Berachos 3b - Part 3

The Gemara previously stated that King David woke up at midnight in order to praise Hashem. The Gemara now asks from another pasuk in the same chapter (Tehillim 119), which says that King David arose at neshef. The gemara assumes that neshef is the beginning of the evening. This is based on another pasuk in Mishlei 7 where it describes neshef as the beginning of the evening. The Gemara offers three answers to this question:

Answer #1: Rav Oshaya says in the name of Rabbi Acha that when King David said before that he awoke at midnight it really just meant that midnight never passed while he was sleeping. He may have been up earlier, however.

Answer #2: Rabbi Zeira says that until midnight he was half-asleep like a horse. Then from chatzos he would arise like a lion.

Answer #3: Rav Ashi says that until midnight he would learn torah. From midnight onward was devoted to songs and praises to Hashem.

Berachos 3b - Part 2

Tanu Rabbanan:

The Baraissa brings an argument between Rebbi and R' Nosson. Rebbi holds that there are 4 watches in the night. R' Nosson holds there are three.

The Gemara now analyzes the two positions:

R' Nosson's position: R' Nosson bases his opinion that there are 3 mishmaros on a pasuk in Shoftim 7. The pasuk talks about Gideon coming with his men "at the beginning of the middle mishmar. If there is a "middle" mishmar, there must only be three mishmaros, and not four. Rebbi would respond that the pasuk only means one of the two middle watches. R' Nosson responds back that it doesn't say that.

Rebbi's position: Rebbi bases his opinion that there are 4 mishmaros on a pasuk in Tehillim 119. This source is brought by R' Zreika in the name of R' Ami in the name of R' Yehoshua ben Levi. The pasuk says that King David arises at chatzos (midnight) to thank Hashem. The pasuk also says that two ashmaros remain from midnight until daytime. This clearly implies that there are 4 mishmaros.

The Gemara offers two possible responses of R' Nosson:

Response #1: R' Nosson follows R' Yehoshua's opinion in a Mishna in Berachos 9b. There R' Yehoshua says that the zman of the morning shma ends 3 hours into the day, because kings get up then. King David, in that case, would've gotten up 2 hours late (arising at the beginning of the 3rd hour). Thus, if he wakes at midnight he is getting up 8 hours early. Since there are 3 mishmaros (acc. to R' Nosson) each mishmar is 4 hours. So, essentially, 8 hours is two mishmaros, which is why King David says that he arises two mishmaros early.

Response #2: R' Ashi answers more simply that really King David arose 1.5 mishmaros early. We can refer to 1.5 mishmaros as 2 mishmaros.

Berachos 3a - Part 5, Berachos 3b - Part 1

Tanu Rabbanan:

There are 3 reasons one may not enter a ruin:

1. Due to suspicion.

2. Due to collapse.

3. Due to mazikin.

Issue #1: The gemara asks, why say the reason of suspision? Isn't collapse enough? We are speaking about a new ruin. And why not say due to mazikin? Because we are talking about two people entering. If there are two people entering, so why is there any suspicion? Because it's two immodest people.

Issue #2: Why say collapse? Isn't suspicion and mazikin enough? We are talking by two people who are modest.

Issue #3: Why say mazikin? Isn't suspicion and collapse enough? We are talking in a new ruin with two modest people. But if there are two people, there is no problem of mazikin?

Answer #1: We are talking in an area where we suspect mazikin.

Answer #2: Really we are talking about one person in a new ruin that is in the field. There is no suspicion because women don't commonly walk in the field. However, there is a problem of mazikin.

Berachos 3a - Part 4

Baraissa:

R' Yossi says, Once I was walking on the road and I entered one of the ruined areas of Yerushalayim to daven. Eliyahu, may he be remembered for good, came and waited by the door until I finished my prayer. After I finished my prayer he said to me, Peace unto you Rebbi. And I responded, Peace unto you my Rebbi and teacher. And he said to me, My son, why did you enter this ruin? And I said to him, to daven. And he said to me, you should've davened on the road. And I said to him that I was afraid, perhaps passer-byes would stop me. And he said, you should have davened an abridged prayer. I learnt from him three things:

1. One shouldn't enter a ruin.
2. One may daven on the road.
3. One who davens on the road should daven an abridged prayer.

And he said to me, my son, what did you hear in this ruin? And I said to him, I heard a voice moaning like a dove and saying, Woe unto my children, that through their sins, I have destroyed my house, and I have burnt my palace, and I have exiled them amongst the nations. And he said to me, by your life, and the life of your head, it was not only at that moment that it said that, but each and every day, three times, it says that. And not only that, but when Israel enters their shuls and Batei Midrash, and answer yehi shmei hagadol m'vorach, The Holy One Blessed Is He shakes his head and says, Fortunate is the king that they praise him in his home such, what is of the father who exiles his children, and woe unto the children who are exiled from the table of their father.

Berachos 3a - Part 3

The gemara just concluded with a baraissa that described the three mishmaros of R' Eliezer and what occurs at each mishmar. The gemara now asks, what part of each mishmar was being described? If it's the first part, why describe the first part of the first mishmar? Isn't that just the beginning of the night? And, if it is the end of each mishmar, isn't the end of the last mishmar the beginning of the day?

