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..
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.134This 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. 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.
הלכה: מֶאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע בָּעֲרָבִין. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לוֹכַל בִּתְּרוּמָתָן. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חִיָּיא מִשָּׁעָה שֶּׁדֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם נִכְנָסִין לֶאֱכוֹל פִּיתָּן בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת. וְתַנִּי עֲלָהּ קְרוֹבִים דִּבְרֵיהֶן לִהְיוֹת שָׁוִין. אִיתָא חָמֵי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לוֹכַל בִּתְּרוּמָתָן יְמָמָא הוּא וְעִם כּוֹכְבַיָּא הוּא. מִשָּׁעָה שֶּׁדֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם נִכְנָסִין לֶאֱכוֹל פִּתָּן בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת שָׁעָה וְתַרְתֵּי לֵיְלִיָּא הוּא. וְאַתְּ אָמַר קְרוֹבִים דִּבְרֵיהֶן לִהְיוֹת שָׁוִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תִּיפְתָּר בְּאִילֵּין כּוּפְרָנַיָּא דְקִיקַיָּיא דְּאוֹרְחֵיהוֹן מִסְתַּלְּקָא עַד דְּהוּא יְמָמָא דְצָדִי לוֹן מִיקַּמֵּי חַיּוּתָא. HALAKHAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening?. We have stated7תני is the translation of Targum Yerushalmi 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 stated8Rebbi 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 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 appear9As 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., “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 Yose10This R. Yose is the late Galilean Amora R. Yose (probably, ben Zabida), not the Tanna R. Yose ben Ḥalaphta. 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.
תַּנִּי הַקּוֹרֵא קוֹדֶם לָכֵן לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בִּשְׁבִיל לָצֵאת יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ אֶלָּא כְדֵי לַעֲמוֹד בִּתְפִילָּה מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר שֶׁל תּוֹרָה׃ 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 Torah11This 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‘ 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..
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה סָפֵק בֵּירַךְ עַל מְזוֹנוֹ סָפֵק לֹא בֵּירַךְ צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ דִּכְתִיב וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ. סָפֵק הִתְפַּלֵּל סָפֵק לֹא הִתְפַּלֵּל אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּלְוַאִי שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם כָּל־הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ. לָמָּה שֶׁאֵין תְּפִילָּה מַפְסֶדֶת. סָפֵק קָרָא סָפֵק לֹא קָרָא נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הֲדָא הַקּוֹרֵא קוֹדֶם לָכֵן לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. וְקוֹדֶם לָכֵן לָאו סָפֵק הוּא וְאַתְּ אָמַר צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת. הֲדָא אָֽמְרָה סָפֵק קָרָא סָפֵק לֹא קָרָא צָּרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת. Rebbi Zeïra12Rebbi 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. in the name of Rav Jeremiah13Rav 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.: 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 Eternal14There 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. 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 God15The 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.”. One who who is in doubt whether he prayed or not, may not pray, against the opinion of Rebbi Yoḥanan16Rebbi 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. who said: If only one would pray the whole day long, why? Because prayer is never in vain17Everybody agrees that praying the Amidah 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 doubtful18Later 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‘ 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 again19Since the Talmud has to prove indirectly that in reading the Shema‘ 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.).
סִימָן לְדָבָר מִשֶּׁיֵּצְאוּ הַכּוֹכָבִים. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאַיָּה לְדָבָר זֵכֶר לְדָבָר וַאֲנַחְנוּ עוֹשִׂים בַּמְּלָאכָה וְחֶצְיָים מַחֲזִיקִים בָּֽרְמָחִים מֵעֲלוֹת הַשַּׁחַר עַד צֵאת הַכּוֹכָבִים. וּכְתִיב וְהָיָה לָנוּ הַלַּיְלָה לְמִשְׁמָר וְהַיּוֹם לִמְלָאכָה. A sign for it (nightfall) is after stars have become visible20This 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).. And though there is no proof, at least there is a hint21This expression is found also in Yerushalmi Sheviït 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.22The 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‘ 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.”
כַּמָּה כוֹכָבִים יֵצְאוּ וִיהֵא לַיְלָה. רִבִּי פִינְחָס בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר פַּפָּא כּוֹכָב אֶחָד וַדַּאי יוֹם. שְׁנַיִם סָפֵק לַיְלָה. שְׁלֹשָׁה וַדַּאי לַיְלָה. שְׁנַיִם סָפֵק וְהָֽכְתִיב עַד צֵאת הַכּוֹכָבִים. אֶלָּא מִיעוּט כּוֹכָבִים שְׁנַיִם. קַדְמִיָּא לָא מִתְחַשֵּׁב. How many stars have to appear that it should be night? Rebbi Phineas23R. 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 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?24The 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, 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 count25Since 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..
בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת רָאָה כוֹכָב אֶחָד וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה פָּטוּר. שְׁנַיִם מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת רָאָה כוֹכָב אֶחָד וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. שְׁנַיִם מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. שְׁלֹשָׁה פָּטוּר. 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 doubt26The trespass offering described in Lev. 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.
רִבִּי יוֹסֶי בַּר בּוּן בָּעֵי אִין תֵּימַר שְׁנַיִם סָפֵק. רָאָה שְׁנֵי כּוֹכָבִים בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה. רָאָה שְׁנֵי כּוֹכָבִים בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ אִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יוֹם הֵן אַף הָאַחֲרוֹנִים יוֹם הֵן וִיהֵא חַייָב עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנים. אִם הָאַחֲרוֹנִים לַיְלָה אַף הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לַיְלָה וִיהֵא חַייָב עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. רָאָה שְׁנֵי כּוֹכָבִים בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְקָצַר כַּחֲצִי גְּרוֹגֶרֶת. בְּשַׁחֲרִית וְקָצַר כַּחֲצִי גְּרוֹגֶרֶת. רָאָה שְׁנֵי כּוֹכָבִים בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת וְקָצַר כַּחֲצִי גְּרוֹגֶרֶת. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ אִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יוֹם הֵן אַף הָאַחֲרוֹנִים יוֹם הֵן וְיִצְטָרֵף שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית עִם שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת וִיהֵא חַייָב עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. אִם הָאַחֲרוֹנִים לַיְלָה אַף הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לַיְלָה וְיִצְטָרֵף שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית עִם שֶׁל לֵילֵי שַׁבָּת וִיהֵא חַייָב עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. Rebbi Yose bar Abun27R. 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 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 work28As Rashi points out in Šabbat 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 work29Harvesting 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 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..
