Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

January 18, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Moed Katan 6

Today's Daf Yomi

January 15, 2020 | 讬状讞 讘讟讘转 转砖状驻

Berakhot 12

It was implied from something Rabbi Zeira said that the blessing the priests said in the temple before shema was “God who created light.” But the gemara rejects this and says that one can interpret that statement in a different way and it could be the blessing of “great love that God has for the Jewish people.” Why were the ten commandments no longer used as part of the liturgy in the temple and outside the temple? What do the priests who are leaving their watch bless those who are beginning their watch? What does this teach you about priests’ behavior in the temple? If someone starts a blessing thinking she is going to drink wine and then remembers that it is beer, and finishes the blessing correctly, does that work? Do we go by the main part of the blessing or the ending? The gemara tries to answer the question from other sources but is unsuccessful.. The gemara brings five statements of Rabba son of聽 Chinnana Saba in the name of Rav: 1. If one doesn’t say emet v’yatziv in the morning or emet v’emuna at night one does not fulfill one’s obligation (what obligation?). Why? 2. During prayer, we bow at baruch and stand up at God’s name. Why? 3. In the ten days of repentance we say “the holy king” and “the king of judgement”. There are those who disagree. What if one forgets to say them? 4. One who can pray for others and doesn’t is considered a sinner. 5. One who pray and is then embarrassed by one’s sin is pardons from all of one’s sins. This is learned from King Saul. The rabbis wanted Parshat Balak to be said daily as part of shema. Why did they want to and why didn’t this happen? Parshat tzitzit was chosen for five themes. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria and the rabbis argue about whether one needs to mention the exodus from Egypt at night. What is the source of their debate?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讛讘讛 专讘讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 讘专讻讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讜讻讬 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬

However, if you say that they would omit: Who creates light, and would recite: An abounding love, on what basis would you conclude that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other? In that case, one could offer another reason why only a single blessing is recited. Perhaps the fact that they did not recite: Who creates light was because the time for the recitation of: Who creates light, had not yet arrived, as the sun had yet to rise. The blessings of the priestly watch are recited in the early morning hours, long before sunrise. However, afterward, when the time to recite: Who creates light arrived, they would recite it. From the conclusion drawn by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other, it is clear that the blessing recited by the members of the priestly watch was: Who creates light.

讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬

As this deductive reasoning seems coherent and convincing, the Gemara asks: And if this halakha is based on inference, and not on an explicit statement, what of it? There seems to be no other way to interpret Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish鈥檚 statement.

讚讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讛讘讛 专讘讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬 讜讻讬 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讘专讻讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 住讚专 讘专讻讜转:

The Gemara answers: If this conclusion were based on an inference, one could say that actually they recited: An abounding love, and when the time to recite: Who creates light arrived, they would recite it. In that case, what is the meaning of: Failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish meant that failure to recite the correct order of the blessings does not prevent one from fulfilling his obligation. Even if one recites: An abounding love before: Who creates light, he fulfills his obligation. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish did not refer to a case where only one of the blessings was recited. Consequently, one cannot infer from his statement his opinion regarding the identity of the single blessing.

讜拽讜专讬谉 注砖专转 讛讚讘专讜转 砖诪注 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 砖诪讜注 讜讬讗诪专 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 讜注讘讜讚讛 讜讘专讻转 讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara related above that the priests in the Temple read the Ten Commandments, along with the sections of Shema, VeHaya im Shamoa, VaYomer, True and Firm, Avoda, and the priestly benediction.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗祝 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讘拽砖讜 诇拽专讜转 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇讜诐 诪驻谞讬 转专注讜诪转 讛诪讬谞讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even in the outlying areas, outside the Temple, they sought to recite the Ten Commandments in this manner every day, as they are the basis of the Torah (Rambam), but they had already abolished recitation of the Ten Commandments due to the grievance of the heretics, who argued that the entire Torah, with the exception of the Ten Commandments, did not emanate from God (Jerusalem Talmud). If the Ten Commandments were recited daily, that would lend credence to their claim, so their recitation was expunged from the daily prayers.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讘拽砖讜 诇拽专讜转 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇讜诐 诪驻谞讬 转专注讜诪转 讛诪讬谞讬谉

That was also taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: In the outlying areas, they sought to recite the Ten Commandments in this manner, but they had already abolished their recitation due to the grievance of the heretics.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住讘专 诇诪拽讘注讬谞讛讜 讘住讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讘专 讘讟诇讜诐 诪驻谞讬 转专注讜诪转 讛诪讬谞讬谉

The Gemara relates that several Sages sought to reinstitute recitation of the Ten Commandments, as Rabba bar bar 岣na thought to institute this in the city of Sura, but Rav 岣sda said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics.

讗诪讬诪专 住讘专 诇诪拽讘注讬谞讛讜 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讘专 讘讟诇讜诐 诪驻谞讬 转专注讜诪转 讛诪讬谞讬谉:

So too, Ameimar thought to institute this in the city of Neharde鈥檃. Rav Ashi, the most prominent of the Sages in that generation, said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics.

讜讘砖讘转 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘专讻讛 讗讞转 诇诪砖诪专 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讗讬 讘专讻讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 诪砖诪专 讛讬讜爪讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪砖诪专 讛谞讻谞住 诪讬 砖砖讻谉 讗转 砖诪讜 讘讘讬转 讛讝讛 讛讜讗 讬砖讻讬谉 讘讬谞讬讻诐 讗讛讘讛 讜讗讞讜讛 讜砖诇讜诐 讜专讬注讜转:

We learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that on Shabbat a single blessing is added to bless the outgoing priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What is that single blessing? Rabbi 岣lbo said: As they finished their service, the outgoing priestly watch would say to the incoming priestly watch: May He who caused His Name to dwell in this house cause love and brotherhood, peace and camaraderie to dwell among you.

诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讗专讬讱: 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 谞拽讬讟 讻住讗 讚讞诪专讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讜拽住讘专 讚砖讻专讗 讛讜讗 讜驻转讞 讜诪讘专讱 讗讚注转讗 讚砖讻专讗 讜住讬讬诐 讘讚讞诪专讗 讬爪讗 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讬爪讗 讚讛讗 转谞谉 注诇 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讬爪讗

We learned in the mishna: Where the Sages said to recite a long blessing, one may not shorten it, and vice-versa. The Gemara proceeds to address a particular problem arising from conclusions drawn from this mishna. Before addressing the primary problem, however, a simpler, secondary issue is raised: Obviously, in a case where one took a cup of wine in his hand and thought it was beer, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was beer, i.e., he intended to recite the appropriate blessing on beer: By Whose word all things came to be, and upon realizing that it was wine, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, he fulfilled his obligation. In that case, even had he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, as he originally intended, he would have fulfilled his obligation, as we learned in a mishna: If one recited the general blessing: By Whose word all things came to be, over all food items, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact, even if ab initio another blessing was instituted to recite before eating that food. Therefore, if he reconsidered and concluded the blessing with the ending of the blessing over wine, he fulfilled his obligation.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 谞拽讬讟 讻住讗 讚砖讻专讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讜拽住讘专 讚讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 驻转讞 讜讘专讬讱 讗讚注转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讜住讬讬诐 讘讚砖讻专讗 诪讗讬

However in a case where one took a cup of beer in his hand and thought it was wine, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was wine, meaning he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, and upon realizing that it was beer he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over beer: By Whose word all things came to be, what is the halakha?

讘转专 注讬拽专 讘专讻讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 讞转讬诪讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉

Ostensibly, this blessing is comprised of two sections. The first section, during which he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, cannot fulfill his obligation as it is an inappropriate blessing to recite over beer. However, in the second section he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, the appropriate blessing. The dilemma, then, is: Do we follow the essence of the blessing, the first section, or do we follow the conclusion of the blessing?

转讗 砖诪注 砖讞专讬转 驻转讞 讘讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讜住讬讬诐 讘诪注专讬讘 注专讘讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 驻转讞 讘诪注专讬讘 注专讘讬诐 讜住讬讬诐 讘讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讬爪讗

Come and hear a proof from what was taught in a baraita with regard to a similar case: If, in the morning prayer, one began the blessings prior to the recitation of Shema appropriately with: Who creates light, and concluded with the formula of the evening prayer: Who brings on evenings, he did not fulfill his obligation. However, if one did the opposite, and commenced with: Who brings on evenings, and concluded with: Who creates light, he fulfilled his obligation.

注专讘讬转 驻转讞 讘诪注专讬讘 注专讘讬诐 讜住讬讬诐 讘讬讜爪专 讗讜专 诇讗 讬爪讗 驻转讞 讘讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讜住讬讬诐 讘诪注专讬讘 注专讘讬诐 讬爪讗

Similarly, if, in the evening prayer, one commenced the recitation of Shema with: Who brings on evenings and concluded with: Who creates light, he did not fulfill his obligation. If one commenced with: Who creates light and concluded with: Who brings on evenings, he fulfilled his obligation.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讞转讜诐

The baraita summarizes that the general principle is: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. Based on this principle, the question with regard to a blessing recited over food and drink posed above can be resolved.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讬讜爪专 讛诪讗讜专讜转

This proof is rejected: There, in the case of the blessing recited over the radiant lights, it is different, as one recites: Blessed鈥ho forms the radiant lights, and similarly, in the evening one recites: Blessed鈥ho brings on evenings. Since these are long blessings that conclude with a second blessing summarizing their content, one could assert that everything follows the conclusion. However, in the case of short blessings, such as: By Whose word all things came to be, or: Who creates the fruit of the vine, ostensibly, if there is a problem with the first part of the blessing, the entire blessing is nullified.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The distinction between the blessing recited over the radiant lights and the blessings recited over food and drink stems from the assumption that the conclusion: Blessed鈥ho fashions the radiant lights, is a complete, independent blessing. However, this is not necessarily so. This works out well according to Rav, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of God鈥檚 name is not considered a blessing, and since: Who creates light, includes God鈥檚 name, it constitutes a complete, independent blessing. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of God鈥檚 sovereignty, i.e., our God, King of the universe, is not considered a blessing, what can be said to distinguish between the conclusion of the blessings over food and drink and the blessing over the radiant lights? Since the conclusion: Who creates light, does not mention God鈥檚 sovereignty, it does not constitute a complete, independent blessing.

讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讜讻讚讬 诇讛讝讻讬专 诪讚转 讬讜诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜诪讚转 诇讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘专讻讛 讜诪诇讻讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讗诪专

The Gemara responds: Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds that the blessing over the radiant lights is a complete blessing. Since Rabba bar Ulla said: Who creates darkness, is mentioned during the day and: Rolling away the light before the darkness, is mentioned at night in order to mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night in the day, the beginning of the blessing in which God鈥檚 sovereignty is mentioned day and night is appropriate to both day and night, and when one recites the blessing with God鈥檚 name and mentions God鈥檚 sovereignty at the beginning of the blessing, it refers to both day and night. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the blessing over the radiant lights to the blessings recited over food and drink.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讞转讜诐 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: Come and hear another solution based on what we learned in the latter clause of the baraita cited above: The general principle is: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. What does the phrase: The general principle is, come to include beyond the detailed example cited in the baraita? Does it not come to include the case that we stated, that both in the case of a long blessing and the case of a short blessing, the conclusion of the blessing is the determining factor?

诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 谞讛诪讗 讜转诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讻诇 谞讛诪讗 讜拽住讘专 讚转诪专讬 讗讻诇 讜驻转讞 讗讚注转讗 讚转诪专讬 讜住讬讬诐 讘讚谞讛诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讘注讬讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, the principle is cited to include a case of bread and dates. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the dilemma with regard to the blessings on these food items? If you say that it is a case where one ate bread and thought that he ate dates, and commenced reciting the blessing thinking it was dates; then, upon realizing that it was bread, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over bread, isn鈥檛 that our dilemma, as this case is identical to the one involving wine and beer?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 转诪专讬 讜拽住讘专 谞讛诪讗 讗讻诇 讜驻转讞 讘讚谞讛诪讗 讜住讬讬诐 讘讚转诪专讬 [讬爪讗] 讚讗驻讬诇讜 住讬讬诐 讘讚谞讛诪讗 谞诪讬 讬爪讗

