Return to Sender (Berakhot 10b)

"The refutation of Rav Hisda is a conclusive refutation" (Steinsaltz, p. 69).  This phrase brought me up short just a little bit, since so much of the Talmudic discussion up to this point has been to explain, reconcile, domesticate, and otherwise minimize dissent, not summarily dismiss it.  But according to Steinsaltz this is "one of the most fundamental talmudic expressions," occuring "when the statement of an amora is powerfully refuted by a tannaitic source."   It literally means return, in the sense that his statement is thrown back to him.

But Hisda has a point.  If reciting the Shema after the third hour is a matter of reading Torah, the blessings that accompany the Shema are not Torah texts.    I wonder if the Mishnah's view that one who recites the Shema late is "like one who recites from the Torah" was formulated before the Shema acquired these additional blessings (i.e., Yotzer Or, etc.).

Beruriah (Berakhot 10a)

Rabbi Meir's wife Beruriah placates her husband's anger against some neighborhood thugs through a fresh interpretation of Ps. 104:35.   (Steinsaltz, p. 61).  Beruriah "was renowned not only for her character and personality, but also for her extensive Torah knowledge. . . . She disagreed with several Sages of her generation, and we find that the halakha in that dispute was ruled in accordance with her opinion."

The unvocalized word חטים can be read either as chotim (sinners) or chataim (sins).  When Beruriah points out that it doesn't say " sinners," the spelling of "sinners" is חוטים, an alternate spelling which could only mean "sinners," not "sins."  The shorter spelling found in the biblical text opens the door for her alternative interpretation.  In essence, she tells Rabbi Meir that, just as he has a choice about how to vocalize the text, he has a choice in his attitude toward these hooligans.  

The Biology of Grace (Berakhot 10a)

This section of Berakhot meanders into several discussions of the Psalms, including one ascribed to R. Simeon bar Yochai.    He is one of the Rabbis associated in later traditions with mystical ideas; indeed the magnum opus of kabbalah, the Zohar, was published in his name (although it was actually written much later).  So when I read in Berakhot his statement that King David “dwelled in five worlds and spoke a song [in each],”  I was expecting a journey through heavenly realms or levels of the soul.  What I read, however, was predominantly biological.

• He dwelled in the belly of his mother and spoke a song: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all my inwards bless his holy name” (Psa. 103: 1).

• He came forth into the world and looked at the stars and planets and spoke a song: “Bless the Lord, you angels of his, you mighty in strength that fulfill his word, hearkening to the voice of his word.  Bless the Lord, all you his hosts” (Psa. 103:20, 21).

• He sucked at the tit of his mother and looked at her breasts and spoke a song: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits’ (Psa. 103:2).”

• He saw the catastrophe that came upon the wicked and spoke a song: “Let sinners cease out of the earth and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul, Halleluyah” (Psa. 104:35).

• He looked upon the day of death and spoke a song: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, you are very great, you are clothed with glory and majesty” (Psa. 104: 1).

The moral conflict, the drama of right and wrong decisions, is part of the picture, but does not predominate.   The pageant that Bar Yochai presents is dominated by the facts of birth, breath, nourishment, death, the wonder of worlds.

Old School Davening (Berakhot 9b)

The vatikin would complete the recitation of the Shema exactly at sunrise so as to place Redemption right next to Prayer, and one will turn out to say the Prayer in daylight. Said R. Zira, “What verse of Scripture supports this practice? ‘They shall fear you with the sun and before the moon throughout all generations’ (Psa. 72: 5).”

One of the interesting things about the Talmud is the way it reflects evolving Jewish liturgy over half a millennium.   "Redemption" is the final blessing of the Shema, the section of the liturgy represented in our service by Mi Chamocha and Tzur Yisrael.   "Prayer" (Tefila) refers to here not to prayer in general, but to the liturgy also called the Amida ("standing"), and the "18 Benedictions."   In our service, it is represented by the section that begins, "Adonai, open my lips," and concludes with "Sim Shalom."  

We think of Shema and Tefila as two parts of a single service, but in the Talmud they are conceived of as separate acts, each with their own schedule.  The times for the recitation of the Shema are based on the phrase from the Shema itself, "when you lie down and when you rise."  The times for Tefila are based primarily on the sacrificial calendar in the Torah.   Yet the juncture of the two seems natural, almost predestined, and we now do it as a matter of course (although not necessarily at sunrise).

But who are the vatikin?   The academic translations consider them to be unidentified precursors of the Rabbis.  Jacob Neusner translates "the old timers"; Maurice Simon [in the Soncino Talmud] thinks the term "applied to certain men who, in the time of the Hasmonean kingdom, set an example of exceptional piety. Some identify them with the Essenes*."  The yeshiva translations, on the other hand, understand vatikin as simply descriptive of heightened piety: Artscroll translates "devoted"; Steinsaltz, "pious individuals . . . scrupulous" (see also his note on p. 163).  The "scrupulousness" would be reflected in the desire to begin the Tefila right at sunrise.

*Simon is writing before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so the speculation is based on accounts of the Essenes in Josephus and Philo.

Don't say the Shema . . . until you can distinguish (Berakhot 9b)

From what time do they recite the Shema in the morning?  asks the Mishnah.  It provides an answer based on the ability to distinguish colors.  From the hour that one can distinguish between blue and white.   R. Eliezer says, “Between blue and green.”  The Gemara goes on to quote two other traditions based on the ability to distinguish between similar animals: “a wolf and a dog.” (R. Meir)  or “an ass and a wild ass” (R. Aqiba).  But these are rejected in favor of an opinion from the Tosefta (ascribed simply to “others”): “Once one can see his fellow four cubits away and recognize who it is.”

All of these options are subjective and imprecise, giving a feel for daybreak rather than a definition of it.   If the last one is preferred, it's not because it's more effective in a practical sense ("Harry, go step four cubits back and I'll see if I can recognize you").   I think it's because the ability to recognize a person is morally fundamental in a way that distinguishing species or colors is not. 

I find it interesting and appealing that we are concerned with being able to make distinctions at the same time as we're affirming Unity.  Going into the Shema I am reminded that yes, Harry and I are different, but our life flows from the same Source and is grounded in a single Substance.  Coming out of the Shema I've affirmed that it's all One, but look, there's that One reflected in Harry as it is in no-one else.

December: "I am with you"

Content to be added later.

December: Dismantling a "fence"

Content to be added later.