הֲדָא דְתֵימַר בְּאִילֵּין דְּלֵית אוֹרְחַתְהוֹן מִתְחַמְיָא בִימָמָא. בְּרַם בְּאִילֵּין דְּאוֹרְחָהוֹן מִתְחַמְיָא בִימָמָא לָא מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּהוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי בּוּן וּבִלְחוּד דְּיִתְחַמּוּן תְּלָתָא כוֹכָבִין בַּר מִן הַדָּא כוֹכָבָתָא. 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 Venus30Here 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 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..
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמָנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן פָּזִי כּוֹכָב אֶחָד וַדַּאי יוֹם. שְׁנַיִם לַיְלָה. וְלֵית לֵיהּ סָפֵק. אִית לֵיהּ סָפֵק בֵּין כּוֹכָב לְכוֹכָב. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner31Amora 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. 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 star32The 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..
תַּנִּי כָּל־זְמָן שֶׁפְּנֵי מִזְרַח מַאֲדִימוֹת זֶהוּ יוֹם. הִכְסִיפוּ זֶהוּ בֵין הַשְּׁמָשוֹת. הִשְׁחִירוּ נַעֲשֶׂה הָעֶלְיוֹן שָׁוֶה לַתַּחְתּוֹן זֶהוּ לַיְלָה. 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 night33The Babli (Šabbat 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..
רִבִּי אוֹמֵר הַלְּבָנָה בִתְקוּפָתָהּ הִתְחִיל גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה לְשַׁקֵּעַ וּתְחִילַּת גַּלְגַּל לְבָנָה לַעֲלוֹת זֶהוּ בֵין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא סוֹף גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה לְשַׁקֵּעַ וּתְחִילַּת גַּלְגַּל לְבָנָה לַעֲלוֹת. וְתַנִּי שְׁמוּאֵל כֵּן אֵין הַלְּבָנָה זוֹרַחַת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָחַמָּה שׁוֹקַעַת וְלֹא שׁוֹקַעַת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָחַמָּה זוֹרַחַת. 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 shines34Rebbi 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, 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..
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר חִייָא בַּר יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא הִתְחִיל גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה לְשַׁקֵּעַ אָדָם עוֹמֵד בְּרֹאשׁ הַר הַכַּרְמֶל וְיוֹרֵד וְטוֹבֵל בְּיַם הַגָּדוֹל וְעוֹלֶה וְאוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָתוֹ חֲזָקָה בְיוֹם טָבַל. הֲדָא דְתֵימַר בְּהַהוּא דְּאָזִיל לֵיהּ בְּקָפּוֹנְדָרָא. בְּרַם הַהוּא דְּאָזַל לֵיהּ בְּאִיסְרָטָא לָא בְדָה. 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 daytime35Therefore, he was cleansed from impurity at nightfall and is justified in eating Terumah.. Than is, if he used a shortcut36Latin compendiarium (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 road37Latin strata (scil. via), “paved road, pavement”. this does not apply.
אֵיזֶהוּא בֵין הַשְּׁמָשוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא לְטִיפָּה שֶׁל דָּם שֶׁהִיא נְתוּנָה עַל גַּבֵּי חֻדָּהּ שֶׁל סַייָף נֶחְלְקָה הַטִּיפָּה לְכַאן וּלְכַאן זֶהוּ בֵין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. אֵי זֶהוּ בֵין הַשְּׁמָשוֹת. מִשֶּׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה כְדֵי שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ אָדָם חֲצִי מִיל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת כְּהֶרֶף עַיִן וְלֹא יָֽכְלוּ לַעֲמוֹד עָלָיו חֲכָמִים. What is dusk? Rebbi Tanḥuma38One of the latest authorities mentioned in the Yerushalmi, renowned as a preacher, and author of the basic Yelammedenu 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?39While 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 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.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי אַחָא הֲווּ יָֽתְבִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי אָחָא לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא סוֹף חֲצִי מִיל דְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה כְּהֶרֶף עַיִן דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ אוּף אֲנָא סָבַר כֵּן. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה לָא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא כָּל־הֶרֶף עַיִן וְהֶרֶף עַיִן שֶׁבַּחֲצִי מִיל דְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה סָפֵק הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קַשְׁייָתֵיהּ קוֹמֵי דְּרִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה כַּד תַּנִּינָן תַּמָּן רָאָה אַחַת בַּיּוֹם וְאַחַת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשוֹת. אַחַת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשוֹת וְאַחַת לְמָחָר אִם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁמִּקְּצָת הָֽרְאִייָה מֵהַיּוֹם וּמִקְצָתָהּ לְמָחָר וַדַּאי לְטוּמְאָה וּלְקָרְבַּן וְאִם סָפֵק שֶׁמִּקְצַת הָֽרְאִיָּה מֵהַיּוֹם וּמִקְצָתָהּ לְמָחָר וַדַּאי לְטוּמְאָה וְסָפֵק לְקָרְבַּן. רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר יוֹסֵף בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאן תַּנָּא רְאִיָּיה נֶחְלֶקֶת לִשְׁנַיִם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לָהּ קְשָׁתָה עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר כָּל־הֶרֶף עַיִן וְהֶרֶף עַיִן שֶׁבַּחֲצִי מִיל דְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה סָפֵק הוּא. לָמָּה אָמַר לֵיהּ קְשִׁתֵיהּ לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר זֶהוּ בֵין הַשְּׁמָשוֹת. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa40Rebbi Aḥa was an Amora of the fourth generation, older than the Amora Rebbi Yose. 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)41R. 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 35a).? He answered: I also am of that opinion. Rebbi Ḥizqiah42Amora of the fourth generation in Galilee. R. Mana (II) is his only known student. 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.43Tractate Zabim 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 Josef44A 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. asked before Rebbi Yoḥanan: Who is the Tanna who will split an emission into two? Rebbi Yose!45Rebbi Yose mentioned here is the Tanna, ben Ḥalaphta. His opinion is given based on an explicit Tosefta Zabim 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.46Up 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. What is his question good for? For the time when Elijah will come and say: that is dusk47While 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 and end of Sabbath.).