Answer #1: We are describing the end of the first mishmar, the beginning of the last mishmar and the middle of the middle mishmar.

Answer #2: We are describing the end of each mishmar. If so, why describe the end of the last one, if that is just the beginning of the day? We are describing that mishmar in case someone lives in a dark house and he doesn't know whether day began. Thus, he doesn't know if he should say shma yet. Once he hears a wife talking to her husband and a baby nursing, he will know it is day, and he can get up and say shma.

The gemara brings a statement from Rav Yitzchak Bar Shmuel in the name of Rav:

There are 3 watches during the night. At each watch Hashem sits and roars like a lion, and He says, "Woe is to my children, that through their sins they have destroyed my house, and burnt my palace, and I have exiled them amongst the nations of the world".

Berachos 3a - Part 2

R' Eliezer in the mishna said that the zman for the evening shma ends with the end of "the first watch". The gemara now delves into what exactly this means.

The gemara first wants to know, how many watches are there in the night? Either there are 3 or 4. Now, if there are 3 watches, why not simply say that the zman ends 4 hours into the night (as 12/3=4)? And, if there are 4 watches, why not simply say 3 hours into the night (as 12/4=3)?

The gemara answers that really R' Eliezer holds there are 3 watches during the night. The reason why the mishna chooses to define the time in terms of watches is to teach you another chiddush. The chiddush is that just like there are watches in the heavens there are also watches on earth.

The gemara brings a baraissa to prove this idea that there are watches both in heaven and on earth:

Baraissa: R' Eliezer says that there are 3 watches in the night. At each mishmar Hashem roars like a lion. A pasuk in Yirmayhu 25 mentions this idea. And, a siman for the mishmaros is that in the first one a donkey neighs. In the second, dogs scream. In the third, a baby nurses and a wife speaks with her husband.

Berachos 3a - Part 1

The gemara asks that R' Meir seems to contradict himself in the baraissos. In one baraissa he said "the time of eating erev shabbos" and in the other he said "the time of tevilah". The gemara answers that it is a machlokes tannaim what R' Meir held.

The gemara further asks that R' Eliezer seems in contradiction. One time he said "from the time of kedushas hayom of shabbos" and in the mishna he seems to agree that it's "from the time the kohanim enter to eat terumah". Again, the gemara answers it's a machlokes tannaim what R' Eliezer held. Alternatively, the gemara answers that R' Eliezer actually did not agree with the first part of the mishnah.

Berachos 2b - Part 4

The Gemara analyzes a section of the previously mentioned baraissa. The Baraissa had the following exchange:

Rabbi Meir: [One recites Shma] from the time the kohanim are toveil to eat terumah.

Rabbi Yehuda: But aren't they toveil while it is still day?

The Gemara asks, what is Rabbi Meir's response to Rabbi Yehuda's claim?

The Gemara says that Rabbi Meir responds that he is not following Rabbi Yehuda's opinion of Bein Hashmashos, but rather Rabbi Yossi's opinion. Rabbi Yossi holds that Bein Hashmashos is k'heref ayin. Day leaves, night comes and it's impossible to calculate the switch.

Berachos 2b - Part 3

The gemara just finished saying that the time kohanim eat their terumah is the same time that poor people sit down to eat their bread and salt and that both are the time for the recitation of the evening shma. The gemara now attempts to prove from another baraissa that it cannot, in fact, be the case that "kohen" and "ani" are at the same time:

Baraissa:

Rabbi Meir: When should one begin to recite the evening shma? When people begin to eat their bread on erev shabbos.

Chachamim: From the time Kohanim merit to eat their terumah. A Siman for this time is tzeis hakochavim.

The chachamim conclude their remarks by saying that even though there is no proof for the fact that the day ends with tzeis hakochavim, their is a mention of it in the pesukim. The Chachamim then bring a pasuk in Nechemia (Perek 4) about men working from dawn until tzeis hakochavim. They then bring another pasuk about the night being for "the watch" and the day for work.

The gemara takes a bit of a detour and asks why the chachamim need two pesukim. The gemara explains that if we only had the first pasuk I might say that those men were "working overtime" and really the day ends at sunset. For this reason the gemara brought the second pasuk.

The gemara now sets up the premise for their question. The premise is that "ani" and "regular people" (sitting down to their shabbos meal) are actually at the same time. If so "regular people" and "kohen" cannot be the same time (or else there is no machlokes between R' Meir and the Chachamim). If so, "kohen" and "ani" cannot be at the same time?

The gemara answers that, in fact, "ani" and "kohen" are at the same time and it is "regular people" who eat at a different time.

The gemara now brings yet another baraissa to try to prove that "ani" and "kohen" cannot be at the same time.

Baraissa:

R' Eliezer: When does the recitation of the evening shma begin? From the time the kedushas hayom of shabbos sets in.

R' Yehoshua: From the time the kohanim are purified to eat terumah.

R' Meir: From the time the kohanim are toveil to eat terumah.