The Gemara answers: No; this general principle is only necessary to teach a special case, where one ate dates and thought that he ate bread, and commenced reciting the blessing thinking they were bread. Upon realizing that they were dates, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over dates. In that case he fulfilled his obligation, as even had he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over bread, he would have fulfilled his obligation.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转诪专讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讝谉 讝讬讬谞讬:

What is the reason that had he concluded with the blessing recited over bread he would have fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing over dates? This is because dates also provide a person sustenance. While ab initio one should not recite the blessing for bread over dates, after the fact, if one did so, he fulfilled his obligation. It is with regard to this particular situation that the baraita established the principle: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. Ultimately, the dilemma regarding a blessing with an inappropriate opening and an appropriate conclusion remains unresolved.
The Gemara proceeds to discuss the formula for the blessings recited along with Shema.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 砖诇讗 讗诪专 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 砖讞专讬转 讜讗诪转 讜讗诪讜谞讛 注专讘讬转 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛讙讬讚 讘讘拽专 讞住讚讱 讜讗诪讜谞转讱 讘诇讬诇讜转:

Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who did not recite: True and Firm [emet veyatziv] at the beginning of the blessing of redemption that follows Shema in the morning prayer, and: True and Trustworthy [emet ve鈥檈muna] in the evening prayer, he did not fulfill his obligation. An allusion to the difference in formulation between morning and evening is, as it is stated: 鈥淭o declare Your kindness in the morning and Your faith in the nights鈥 (Psalms 92:3). In the morning, one must mention God鈥檚 loving-kindness, while in the evening one is required to emphasize the aspect of faith.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 [住讘讗] 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪转驻诇诇 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜专注 讻讜专注 讘讘专讜讱 讜讻砖讛讜讗 讝讜拽祝 讝讜拽祝 讘砖诐

And Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who is praying, when he bows in the appropriate places, he bows when he says: Blessed, and when he subsequently stands upright, he stands upright when he says God鈥檚 name.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讻转讬讘 讛壮 讝讜拽祝 讻驻讜驻讬诐

Shmuel, who was Rav鈥檚 colleague and significantly outlived him, said: What is Rav鈥檚 reason for saying that one should stand upright at the mention of God鈥檚 name? As it is written: 鈥淭he Lord, who raises the bowed鈥 (Psalms 146:8); one stands upright at the mention of God鈥檚 name to recall that it is God who raises the bowed.

诪转讬讘讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讬 谞讞转 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection based on what we learned in praise of a priest: 鈥淎nd he was afraid before My name鈥 (Malachi 2:5), indicating that one must be humbled and not upright before God鈥檚 name.

诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘砖诪讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讬 讻转讬讘

The Gemara responds: Is it written: At My name? Before My name, is written, meaning that one is humbled and bows prior to the mention of God鈥檚 name, when he says: Blessed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讘专 讗讜专讬讗谉 转讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪诇转讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜专注 讻讜专注 讘讘专讜讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讝讜拽祝 讝讜拽祝 讘砖诐

The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to 岣yya bar Rav: Son of Torah, come and I will tell you a great saying that your father said. Your father said the following: When one bows, he bows when he says: Blessed, and when he stands upright, he stands upright when he says God鈥檚 name.

专讘 砖砖转 讻讬 讻专注 讻专注 讻讞讬讝专讗 讻讬 拽讗 讝拽讬祝 讝拽讬祝 讻讞讬讜讬讗:

With regard to bowing, the Gemara relates: When Rav Sheshet bowed he bowed all at once, like a cane, without delay. When he stood upright he stood upright like a snake, lifting himself slowly, demonstrating that the awe of God was upon him in the manner that he bowed and stood upright (HaBoneh).

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讛 讗讚诐 诪转驻诇诇 讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖 诪诇讱 讗讜讛讘 爪讚拽讛 讜诪砖驻讟 讞讜抓 诪注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 砖讘讬谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪转驻诇诇 讛诪诇讱 讛拽讚讜砖 讜讛诪诇讱 讛诪砖驻讟

And, with regard to the formulation of the blessings, Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: Throughout the year a person prays and concludes the third blessing of the Amida prayer with: The holy God, and concludes the blessing regarding the restoration of justice to Israel with: King who loves righteousness and justice, with the exception of the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, the Ten Days of Atonement. These days are comprised of Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, and the seven days in between, when one emphasizes God鈥檚 sovereignty, and so when he prays he concludes these blessings with: The holy King and: The King of justice, i.e., the King who reveals Himself through justice.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讬爪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讙讘讛 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讘诪砖驻讟 讜讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖 谞拽讚砖 讘爪讚拽讛 讗讬诪转讬 讜讬讙讘讛 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讘诪砖驻讟 讗诇讜 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 砖诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜拽讗诪专 讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖

In contrast, Rabbi Elazar said that one need not be exacting, and even if he said: The holy God during those ten days, he fulfilled his obligation, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice, and the holy God is sanctified through righteousness鈥 (Isaiah 5:16). The Gemara explains: When is it appropriate to describe God with terms like: And the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice? It is appropriate when God reveals Himself through justice, during the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, yet the verse says: The holy God. This appellation sufficiently underscores God鈥檚 transcendence, and there is no need to change the standard formula.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is the conclusion that was reached about this halakha?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讜诪诇讱 讗讜讛讘 爪讚拽讛 讜诪砖驻讟 专讘讛 讗诪专 讛诪诇讱 讛拽讚讜砖 讜讛诪诇讱 讛诪砖驻讟 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讛:

Here, too, opinions differ: Rav Yosef said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: There is no need to change the standard formula: The holy God and: King Who loves righteousness and justice. Rabba said in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The holy King and: The King of justice. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 砖讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘拽砖 谞拽专讗 讞讜讟讗 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 讗谞讻讬 讞诇讬诇讛 诇讬 诪讞讟讗 诇讛壮 诪讞讚诇 诇讛转驻诇诇 讘注讚讻诐

And Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: Anyone who can ask for mercy on behalf of another, and does not ask is called a sinner, as it is stated following Samuel鈥檚 rebuke of the people: 鈥淎s for me, far be it from me that I should transgress against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you, but I will teach you the good and the right way鈥 (I Samuel 12:23). Had Samuel refrained from prayer, he would have committed a sin.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱 砖讬讞诇讛 注爪诪讜 注诇讬讜