מַאן פַּלִּיג. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא חֲבֵרֵהוֹן דְּרַבָּנָן בָּעֵי כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר בְּעַרְבִית נִרְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה כוֹכָבִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַחַמָּה נְתוּנָה בְאֶמְצַע הָרָקִיעַ לַיְלָה הוּא. וָמַר אַף בְּשַׁחֲרִית כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא כְּתִיב הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָצָא עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלוֹט בָּא צוֹעֲרָה. וּכְתִיב וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר. מַקִּישׁ יְצִיאָתוֹ לְבִיאָתוֹ. מַה בִּיאָתוֹ מִשֶּׁיִתְכַסֶּה מִן הַבְּרִיּוֹת. אַף יְצִיאָתוֹ לִכְשֶׁיִתְוַדָּע לַבְּרִיּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא כְּתִיב הַבּוֹקֶר אוֹר. הַתּוֹרָה קְרָאָהּ לְאוֹר בּוֹקֶר. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבּוֹקֶר כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן תְּחוּם לְבוֹקְרוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹקֶר. Who disagrees?48With the criterion of three stars for the start of night. Rebbi Ḥanina the Colleague of the Rabbis49He 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. 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 Abba50R. 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.) 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 Abba51It 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. said, it is written (Gen. 44:3): “In the morning it was light.” The Torah called the light morning.52The 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. Rebbi Ismael53He 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, 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.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן אִם אוֹמֵר לִיתֵּן עוֹבְיוֹ שֶׁל רָקִיעַ לְלָיְלָה בֵּין בְּעַרְבִית בֵּין בְּשַׁחֲרִית נִמְצֵאת אוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹם וְהַלַּיְלָה שָׁוִין. וְתַנִּי בְּאֶחָד בִּתְקוּפַת נִיסָן וּבְאֶחָד בִּתְקוּפַת תִּשְׁרֵי הַיּוֹם וְהַלַּיְלָה שָׁוִין. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא נַלְפִינָהּ מִדֶּרֶךְ הָאָרֶץ שֲׁרֵי מַלְכָּא נְפַק אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא נְפַק אָֽמְרִין דְּנָפַק. שֲׁרֵי עָלֵיל לָא אָֽמְרִין דְּעָל עַד שַׁעֲתָא דְיֵיעוּל. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: If you say to give the thickness of the sky54The “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. 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 Huna55A 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 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].
זֶהוּ שֶׁעוֹמֵד וּמִתְפַּלֵּל צָרִיךְ לְהַשְׁווֹת אֶת רַגְלָיו. תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרַיִּן רִבִּי לֵוִי וְרִבִּי סִימוֹן חַד אָמַר כְּמַלְאָכִים וְחַד אָמַר כְּכֹהֲנִים. מַאן דְּאָמַר כְּכֹהֲנִים לֹא תַעֲלֶה בְמַעֲלוֹת עַל מִזְבְּחִי. שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִים עֵקֶב בְּצַד גּוּדָל וְגּוּדָל אֵצֶל עֵקֶב. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּמַלְאָכִים וְרַגְלֵיהֶם רֶגֶל יְשָׁרָה. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בַר אַנְדְּרֵיי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סוֹטָר הַמַּלְאָכִים אֵין לָהֵן קְפִיצִין וּמַה טַעֲמָא קִרְבֵת עַל חַד מִן קָמַייָא קַייָמַּיָּא. He who prepares to pray must equalize his feet56The Babli (Berakhot 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 Levi57A preacher in the Academy of R. Yoḥanan. and Rebbi Simon58An older preacher, R. Simon ben Pazi, student of R. Joshua ben Levi.; one of them says like angels59It 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 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 Soṭar60Rebbi 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.: angels have no moving joints. What is the reason? (Dan. 7:16) “I approached one of those standing,” the fixed ones61In Midrash Bereshit rabba 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‘..
אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא זֶה שֶׁרוֹאֶה אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בִּבְרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בָּֽרְכוּ אֶת י֙י מַלְאָכָיו. בִּשְׁנִיָּיה בָּֽרְכוּ אֶת י֙י כָּל־צְבָאָיו. בִּשְׁלִישִׁית בָּֽרְכוּ אֶת י֙י כָּל־מַעֲשָׂיו. בְּמוּסַף בִּבְרָכָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת הִנֵּה בָּֽרְכוּ אֶת י֙י כָּל־עַבְדֵי י֙י הָעוֹמְדִים בְּבֵית י֙י בַּלֵּילוֹת. בִּשְׁנִיָּיה שְׂאוּ יְדֵיכֶם קֹדֶשׁ. בִּשְׁלִישִׁית יְבָרֶכְךָ י֙י מִצִּיּוֹן. אִם הָיוּ אַרְבַּע חוֹזֵר תְּלִיתִיאָתָא בְקַדְמִיתָא וּרְבִיְעָתָא בִתְנִיְוואָתָא. 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 second62Since the priestly blessing is regular part of the morning Amidah, 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..