R' Yehudah responds to R' Meir: How can that be? Don't they immerse during the day??

R' Chaninah: From the time the ani eats his bread and salt.

R' Achai (some say R' Acha): From the time most people enter "to lean".

The question is, if "kohen" and "ani" are the same time, isn't R' Chaninah saying the same thing as R' Yehoshua??

So, the gemara says, it must be that they are, in fact, different times.

The gemara concludes that it is logical that "ani" is the later of the two times. Why? Because if "ani" was the earlier time, so R' Chaninah would essentially be agreeing with R' Eliezer.

Berachos 2b - Part 2

We previously stated that one begins the recitation of the evening shma from the time that the kohanim enter to eat terumah. Now, the gemara asks from a baraissa which states that the time is actually "from the time that a poor man enters to eat his bread until the time that he gets up from the meal".

Now the end of the statement (regarding when the zman for shma ends) is certainly against our mishna. What about the beginning of the statement?

The gemara answers that it could be that a kohen eats terumah at the some time a poor man sits down to his bread. Thus, it is possible that there is no contradiction.

Berachos 2a - Part 3, Berachos 2b - Part 1

The mishna stated that the time for reciting the evening shma begins at the same time that the kohanim enter to eat their terumah. The gemara now asks:

Question: Let us see, what time do the kohanim begin to eat terumah? At Tzeis HaKochavim (nightfall). So why doesn't the mishna just say nightfall?


Answer: The mishna is teaching us a chiddush derech agav. The chiddush is that when, in fact, do the kohanim enter to eat their terumah? At nightfall.

The Gemara then says that the mishna also teaches us that kohanim don't need kapara in order to eat teruma. They only need nightfall. This follows the teaching in the following baraissa:

Baraissa: U'Ba HaShemesh V'Taher (and the sun will set and he will be purified) - the setting of the sun is needed for the kohen to be able to eat terumah, but the kohen's kapara isn't needed in order for him to eat terumah.

The Gemara now delves into the fashion in which the baraissa darshens the pasuk:

Question: How does the baraissa know that the bias shemesh here is nightfall and the purity is coming from the days end? Perhaps, the bias shemesh actually refers to sunrise the purity refers to the purification of the kohen (through the bringing of his korbanos, i.e. the kaparah)? In other words, maybe the pasuk of U'Ba HaShemesh is actually referring to kaparah, and not nightfall?

Rabba Bar Rav Shila answers: If the pasuk was referring to the kapara that the kohen brings it would have said "v'yitaher". The word "v'taher" implies the purification of the days end, as people say, "the sun sets and the day has cleansed".

The gemara now says that in the West they had the same basic give and take without having heard the answer of Rabba Bar Rav Shila. So there they simply asked, how do we learn the pasuk of U'ba HaShemesh V'Taher? Is it referring to the days end or to the persons purification the next day through korbanos? They then answered from a baraissa which refers to the time the kohanim eat terumah as being nightfall. Thus, it is clear that the pasuk refers to the days end and the purification of the day itself.

Berachos 2a - Part 2

The gemara asks two questions on the mishna:

Question #1: The Mishna says "from when do we recite shma in the evening?". What does from when mean? It sounds like the mishna is picking up from some previous statement.

Question #2: Wouldn't it be more logical to start the mesechta with the halachos of the morning shma and not the evening one?

The gemara gives two answers:

Answer #1: The tanna of the mishna is picking up off the pasuk that says that you read the shma b'shachbacha uv'kumecha, when you lie down and when you arise.

Answer #2: The tanna of the mishna learnt out from the creation of the world that evening precedes morning. As it says in Bereishis, V'Yihi Erev V'Yihi Boker, and it was evening and it was morning.

The gemara questions this idea that the tanna likes to always put evening before morning, because this principle seems contradicted by a later mishna on 11a. Here is that mishna:

Mishna 11a: In the morning [shma] one makes two berachos before the shma and one bracha after. In the evening shma there are two berachos before and two after.

This mishna is clearly problematic because it is listing morning before evening.

The gemara explains the logic of the tanna as follows:

The tanna of the mishna first starts with the evening shma in our mishna. Then the tanna moves on the the morning shma. Once the tanna has mentioned the morning shma the tanna decides to go into some of the details of the morning shma. Then, the tanna goes back to discuss the details of the evening shma.

Berachos 2a - Part 1

The mishna begins by saying that the zman for shma of the evening begins "from the time that the kohanim enter to eat terumah". As far as when the time for shma ends, this is a machlokes tannaim. Here are the shittos:

Rabbi Eliezer: Until the end of "the first watch" of the night.

Chachamin: Until chatzos.

Rabban Gamliel: Until dawn.

The mishna finishes with the following story: The sons of Rabban Gamliel once came back from a feast and they told him that they hadn't yet recited the evening shma. He replied that they had until dawn. Not only that, but anytime the chachamim said that a mitzvah is until chatzos, really you have until dawn. For example, the burning of the fats and limbs of korbanos and all korbanos that are eaten for one day the mitzvah actually extends until dawn. Why did the chachamim say that the deadline was until chatzos? Only to make sure that people wouldn't miss the zman.