Rava said: If the one in need of mercy is a Torah scholar, it is insufficient to merely pray on his behalf. Rather, one must make himself ill worrying about him.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讬谉 讞诇讛 诪讻诐 注诇讬 讜讗讬谉 讙讜诇讛 讗转 讗讝谞讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诪诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讗谞讬 讘讞诇讜转诐 诇讘讜砖讬 讜讙讜壮:

The Gemara seeks to clarify the source of this halakha. What is the reason that one must make oneself ill over a Torah scholar in need of mercy? If you say that it is because of what Saul said to his men, as it is written: 鈥淎nd there is none of you that is ill over me or tells unto me鈥 (I Samuel 22:8), meaning that because Saul was a Torah scholar, it would have been appropriate for people to make themselves ill worrying about him; this is not an absolute proof. Perhaps a king is different, and excessive worry is appropriate in that case. Rather, proof that one must make oneself ill over a Torah scholar in need for mercy is from here: When David speaks of his enemies, Doeg and Ahitophel, who were Torah scholars, he says: 鈥淏ut for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth, I afflicted my soul with fasting鈥 (Psalms 35:13). One must be concerned to the extent that he dresses in sackcloth and fasts for the recovery of a Torah scholar.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 讜诪转讘讬讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜 注诇 讻诇 注讜谞讜转讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇诪注谉 转讝讻专讬 讜讘砖转 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 注讜讚 驻转讞讜谉 驻讛 诪驻谞讬 讻诇诪转讱 讘讻驻专讬 诇讱 诇讻诇 讗砖专 注砖讬转 谞讗诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐

And Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who commits an act of transgression and is ashamed of it, all of his transgressions are forgiven. Shame is a sign that one truly despises his transgressions and that shame has the power to atone for his actions (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto), as it is stated: 鈥淚n order that you remember, and be embarrassed, and never open your mouth anymore, because of your shame, when I have forgiven you for all that you have done, said the Lord, God鈥 (Ezekiel 16:63).

讚讬诇诪讗 爪讘讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 诇诪讛 讛专讙讝转谞讬 诇讛注诇讜转 讗转讬 讜讬讗诪专 砖讗讜诇 爪专 诇讬 诪讗讚 讜驻诇砖转讬诐 谞诇讞诪讬诐 讘讬 讜讛壮 住专 诪注诇讬 讜诇讗 注谞谞讬 注讜讚 讙诐 讘讬讚 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 讙诐 讘讞诇诪讜转 讜讗拽专讗讛 诇讱 诇讛讜讚讬注谞讬 诪讛 讗注砖讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讗讜专讬诐 讜转诪讬诐 诇讗 拽讗诪专

However this proof is rejected: Perhaps a community is different, as a community is forgiven more easily than an individual. Rather, proof that an individual ashamed of his actions is forgiven for his transgressions is cited from here, when King Saul consulted Samuel by means of a necromancer before his final war with the Philistines: 鈥淎nd Samuel said to Saul, why have you angered me to bring me up? And Saul said, I am very pained, and the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has removed Himself from me and answers me no more, neither by the hands of the prophets nor by dreams. And I call to you to tell me what to do鈥 (I Samuel 28:15). Saul says that he consulted prophets and dreams, but he did not say that he consulted the Urim VeTummim.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讟诇讬讛 诇谞讜讘 注讬专 讛讻讛谞讬诐

The reason for this is because he killed all the residents of Nov, the city of priests, and because of this transgression Saul was ashamed to consult the Urim VeTummim, which was accomplished by means of a priest.

讜诪谞讬谉 讚讗讞讬诇讜 诇讬讛 诪谉 砖诪讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 [讜]诪讞专 讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 注诪讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注诪讬 讘诪讞讬爪转讬

The Gemara concludes: And from where is it derived that Saul was pardoned by God in the heavens for his transgressions? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd Samuel said to Saul: Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me鈥 (I Samuel 28:19). And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With me does not only mean that they will die, but also means, in a statement that contains an aspect of consolation, that they will be in my company among the righteous in heaven, as Saul was pardoned for his transgressions.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪讛讻讗 讜讛讜拽注谞讜诐 诇讛壮 讘讙讘注转 砖讗讜诇 讘讞讬专 讛壮 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 讘讞讬专 讛壮

And the Rabbis say that proof that Saul was pardoned is derived from here, from what the Gibeonites said to David: 鈥淟et seven men of his sons be given to us and we will hang them up unto the Lord in the Giva of Saul, the chosen of the Lord鈥 (II Samuel 21:6). Certainly the Gibeonites, who were furious at Saul, would not refer to him as the chosen of the Lord. Therefore, this phrase must be understood as having been spoken by a Divine Voice that emerged and said the chosen of the Lord, because Saul had been pardoned for his transgressions and included among the completely righteous.
The Gemara returns to the primary focus of the chapter, the recitation of Shema.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘谉 讝讜讟专转讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讘拽砖讜 诇拽讘讜注 驻专砖转 讘诇拽 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 拽讘注讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜专讞 爪讘讜专

Rabbi Abbahu ben Zutarti said that Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevida said: The Sages sought to establish the blessings of Balaam that appear in the Torah portion of Balak, as part of the twice-daily recitation of Shema. And why did they not establish it there? Because extending Shema would place an encumbrance on the congregation, from which the Sages sought to refrain.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讗诇 诪爪讬讗诐 诪诪爪专讬诐 诇讬诪讗 驻专砖转 专讘讬转 讜驻专砖转 诪砖拽诇讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛谉 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐

The Gemara seeks: Why did the Sages seek to add the blessings of Balaam in the first place? If you say that they did so because the exodus from Egypt is mentioned, as it is written therein: 鈥淕od, who brought them forth out of Egypt, is like the horns of the wild ram鈥 (Numbers 23:22), certainly mention of the Exodus is not unique to this Torah portion. Many other portions mention the exodus as well. Let us say the portion of usury (Leviticus 25:35鈥38) or the portion of weights (Leviticus 19:35鈥37), as the exodus from Egypt is written therein as well. In addition, they are brief and would not constitute an encumbrance on the congregation.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讻专注 砖讻讘 讻讗专讬 讜讻诇讘讬讗 诪讬 讬拽讬诪谞讜

Rather, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: The reason the Sages sought to establish the portion of Balak as part of the recitation of Shema is because it is written therein: 鈥淗e couched, He lay down like a lion and a lioness; who shall rouse Him? Those who bless You are blessed and those who curse You are cursed鈥 (Numbers 24:9). This is reminiscent of what is said in Shema: When you lie down, and when you rise.