אָמַר רִבִּי [חִנְּנָא] מֵאַייֶלֶת הַשַּׁחַר עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹר הַמִּזְרַח אָדָם מְהַלֵּךְ אַרְבָּעַת מִילִין. מִשֶּׁיֵּאוֹר הַמִּזְרַח עַד שֶׁתֵּנֵץ הַחַמָּה אַרְבָּעַת מִיל. וּמְנַייִן מִשֶּׁיֵּאוֹר הַמִּזְרַח עַד שֶׁתֵּנֵץ הַחַמָּה אַרְבָּעַת מִיל דִּכְתִיב וּכְמוֹ הַשַּׁחַר עָלָה וגו׳. וּכְתִיב הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָצָא עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלוֹט בָּא צוֹעֲרָה. וּמִן סְדוֹם לְצוֹעַר אַרבָּעַת מִיל. יוֹתֵר הֲווּן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא הַמַלְאָךְ הָיָה מְקַדֵּד לִפְנֵיהֶן הַדֶּרֶךְ. וּמְנַייִן מֵאַייֶלֶת הַשַּׁחַר עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹר הַמִּזְרַח אַרְבָּעַת מִיל. כְּמוֹ וּכְמוֹ מִילָּה מְדַמְּיָא לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ. Rebbi Ḥinnena63The 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. said: From the appearance of the “morning hind64This Biblical allusion (Psalm 22) denotes the zodiacal light; see the next section.” until the first rays of light in the East a man can walk four mil65For the determination of the time implied by the distance, see the paragraph after the next.. From the first rays of light in the East until sunrise four mil66This statement is found also in the Babylonian Talmud (Pesaḥim 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.67The verse describes the time when the angels pushed Lot to leave Sodom.” 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.68In 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 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 flattening69The verb מקדר is used in tractate Eruvin 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 another70One can apply the principle of גזרה שוה, that in general a certain expression has the same meaning in all contexts..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בוּן הֲדָא אַייַלְתָּא דְשַׁחֲרָא מַאן דְּאָמַר כּוֹכָֽבְתָא הִיא טָֽעְיָא זִימְנִין דְּהִיא מְקַדְּמָא וְזִימְנִין דְּהִיא מְאַחֲרָה. מַאי כְּדוֹן כְּמִין תְּרֵין דֻּקוֹרְנִין דִּנְהוֹר דְסַלְּקִין מִן מַדִּינְחָא וּמְנָהֲרִין. דֵּלֹמָא רִבִּי חִייָא רַבָּא וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא הַוּוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּהֲדָא בִקְעַת אַרְבֶּל בִּקְרִיצְתָּה וְרָאוּ אַייֶלֶת הַשַׁחַר שֶׁבָּקַע אוֹרָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָא רַבָּה לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא בִּירְבִּי כַּךְ הִיא גְאוּלָּתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְּחִילָּה קִימְאָה קִימְאָה כָּל־מָה שֶׁהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת הִיא רָבָה וְהוֹלֶכֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי אֵשֵׁב בַּחוֹשֶׁךְ י֙י אוֹר לִי. כָּךְ בַּתְּחִילָּה וּמָרְדְּכַי יוֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְאַחַר כַּךְ וַיִּקַּח הָמָן אֶת הַלְּבוּשׁ וְאֶת הַסּוּס. וְאַחַר כַּךְ וַיָּשָׁב מָרְדְּכַי אֶל שַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְאַחַר כַּךְ וּמָרְדְּכַי יָצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בִּלְבוּשׁ מַלְכוּת. וְאַחַר כַּךְ לַיְּהוּדִים הָיִתָה אוֹרָה וְשִׂמְחָה. 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 late71That means, sometimes Venus sets still during the night and sometimes it is still seen after sunrise.. What is it? It is like two double horns of light that arise from the East and give light. Explanation72This 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 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 Ḥalaphta73Rebbi 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.) 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.”
וַאֲתְיָא דְרִבִּי [חֲנִינָה] כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה דְּתַנִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה עוֹבְיוֹ שֶׁל רָקִיעַ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה. אָדָם בֵּינוֹנִי מְהַלֵּךְ אַרְבָּעִים מִיל בַּיּוֹם. עַד שֶׁהַחַמָּה נוֹסֶרֶת בָּרָקִיעַ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה אָדָם מְהַלֵּךְ אַרְבָּעַת מִיל נִמְצֵאת אוֹמֵר שֶׁעוֹבְיוֹ שֶׁל רָקִיעַ אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה בַיּוֹם. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁעוֹבְיוֹ שֶׁל רָקִיעַ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כַּךְ עוֹבְיָהּ שֶׁל אָרֶץ וְעוֹבְיוֹ שֶׁל תְּהוֹם מַהֲלַךְ חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה וּמַה טַעַם הַיּוֹשֵׁב עַל חוּג הָאָרֶץ וּכְתִיב וְחוּג שָׁמַיִם יִתְהַלָּךְ. וּכְתִיב בְּחוּקּוֹ חוּג עַל פְּנֵי תְהוֹם. חוּג חוּג לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. The statement of Rebbi Ḥanina74Here the argument returns to the prior statement of R. Ḥanina, that the twilight at dawn is the time to walk four mil. 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 years75In 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 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 day76A mil 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 years77The abyss being below the mantle of Earth.. 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.
תַּנִּי עֵץ חַיִּים מַהֲלַךְ חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֵּי רִבִּי אִלָּעִאי לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר נוֹפוֹ. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ כוֹרְתוֹ. וְכָל־פִּילּוּג מֵי בְרֵאשִׁית מִתְפַּלְּגִין מִתַּחְתָּיו וּמַה טַעַם וְהָיָה כְעֵץ שָׁתוּל עַל פַּלְגֵּי מָיִם. תַּנִּי עֵץ חַיִּים אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים לַגַּן. וְגַן אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים לְעֵדֶן. וְנָהָר יוֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת הַגָּן. תַּמְצִית כּוּר תַּרְקָב שׁוּתָה. תַּמְצִית כּוּשׁ מִצְרַיִם שׁוּתָה. נִמְצֵאת אוֹמֵר מִצְרַיִם מַהֲלַךְ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם. וְכוּשׁ מַהֲלַךְ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים וְעוֹד. וְרַבָּנָן אָֽמְרִין בִּשְׁנֵי אָבוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים כִּימֵי הַשָׁמַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁבֵּין הָאָרֶץ לָרָקִיעַ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמֵש מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה. כַּךְ בֵּין רָקִיעַ לָרָקִיעַ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמֵש מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וְעוֹבְיוֹ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמֵש מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה. וּמַה חָמִית מֵימַר עוֹבְיוֹ שֶׁל רָקִיעַ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמֵש מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בוּן יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם. יְהִי רַקִיעַ בְּתָוֶוךְ. רַב אָמַר לַחִים הָיוּ שָׁמַיִם בְּיוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי קָרְשׁוּ. רַב אָמַר יְהִי רָקִיעַ יְחַזֵּק הָרָקִיעַ. יְקָרֵשׁ הָרָקִיעַ. יְגַלֵּד הָרָקִיעַ. יְמַתַּח הָרָקִיעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֵן פַּזִּי יֵעָשֶה כְמִין מַטְלֵית הָרָקִיעַ. הֵיךְ מַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר וַיְּרַקְּעוּ אֶת פַּחֵי הַזָּהָב וגו׳. Is has been stated: The Tree of Life is wide a parcourse of 500 years. Rebbi Yehudah ben Rebbi Ilaï78He is Rebbi Yehudah quoted in both Talmudim without his father’s name. 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 waters79Taken 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..” 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 sixtieth80From here on there is a parallel in Babli Taänit 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 days81Egypt 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. 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 years82All 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.. 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.”83The 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. 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?84I.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. Rebbi Abun said85This section is given in greater detail in Bereshit rabba 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.”
תַּנִּי בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עוֹבְיוֹ שֶׁל רָקִיעַ כִשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעַיִּים. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָא פְּלִיגָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי חֲנִנָא תַּרְקִיעַ עִמּוֹ לִשְׁחָקִים חֲזָקִים כִּרְאִי מוּצָק. תַּרְקִיעַ מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן עֲשׂוּיִּין כְּטָס. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֵינָן בְּרִיאִין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר חֲזָקִים. יָכוֹל שֶׁהֵן נִתְרָפִין תַּלמְוּד לוֹמַר כִּרְאִי מוּצָק. בְּכָל־שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה נִרְאִין מוּצָקִים. It has been stated in the name of Rebbi Joshua86Rebbi 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, 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 Ḥanina87Even 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. 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 weaken88At some time in the future. The Targum 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.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּנוֹהֵג שֶׁבְּעוֹלָם אָדָם מוֹתֵחַ אוֹהֶל עַל יְדֵי [שָׁהוּת רָפָה]. בְּרַם הָכָא וַיִּמְתָּחֵם כְּאֹהֶל לָשֶׁבֶת. וּכְתִיב חֲזָקִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר בְּנוֹהֵג שֶׁבְּעוֹלָם אָדָם נוֹסֵךְ כֵּלִים עַל יְדֵי שָׁהוּת הוּא מַעֲלֶה חֲלוּדָה בְּרַם הָכָא כִּרְאִי מוּצָק. בְּכָל־שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה הֵן נִרְאִין כִּשְׁעַת יְצִיקָתָן. רִבִּי עֲזַרְיָה אָמַר עַל הָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וַיְּכוּלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָם. וַיְּכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי. וַיְּבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי. מַה כְתִיב בַּתְרֵיהּ אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם. וְכִי מַה עִנְיָן זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה. אֶלָּא יוֹם נִכְנַס וְיוֹם יוֹצֵא. שַׁבָּת נִכְנַס שַׁבָּת יוֹצֵא. חוֹדֶשׁ נִכְנַס חוֹדֶשׁ יוֹצֵא. שָנָה נִכְנַס שָנָה יוֹצְאָה. וּכְתִיב אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת י֙י אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם. Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish89The 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.. 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 Azariah90One of the teachers of the fifth generation of Galilean Amoraïm. In Bereshit rabba 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 goes91The use of masculine forms for both masculine and feminine is not uncommon in the Yerushalmi.. 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.”
רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אַרְבַּע אַשְׁמוּרוֹת בַּיּוֹם וְאַרְבַּע אַשְׁמוּרוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה. הָעוֹנָה אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לְשָׁעָה. הָעֵת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לְעוֹנָה. הָרֶגַע אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לָעֵת. כַּמָּה הוּא הָרֶגַע. רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר כְּדֵי לְאוֹמְרוֹ. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין הָרֶגַע כְּהֶרֶף עַיִן. תַּנִּי שְׁמוּאֵל הָרֶגַע אֶחָד מֵחֲמֶשֶׁת רִיבּוֹא וְשֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה לְשָׁעָה. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ ראֹשׁ הָאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הַתִּיכוֹנָה. Rebbi92Since Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah had defined the time of the recital of Shema‘ 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 hour93Of this part there exist three Yerushalmi sources [the Talmud here, Midrash Ekha rabbati 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.”