讜诇讬诪讗 讛讗讬 驻住讜拽讗 讜转讜 诇讗

On this, the Gemara asks: And if it is important to include this as part of Shema because of this single verse, then let us say this verse and nothing more.

讙诪讬专讬 讻诇 驻专砖讛 讚驻住拽讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 驻住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 诇讗 驻住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to do this, as they learned through tradition that any portion that Moses, our teacher, divided, we too divide and read separately. However, a portion that Moses, our teacher, did not divide, we do not divide and read separately. And, as stated above, the Sages did not wish to institute the recitation of the entire portion of Balak to avoid placing an encumbrance on the congregation.

驻专砖转 爪讬爪讬转 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 拽讘注讜讛

The Gemara continues: Why was the portion of ritual fringes established as part of the recitation of Shema when its content is unrelated to that of the preceding portions?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞讘讬讘讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪爪讜转 爪讬爪讬转 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 注讜诇 诪爪讜转 讜讚注转 诪讬谞讬诐 讛专讛讜专 注讘讬专讛 讜讛专讛讜专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣viva said: The portion of ritual fringes was added because it includes five elements including the primary reason for its inclusion, the exodus from Egypt (Melo HaRo鈥檌m): The mitzva of ritual fringes, mention of the exodus from Egypt, the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot, admonition against the opinions of the heretics, admonition against thoughts of the transgressions of licentiousness, and admonition against thoughts of idolatry.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪驻专砖谉 注讜诇 诪爪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讗讬转诐 讗转讜 讜讝讻专转诐 讗转 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛壮 爪讬爪讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讜注砖讜 诇讛诐 爪讬爪讬转 讜讙讜壮 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讛讜爪讗转讬 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 讚注转 诪讬谞讬诐 讛专讛讜专 注讘讬专讛 讛专讛讜专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, these three are mentioned explicitly: The yoke of mitzvot is mentioned in the portion of ritual fringes, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall look upon them and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord and you shall do them鈥 (Numbers 15:39). Ritual fringes are mentioned explicitly, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they will make for themselves ritual fringes鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The exodus from Egypt is also mentioned explicitly, as it is written: 鈥淚 am the Lord, your God, who took you out from the Land of Egypt鈥 (Numbers 15:41). But where do we derive the other elements mentioned above: Admonition against the opinions of the heretics, admonition against thoughts of transgressions of licentiousness, and admonition against thoughts of idolatry?

讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬 诇讘讘讻诐 讝讜 诪讬谞讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诪专 谞讘诇 讘诇讘讜 讗讬谉 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬 注讬谞讬讻诐 讝讛 讛专讛讜专 注讘讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪砖讜谉 讗诇 讗讘讬讜 讗讜转讛 拽讞 诇讬 讻讬 讛讬讗 讬砖专讛 讘注讬谞讬 讗转诐 讝讜谞讬诐 讝讛 讛专讛讜专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讝谞讜 讗讞专讬 讛讘注诇讬诐:

In response, the Gemara cites a baraita where these elements were derived from allusions in the verse, 鈥淵ou shall stray neither after your hearts nor after your eyes, after which you would lust鈥 (Numbers 15:39). As it was taught: 鈥淎fter your hearts鈥 refers to following opinions of heresy that may arise in one鈥檚 heart. The Gemara offers a proof, as it is stated: 鈥淭he fool said in his heart: 鈥楾here is no God鈥; they have been corrupt, they have acted abominably; there is none who does good鈥 (Psalms 14:1). The phrase: 鈥淎fter your eyes,鈥 in this verse refers to following thoughts of transgressions of licentiousness, that a person might see and desire, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Samson said to his father, 鈥楾hat one take for me, for she is upright in my eyes鈥欌 (Judges 14:3). The passage: 鈥淵ou shall stray after鈥 refers to promiscuity, which in the parlance of the prophets is a metaphor for idol worship, as it is stated: 鈥淭he children of Israel again went astray after the Be鈥檃lim鈥 (Judges 8:33).

诪转谞讬壮 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讘诇讬诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛专讬 讗谞讬 讻讘谉 砖讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讝讻讬转讬 砖转讗诪专 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讘诇讬诇讜转 注讚 砖讚专砖讛 讘谉 讝讜诪讗

MISHNA: It is a mitzva by Torah law to mention the exodus from Egypt at night, but some held that this mitzva was, like phylacteries or ritual fringes, fulfilled only during the day and not at night. For this reason it was decided: The exodus from Egypt is mentioned at night, adjacent to the recitation of Shema. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am approximately seventy years old, and although I have long held this opinion, I was never privileged to prevail (Me鈥檌ri) and prove that there is a biblical obligation to fulfill the accepted custom (Ra鈥檃vad) and have the exodus from Egypt mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma interpreted it homiletically and proved it obligatory.

砖谞讗诪专 诇诪注谉 转讝讻专 讗转 讬讜诐 爪讗转讱 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讻诇 讬诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讬诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讛讬诪讬诐 讻诇 讬诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讛诇讬诇讜转

Ben Zoma derived it as it is stated: 鈥淭hat you may remember the day you went out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). The days of your life, refers to daytime alone; however, the addition of the word all, as it is stated: All the days of your life, comes to add nights as well.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讻诇 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讬诪讜转 讛诪砖讬讞:

And the Rabbis, who posit that there is no biblical obligation to mention the exodus from Egypt at night, explain the word, all, differently and say: The days of your life, refers to the days in this world, all is added to include the days of the Messiah.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘谉 讝讜诪讗 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诇讬诪讜转 讛诪砖讬讞 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讛谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讘讗讬诐 谞讗诐 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 注讜讚 讞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讛注诇讛 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 讞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讛注诇讛 讜讗砖专 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讝专注 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 爪驻讜谞讛 讜诪讻诇 讛讗专爪讜转 讗砖专 讛讚讞转讬诐 砖诐

GEMARA: The fundamental dispute between Ben Zoma and the Sages appears in the mishna, and the baraita cites its continuation. Disputing the position of the Sages that: All the days of your life, refers to both this world and the days of the Messiah, it was taught in a baraita that Ben Zoma said to the Sages: And is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in the days of the Messiah? Was it not already said that Jeremiah prophesied that in the days of the Messiah: 鈥淏ehold, days are coming, says the Lord, that they will no longer say: The Lord lives Who brought up the children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt. Rather: As the Lord lives, that brought up and led the seed of the house of Israel up out of the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them鈥 (Jeremiah 23:7鈥8).