רִבִּי זְרִיקָן וְרִבִּי אַמִּי בְשֶׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה אָקוּם לְהוֹדוֹת לָךְ עַל מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ. וּכְתִיב קִדְּמוּ עֵינַי אַשְׁמוּרוֹת. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר רִבִּי זְרִיקָן רִבִּי בָא חַד אָמַר טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי וְחָרִינָה אָמַר טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי נָתָן. מַאן דָּמַר טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה. וּמַאן דָּמַר טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי נָתָן רֹאשׁ הָאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הַתִּיכוֹנָה. מָן מְקַיֵּים רִבִּי נָתָן טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה. פְּעָמִים חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה. וּפְעָמִים קִדְּמוּ עֵינַי אַשְׁמוּרוֹת. הָא כְאֵי זֶה צַד בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה דָּוִד סוֹעֵד סְעוּדַת מְלָכִים חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה סוֹעֵד סְעוּדַת עַצְמוֹ קִדְּמוּ עֵינַי אַשְׁמוּרוֹת. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם לָא הֲוָה אֻרְתָּא אַתְיָא וּמַשְׁכַּח לְדָוַד דָּמִיךְ. הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אָמַר עוּרָה כְבוֹדִי עוּרָה הַנֵּבֶל וְכִינּוֹר אָעִירָה שָׁחַר. אִיתְעִיר יְקָרִי מִן קוֹמֵי אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָֽרְיִי. אִיקָרִי לָא חָשִׁיב כְּלוּם מִן קֳדָם אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָֽרְיִי. אָעִירָה שָׁחַר. אֲנָא הֲוִינָא מְעוֹרֵר שַׁחְרָה. שַׁחְרָה לָא הֲוָה מְעוֹרֵר לִי. וְהָיָה יִצְירוֹ מְקַטְרְגוֹ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ דָּוִד דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל מְלָכִים לִהְיוֹת הַשַּׁחַר מְעוֹרְרָן. וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָעִירָה שָׁחַר. דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל מְלָכִים לִהְיוֹת יְשֵׁינִין עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת. וְאַתְּ אָמַר חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה אָקוּם. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר עַל מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ. וּמַה הָיָה דָוִד עוֹשֶׂה. רִבִּי פִינְחָס בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרִבִּי מְנַחֵם הָיָה נוֹטֵל נֵבֶל וְכִינּוֹר וְנוֹתְנוֹ מֵרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו וְעוֹמֵד בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וּמְנַגֵּן בָּהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ חֲבֵירֵי תוֹרָה. וּמַה הָיוּ חֲבֵירֵי תוֹרָה אוֹמְרִין וּמַה אִם דָוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ עוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה אָנוּ עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי כִּנּוֹר הָיָה תָלוּי כְּנֶגֶד חֲלוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל דָוִד וְהָיָה רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית מְנַשֶּׁבֶת בַּלַּיְלָה וּמְנַפְנֶפֶת בּוֹ וְהָיָה מְנַגֵּן מֵאֵילָיו. הָדָה הוּא דִכְתִיב וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן. כְּנַגֵּן בַּמְּנַגֵּן אֵין כָּתוּב כַּאן אֶלָּא כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן. הַכִּינּוֹר הָיָה מְנַגֵּן מֵאֵילָיו. Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Ammi94Rebbi 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 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.”95See the preceding paragraph. 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 Menaḥem96Rebbi 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 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 Levi97The 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 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.
מַה מְקַיֵּים רִבִּי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי נָתָן ראֹשׁ הָאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הַתִּיכוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא סוֹפָהּ שֶׁל שְׁנִיָּיה וְרֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל שְׁלִישִׁית הֵן מְתַוְּוכוֹת אֶת הַלַּיְלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא וְיֵאוֹת. מִי כְתִיב תִּיכוֹנוֹת לֹא תִיכוֹנָה. קַדְמִיתָא לָא מִתְחַשְּׁבָא דְּעַד כְּדוֹן בִּרְייָתָא עֵירִין. How does Rebbi uphold the basis of Rebbi Nathan’s reason, “at the start of the middle watch”?98This 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. 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.
פיסקא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עַד חֲצוֹת. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה כַּחֲכָמִים. רִבִּי יָסָא מְפַקֵּד לַחֲבֵרָייָא אִין בָּעִיתוּן מִתְעַסְּקָא בְאוֹרָֽיְתָא אַתּוּן קַרְייָה שְׁמַע קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וּמִתְעַסְּקִין. מִילְתֵיהּ אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהֲלָכָה כַּחֲכָמִים מִילְתֵיהּ אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאָמַר דְּבָרִים אַחַר אֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב. תַּנִּי הַקּוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בְּשַׁחַר יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. בָּעֶרֶב לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. מַּה בֵין הַקּוֹרֵא בְשַׁחֲרִית. וּמַה בֵין הַקּוֹרֵא בְעַרְבִית. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב יוֹסֵף מַה טַעַם אָֽמְרוּ אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת שְׁמַע בְּבֵיתוֹ בְעֶרֶב בִּשְׁבִיל לְהַבְרִיחַ אֶת הַמַּזִּיקִין. מִילְתֵיהּ אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹמֵר דְּבָרִים אַחַר אֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר כֵּן. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי כַּד הֲוָה נָחִית לְעִיבּוּרָה הֲוָה מִקַּבֵּל גַּבֵּי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב גָּרוֹסָה וַהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִטַּמֵּר בֵּינֵי קוֹפָייָא מִשְׁמַעְנָא הֵיךְ הֲוָה קָרֵי שְׁמַע וְהֲוָה קָרֵי וְחָזַר וְקָרֵי עַד דַהֲוָא שְׁקַע מִינֵיהּ גֵו שֵׁינָתֵיהּ. וּמַאי טַעֲמָא רִבִּי אַחָא וְרִבִּי תַחְלִיפָא חָמוֹי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן רִגְזוּ וְאַל תֶּחֱטָּאוּ אִמְרוּ בִלְבַבְכֶם עַל מִשְׁכַּבְכֶם וְדוֹמוּ סֶלָה. New Section.99Quote from the next part of the Mishnah that is going to be discussed. “But the sages say until midnight.” Rebbi Yasa100Rebbi 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 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 study101One talks here about studying in the night. It is stated in Mishnah Šabbat 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 Weyaẓiv102In the Babylonian ritual followed today, the benediction after Shema‘ 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 duty103This supports Rashi’s opinion. However, Raviah, 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?104This 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 (#1, vol. 1, p.5) and in Midrash Tehillim(4[9]) do not contain the sentence. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Joseph:105Rebbi 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. 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 intercalation106Rebbi 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., 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.”107This paragraph is the basis of Rema’s notes in Shulḥan Arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim 239,1, as noted by the Gaon of Wilna.
מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי פְּלִיגָא דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי קָרֵי מִזְמוֹרִים בַתְרֵהּ. וְהָא תַנִּי אֵין אוֹמֵר דְּבָרִים אַחַר אֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב. פָּתַר לָהּ בֶּאֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית. דָּמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב אַבָּא בַּר יִרְמְיָה שָׁלֹשׁ תְּכֵיפוֹת הֵן. תֵּכֶף לִסְּמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה. תֵּכֶף לִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם בְּרָכָה. תֵּכֶף לִגְאוּלָּה תְפִילָּה. תֵּכֶף לִסְּמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה וְסָמַךְ וְשָׁחַט. תֵּכֶף לִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם בְּרָכָה שְׂאוּ יְדֵיכֶם קֹדֶשׁ וּבָֽרְכוּ אֶת יי֨. תֵּכֶף לִגְאוּלָּה תְפִילָּה יִהְיוּ לְרָצוֹן אִמְרֵי פִי. מַה כְתִיב בַּתְרֵיהּ יַעַנְךָ יי֨ בְּיוֹם צָרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵי רִבִּי בּוּן כָּל־מִי שֶׁהוּא תּוֹכֵף סְמִיכָה לִשְׁחִיטָה אֵין פְּסוּל נוֹגֵעַ בְּאוֹתוֹ קָרְבָּן. וְכָל־מִי שֶׁהוּא תּוֹכֵף לִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם בְּרָכָה אֵין הַשָּׂטָן מְקַטְרֵג בְּאוֹתָהּ סְעוּדָה. וְכָל־מִי שֶׁהוּא תּוֹכֵף גְאוּלָּה לִתְפִילָּה אֵין הַשָּׂטָן מְקַטְרֵג בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אַנָּא תְכֵפִית גְּאוּלָּה לִתְפִילָּה וְאִיתְצְדֵית בְּאַנְגָּרִיָּא מוֹבִילָה הֲדָס לְפַלָּטִין אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ רִבִּי רְבוּ הִיא. אִית בְּנֵי אִינְשֵׁי הָבִין פְּרִיטִין מַחְכִּים פַּלָּטִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי כָּל־מִי שְׁאֵינוֹ תּוֹכֵף לִגְאוּלָּה תְפִילָּה לְמַה הוּא דוֹמֶה. לְאוֹהֲבוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ שֶׁבָּא וְהִרְתִיק עַל פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ. יָצָא לֵידַע מַה הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁהִפְלִיג עוֹד הוּא הִפְלִיג. The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi108One of the great sages of the first generation of Amoraïm. He lived in the valley of Beth Shean (Demay2:1). 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 prayers109Here it is obvious that “words after Emet Weyaẓiv” 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 Jeremiah110R. 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 42a) in the name of Rav.: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering111In 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., immediately after hand-washing comes benediction112It 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 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 prayer113This means that immediately after reciting the benediction: “Praise to You, o Lord, Who redeemed Israel,” one has to start the Amidah 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)114Leaning 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.). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.115Hands 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.”” 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.”116This 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”. 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 day117This third statement is quoted in the Babli (Berakhot 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 Immi118In 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 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.
פיסקא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר׃ אַתְיָא דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּתַנִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פְּעָמִים שֶּׁאָדָם קוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע אַחַת לִפְנֵי עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר וְאַחַת לְאַחַר עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר וְנִמְצָא יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם וְשֶׂל לַיְלָה. הָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעַרְבִית אַף בְּשַׁחֲרִית כֵּן. אוֹ יְהֵא בָהּ כַּיִי דָּמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא תַּנָּאֵי אַחֲוֹי דְּרַב חִייָא בַּר אַשִּׁיא וּדְרַב אַבַּא בַּר חָנָה הַקּוֹרֵא עִם אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר לֹא יָצָא כִּי מַשְׁכִּימִין הָיוּ. 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 Simeon119He is Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥay, one of the students of R. Aqiba. In the Babli (Berakhot 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 expressed120The Aramaic/Hebrew כיי דמר should be read as equivalent of Babylonian: כְּהַאי דְּאָמַר. by Rebbi Zeïra the Tanna121Meaning 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”., the brother of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi122One of the foremost students of Rav in Babylonia., and of Rav Abba bar Ḥana123First cousin and colleague of Rav and student of their common uncle Rebbi Ḥiyya. Their statement, slightly enlarged, appears as an anonymous baraita 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 early124The Mishmar 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..
וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל פַּלִּיג עַל רַבָּנִין וְעָבַד עוּבְדָא כְוָותֵיהּ. וְהָא רִבִּי מֵאִיר פַּלִּיג עַל רַבָּנִין וְלָא עָבַד עוּבְדָא כְוָותֵיהּ. וְהָא רִבִּי עַקִיבָא פַּלִּיג עַל רַבָּנִין וְלָא עָבַד עוּבְדָא כְוָותֵיהּ׃ Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the Sages and acts upon his opinion?125Since it is written (Ex. 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?
וְהֵן אַשְׁכַּחְנָן דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר פַּלִּיג עַל רַבָּנִין וְלָא עָבַד עוּבְדָּא כְּוָותֵיהּ. דְּתַנִּי סָכִין אַלְווֹנְתִּית לְחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת. אֵימָתַי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁטָּֽרְפוֹ בְיַיִן וּבְשֶׁמֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. אֲבָל אִם לֹא טָֽרְפוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אָסוּר. תַּנִּי אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מַתִּיר הָיָה רִבִּי מֵאִיר לִטְרוֹף יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וְלָסוֹךְ לְחוֹלֶה בְשַׁבָּת. וּכְבָר חָלָה וּבִקַּשְׁנוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ כֵן וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ לָנוּ. וְאָמַרְנוּ לוֹ רִבִּי דְּבָרֶיךְ מְבַטֵּל בְּחַיֶּיךָ. וְאָמַר לָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲנִי מֵיקַל לַאֲחֵרִים מַחְמִיר אֲנִי עַל עַצְמִי דְּהָא פְּלִיגֵי עָלַי חֲבֵרָי. So we find that Rebbi Meïr disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. We have stated: One rubs olentia126Latin olentia “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.
וְהֵן אַשְׁכַּחְנָן דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה פַּלִּיג עַל רַבָּנִין וְלָא עָבַד עוּבְדָּא כְּוָותֵיהּ. כַּיִי דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים. אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים. רְבִיעִית דָּם מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים. וְרוֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים. אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא וַחֲכָמִים מְטָהֲרִין. תַּנִּי מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ קוּפָּה מְלֵאָה עֲצָמוֹת מִכְּפַר טַּבִּי וְהִנִּיחוּהָ בָּאַוִּיר הַכְּנֶסֶת בְּלוֹד. וְנִכְנַס תּוֹדְרוֹס הָרוֹפֶא וְנִכְנְסוּ כָּל־הָרוֹפְאִים עִמּוֹ. אָמַר תּוֹדְרוֹס הָרוֹפֶא אֵין כַּאן שִׁדְרָה מִמֵּת אֶחָד וְלֹא גוּלְגּוֹלֶת מִמֵּת אֶחָד. אָֽמְרוּ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ כַּאן מְטָהֲרִין וְיֵשׁ כַּאן מְטַמְּאִין. נַעֲמוֹד עַל הַמִּנְיָין. הִתְחִילוּ מֵרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וְטִיהֵר. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהָיִיתָ מְטַמֵּא וְטִיהַרְתָּ טָהוֹר. 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.”127Purity 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 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:128Tosephta Ahilot 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 Tabi129Former Arab village Kafr Ṭab East of Lod. 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.”
וְהֵן אַשְׁכַּחְנָן דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פַּלִּיג עַל רַבָּנִין וְלָא עָבַד עוּבְדָּא כְּוָותֵיהּ. כַּיִי דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל־הַסְּפִחִין מוּתָּרִין חוּץ מִסְּפִיחֵי כְּרוּב שֶׁאֵין כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בִּירָקוֹת שָׂדֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כָּל־הַסְּפִחִין אֲסוּרִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָי עָבַד עוּבְדָא בִשְׁמִיטְתָא חָמָא חַד מְלַקֵּט סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלֵית אָסוּר. וְלָאו סְפִיחֵי אִינּוּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלֹא אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁאַתְּ מַתִּיר. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְאֵין חֲבֵירַי חוֹלְקִין עָלָי. וְקָרֵי עַלוֹי וּפוֹרֶץ גָּדֵר יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ נָחָשׁ. וְכֵן הֲוָת לֵיהּ. 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 wild130The Mishnah deals with produce of the Seventh year offered for sale by an Am Haäreẓ, 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.
וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל פַּלִּיג עַל רַבָּנִן וְעָבַד עוּבְדָּא כְּוָותֵיהּ. שַׁנְיָיא הָכָא שֶׁהִיא לְשִׁינּוּן. מֵעַתָּה אַף מִשֶּׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר תַּמָּן הָיוּ יְכוֹלִין לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. בְּרַם הָכָא כְּבַר עָבַר חַצּוֹת וְלֹא הָיוּ יְכוֹלִין לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים אָמַר לָוֹן עוֹבְדִין עוּבְדָּא כְּוָּתֵיהּ. 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 study131As explained at the end of Mishnah 5.. But then they could have read also after the start of dawn132And why did he tell them only to read before dawn? [Naturally, after dawn there already is an obligation to read the morning Shema‘; 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 opinion133Since the Sages will agree in this situation..
אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים. אִית דְּלָא תַנֵי אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים. מַאן תַּנָּא אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים רַבָּנָן. וּמַאן דְּלָא תַנֵי אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וּמַאִי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נֶאֱמַר כַּאן לַיְלָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן לַיְלָה. מַה לַיְלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן חֲצוֹת. אַף כַּאן חֲצוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה וְלֵית כַּן אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים אֲפִילוּ כְרַבָּנָן דְּתַנִּינָן הַפֶּסַח אַחַר חֲצוֹת מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. 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.135For 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 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 Ḥuna136This 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 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.”139This 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 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.
כָּל־הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד קָדְשֵׁי [קָדָשִׁים]. וְאִם כֵּן לָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ חֲכָמִים וכו׳ אִם אַתְּ הוּא אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עֲמוּד הַשַּׁחַר הוּא סָבוּר שֶׁלֹּא עָלָה עֲמוּד הַשַּׁחַר. נִמְצָא אוֹכֵל וּמִתְחַיֵּיב. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאַתְּ אוֹמֵר לוֹ עַד חֲצוֹת. אֲפִילוּ הוּא אוֹכֵל אַחַר חֲצוֹת אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵּיב. “All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only,” these are the holiest of holies.139This 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 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.140The 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. When you say to him: “only until midnight,” even if he does eat after midnight he will not incur guilt.