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖转注拽专 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪诪拽讜诪讛 讗诇讗 砖转讛讗 砖注讘讜讚 诪诇讻讬讜转 注讬拽专 讜讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讟驻诇 诇讜

The Sages rejected this claim and they said to him that these verses do not mean that in the future the exodus from Egypt will be uprooted from its place and will be mentioned no more. Rather, redemption from the subjugation of the kingdoms will be primary and the exodus from Egypt will be secondary.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讗 砖诪讱 注讜讚 讬注拽讘 讻讬 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讬讛讬讛 砖诪讱

On a similar note, you say: The meaning of the expressions: It will not say, and they will no longer mention, are not absolute, as in the verse: 鈥淵our name shall no longer be called Jacob; rather, Israel will be your name鈥 (Genesis 35:10). There, too, the meaning is

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf_icon

Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Berakhot (chapters 1-3)

PEREK ALEPH: (2a) When may we say Shma at night? From the time the priests take their first bite 鈥楾il...

Berakhot 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 12

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讛讘讛 专讘讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 讘专讻讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讜讻讬 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬

However, if you say that they would omit: Who creates light, and would recite: An abounding love, on what basis would you conclude that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other? In that case, one could offer another reason why only a single blessing is recited. Perhaps the fact that they did not recite: Who creates light was because the time for the recitation of: Who creates light, had not yet arrived, as the sun had yet to rise. The blessings of the priestly watch are recited in the early morning hours, long before sunrise. However, afterward, when the time to recite: Who creates light arrived, they would recite it. From the conclusion drawn by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other, it is clear that the blessing recited by the members of the priestly watch was: Who creates light.

讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬

As this deductive reasoning seems coherent and convincing, the Gemara asks: And if this halakha is based on inference, and not on an explicit statement, what of it? There seems to be no other way to interpret Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish鈥檚 statement.

讚讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讛讘讛 专讘讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬 讜讻讬 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讘专讻讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 住讚专 讘专讻讜转:

The Gemara answers: If this conclusion were based on an inference, one could say that actually they recited: An abounding love, and when the time to recite: Who creates light arrived, they would recite it. In that case, what is the meaning of: Failure to recite one of the blessings recited before Shema does not prevent one from reciting the other? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish meant that failure to recite the correct order of the blessings does not prevent one from fulfilling his obligation. Even if one recites: An abounding love before: Who creates light, he fulfills his obligation. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish did not refer to a case where only one of the blessings was recited. Consequently, one cannot infer from his statement his opinion regarding the identity of the single blessing.

讜拽讜专讬谉 注砖专转 讛讚讘专讜转 砖诪注 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 砖诪讜注 讜讬讗诪专 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 讜注讘讜讚讛 讜讘专讻转 讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara related above that the priests in the Temple read the Ten Commandments, along with the sections of Shema, VeHaya im Shamoa, VaYomer, True and Firm, Avoda, and the priestly benediction.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗祝 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讘拽砖讜 诇拽专讜转 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇讜诐 诪驻谞讬 转专注讜诪转 讛诪讬谞讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even in the outlying areas, outside the Temple, they sought to recite the Ten Commandments in this manner every day, as they are the basis of the Torah (Rambam), but they had already abolished recitation of the Ten Commandments due to the grievance of the heretics, who argued that the entire Torah, with the exception of the Ten Commandments, did not emanate from God (Jerusalem Talmud). If the Ten Commandments were recited daily, that would lend credence to their claim, so their recitation was expunged from the daily prayers.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讘拽砖讜 诇拽专讜转 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇讜诐 诪驻谞讬 转专注讜诪转 讛诪讬谞讬谉

That was also taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: In the outlying areas, they sought to recite the Ten Commandments in this manner, but they had already abolished their recitation due to the grievance of the heretics.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住讘专 诇诪拽讘注讬谞讛讜 讘住讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讘专 讘讟诇讜诐 诪驻谞讬 转专注讜诪转 讛诪讬谞讬谉

The Gemara relates that several Sages sought to reinstitute recitation of the Ten Commandments, as Rabba bar bar 岣na thought to institute this in the city of Sura, but Rav 岣sda said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics.

讗诪讬诪专 住讘专 诇诪拽讘注讬谞讛讜 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讘专 讘讟诇讜诐 诪驻谞讬 转专注讜诪转 讛诪讬谞讬谉:

So too, Ameimar thought to institute this in the city of Neharde鈥檃. Rav Ashi, the most prominent of the Sages in that generation, said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics.

讜讘砖讘转 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘专讻讛 讗讞转 诇诪砖诪专 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讗讬 讘专讻讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 诪砖诪专 讛讬讜爪讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪砖诪专 讛谞讻谞住 诪讬 砖砖讻谉 讗转 砖诪讜 讘讘讬转 讛讝讛 讛讜讗 讬砖讻讬谉 讘讬谞讬讻诐 讗讛讘讛 讜讗讞讜讛 讜砖诇讜诐 讜专讬注讜转:

We learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that on Shabbat a single blessing is added to bless the outgoing priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What is that single blessing? Rabbi 岣lbo said: As they finished their service, the outgoing priestly watch would say to the incoming priestly watch: May He who caused His Name to dwell in this house cause love and brotherhood, peace and camaraderie to dwell among you.

诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讗专讬讱: 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 谞拽讬讟 讻住讗 讚讞诪专讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讜拽住讘专 讚砖讻专讗 讛讜讗 讜驻转讞 讜诪讘专讱 讗讚注转讗 讚砖讻专讗 讜住讬讬诐 讘讚讞诪专讗 讬爪讗 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讬爪讗 讚讛讗 转谞谉 注诇 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讬爪讗

We learned in the mishna: Where the Sages said to recite a long blessing, one may not shorten it, and vice-versa. The Gemara proceeds to address a particular problem arising from conclusions drawn from this mishna. Before addressing the primary problem, however, a simpler, secondary issue is raised: Obviously, in a case where one took a cup of wine in his hand and thought it was beer, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was beer, i.e., he intended to recite the appropriate blessing on beer: By Whose word all things came to be, and upon realizing that it was wine, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, he fulfilled his obligation. In that case, even had he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, as he originally intended, he would have fulfilled his obligation, as we learned in a mishna: If one recited the general blessing: By Whose word all things came to be, over all food items, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact, even if ab initio another blessing was instituted to recite before eating that food. Therefore, if he reconsidered and concluded the blessing with the ending of the blessing over wine, he fulfilled his obligation.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 谞拽讬讟 讻住讗 讚砖讻专讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讜拽住讘专 讚讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 驻转讞 讜讘专讬讱 讗讚注转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讜住讬讬诐 讘讚砖讻专讗 诪讗讬

However in a case where one took a cup of beer in his hand and thought it was wine, and began reciting the blessing thinking it was wine, meaning he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, and upon realizing that it was beer he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over beer: By Whose word all things came to be, what is the halakha?

讘转专 注讬拽专 讘专讻讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 讞转讬诪讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉

Ostensibly, this blessing is comprised of two sections. The first section, during which he intended to recite: Who creates the fruit of the vine, cannot fulfill his obligation as it is an inappropriate blessing to recite over beer. However, in the second section he recited: By Whose word all things came to be, the appropriate blessing. The dilemma, then, is: Do we follow the essence of the blessing, the first section, or do we follow the conclusion of the blessing?

转讗 砖诪注 砖讞专讬转 驻转讞 讘讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讜住讬讬诐 讘诪注专讬讘 注专讘讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 驻转讞 讘诪注专讬讘 注专讘讬诐 讜住讬讬诐 讘讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讬爪讗

Come and hear a proof from what was taught in a baraita with regard to a similar case: If, in the morning prayer, one began the blessings prior to the recitation of Shema appropriately with: Who creates light, and concluded with the formula of the evening prayer: Who brings on evenings, he did not fulfill his obligation. However, if one did the opposite, and commenced with: Who brings on evenings, and concluded with: Who creates light, he fulfilled his obligation.

注专讘讬转 驻转讞 讘诪注专讬讘 注专讘讬诐 讜住讬讬诐 讘讬讜爪专 讗讜专 诇讗 讬爪讗 驻转讞 讘讬讜爪专 讗讜专 讜住讬讬诐 讘诪注专讬讘 注专讘讬诐 讬爪讗

Similarly, if, in the evening prayer, one commenced the recitation of Shema with: Who brings on evenings and concluded with: Who creates light, he did not fulfill his obligation. If one commenced with: Who creates light and concluded with: Who brings on evenings, he fulfilled his obligation.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讞转讜诐

The baraita summarizes that the general principle is: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. Based on this principle, the question with regard to a blessing recited over food and drink posed above can be resolved.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讬讜爪专 讛诪讗讜专讜转

This proof is rejected: There, in the case of the blessing recited over the radiant lights, it is different, as one recites: Blessed鈥ho forms the radiant lights, and similarly, in the evening one recites: Blessed鈥ho brings on evenings. Since these are long blessings that conclude with a second blessing summarizing their content, one could assert that everything follows the conclusion. However, in the case of short blessings, such as: By Whose word all things came to be, or: Who creates the fruit of the vine, ostensibly, if there is a problem with the first part of the blessing, the entire blessing is nullified.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讘专讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 讗讬谞讛 讘专讻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The distinction between the blessing recited over the radiant lights and the blessings recited over food and drink stems from the assumption that the conclusion: Blessed鈥ho fashions the radiant lights, is a complete, independent blessing. However, this is not necessarily so. This works out well according to Rav, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of God鈥檚 name is not considered a blessing, and since: Who creates light, includes God鈥檚 name, it constitutes a complete, independent blessing. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: Any blessing that does not include mention of God鈥檚 sovereignty, i.e., our God, King of the universe, is not considered a blessing, what can be said to distinguish between the conclusion of the blessings over food and drink and the blessing over the radiant lights? Since the conclusion: Who creates light, does not mention God鈥檚 sovereignty, it does not constitute a complete, independent blessing.

讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讜讻讚讬 诇讛讝讻讬专 诪讚转 讬讜诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜诪讚转 诇讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘专讻讛 讜诪诇讻讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讗诪专

The Gemara responds: Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds that the blessing over the radiant lights is a complete blessing. Since Rabba bar Ulla said: Who creates darkness, is mentioned during the day and: Rolling away the light before the darkness, is mentioned at night in order to mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night in the day, the beginning of the blessing in which God鈥檚 sovereignty is mentioned day and night is appropriate to both day and night, and when one recites the blessing with God鈥檚 name and mentions God鈥檚 sovereignty at the beginning of the blessing, it refers to both day and night. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the blessing over the radiant lights to the blessings recited over food and drink.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讞转讜诐 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: Come and hear another solution based on what we learned in the latter clause of the baraita cited above: The general principle is: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. What does the phrase: The general principle is, come to include beyond the detailed example cited in the baraita? Does it not come to include the case that we stated, that both in the case of a long blessing and the case of a short blessing, the conclusion of the blessing is the determining factor?

诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 谞讛诪讗 讜转诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讻诇 谞讛诪讗 讜拽住讘专 讚转诪专讬 讗讻诇 讜驻转讞 讗讚注转讗 讚转诪专讬 讜住讬讬诐 讘讚谞讛诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讘注讬讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, the principle is cited to include a case of bread and dates. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the dilemma with regard to the blessings on these food items? If you say that it is a case where one ate bread and thought that he ate dates, and commenced reciting the blessing thinking it was dates; then, upon realizing that it was bread, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over bread, isn鈥檛 that our dilemma, as this case is identical to the one involving wine and beer?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 转诪专讬 讜拽住讘专 谞讛诪讗 讗讻诇 讜驻转讞 讘讚谞讛诪讗 讜住讬讬诐 讘讚转诪专讬 [讬爪讗] 讚讗驻讬诇讜 住讬讬诐 讘讚谞讛诪讗 谞诪讬 讬爪讗

The Gemara answers: No; this general principle is only necessary to teach a special case, where one ate dates and thought that he ate bread, and commenced reciting the blessing thinking they were bread. Upon realizing that they were dates, he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over dates. In that case he fulfilled his obligation, as even had he concluded the blessing with that which is recited over bread, he would have fulfilled his obligation.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转诪专讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讝谉 讝讬讬谞讬:

What is the reason that had he concluded with the blessing recited over bread he would have fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing over dates? This is because dates also provide a person sustenance. While ab initio one should not recite the blessing for bread over dates, after the fact, if one did so, he fulfilled his obligation. It is with regard to this particular situation that the baraita established the principle: Everything follows the conclusion of the blessing. Ultimately, the dilemma regarding a blessing with an inappropriate opening and an appropriate conclusion remains unresolved.
The Gemara proceeds to discuss the formula for the blessings recited along with Shema.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 砖诇讗 讗诪专 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 砖讞专讬转 讜讗诪转 讜讗诪讜谞讛 注专讘讬转 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛讙讬讚 讘讘拽专 讞住讚讱 讜讗诪讜谞转讱 讘诇讬诇讜转:

Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who did not recite: True and Firm [emet veyatziv] at the beginning of the blessing of redemption that follows Shema in the morning prayer, and: True and Trustworthy [emet ve鈥檈muna] in the evening prayer, he did not fulfill his obligation. An allusion to the difference in formulation between morning and evening is, as it is stated: 鈥淭o declare Your kindness in the morning and Your faith in the nights鈥 (Psalms 92:3). In the morning, one must mention God鈥檚 loving-kindness, while in the evening one is required to emphasize the aspect of faith.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 [住讘讗] 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪转驻诇诇 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜专注 讻讜专注 讘讘专讜讱 讜讻砖讛讜讗 讝讜拽祝 讝讜拽祝 讘砖诐

And Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who is praying, when he bows in the appropriate places, he bows when he says: Blessed, and when he subsequently stands upright, he stands upright when he says God鈥檚 name.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讻转讬讘 讛壮 讝讜拽祝 讻驻讜驻讬诐

Shmuel, who was Rav鈥檚 colleague and significantly outlived him, said: What is Rav鈥檚 reason for saying that one should stand upright at the mention of God鈥檚 name? As it is written: 鈥淭he Lord, who raises the bowed鈥 (Psalms 146:8); one stands upright at the mention of God鈥檚 name to recall that it is God who raises the bowed.

诪转讬讘讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讬 谞讞转 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection based on what we learned in praise of a priest: 鈥淎nd he was afraid before My name鈥 (Malachi 2:5), indicating that one must be humbled and not upright before God鈥檚 name.

诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘砖诪讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讬 讻转讬讘

The Gemara responds: Is it written: At My name? Before My name, is written, meaning that one is humbled and bows prior to the mention of God鈥檚 name, when he says: Blessed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讘专 讗讜专讬讗谉 转讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪诇转讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜专注 讻讜专注 讘讘专讜讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讝讜拽祝 讝讜拽祝 讘砖诐

The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to 岣yya bar Rav: Son of Torah, come and I will tell you a great saying that your father said. Your father said the following: When one bows, he bows when he says: Blessed, and when he stands upright, he stands upright when he says God鈥檚 name.

专讘 砖砖转 讻讬 讻专注 讻专注 讻讞讬讝专讗 讻讬 拽讗 讝拽讬祝 讝拽讬祝 讻讞讬讜讬讗:

With regard to bowing, the Gemara relates: When Rav Sheshet bowed he bowed all at once, like a cane, without delay. When he stood upright he stood upright like a snake, lifting himself slowly, demonstrating that the awe of God was upon him in the manner that he bowed and stood upright (HaBoneh).

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讛 讗讚诐 诪转驻诇诇 讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖 诪诇讱 讗讜讛讘 爪讚拽讛 讜诪砖驻讟 讞讜抓 诪注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 砖讘讬谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪转驻诇诇 讛诪诇讱 讛拽讚讜砖 讜讛诪诇讱 讛诪砖驻讟

And, with regard to the formulation of the blessings, Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: Throughout the year a person prays and concludes the third blessing of the Amida prayer with: The holy God, and concludes the blessing regarding the restoration of justice to Israel with: King who loves righteousness and justice, with the exception of the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, the Ten Days of Atonement. These days are comprised of Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, and the seven days in between, when one emphasizes God鈥檚 sovereignty, and so when he prays he concludes these blessings with: The holy King and: The King of justice, i.e., the King who reveals Himself through justice.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讬爪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讙讘讛 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讘诪砖驻讟 讜讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖 谞拽讚砖 讘爪讚拽讛 讗讬诪转讬 讜讬讙讘讛 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讘诪砖驻讟 讗诇讜 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 砖诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜拽讗诪专 讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖

In contrast, Rabbi Elazar said that one need not be exacting, and even if he said: The holy God during those ten days, he fulfilled his obligation, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice, and the holy God is sanctified through righteousness鈥 (Isaiah 5:16). The Gemara explains: When is it appropriate to describe God with terms like: And the Lord of Hosts is exalted through justice? It is appropriate when God reveals Himself through justice, during the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, yet the verse says: The holy God. This appellation sufficiently underscores God鈥檚 transcendence, and there is no need to change the standard formula.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is the conclusion that was reached about this halakha?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讜诪诇讱 讗讜讛讘 爪讚拽讛 讜诪砖驻讟 专讘讛 讗诪专 讛诪诇讱 讛拽讚讜砖 讜讛诪诇讱 讛诪砖驻讟 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讛:

Here, too, opinions differ: Rav Yosef said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: There is no need to change the standard formula: The holy God and: King Who loves righteousness and justice. Rabba said in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The holy King and: The King of justice. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 砖讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘拽砖 谞拽专讗 讞讜讟讗 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 讗谞讻讬 讞诇讬诇讛 诇讬 诪讞讟讗 诇讛壮 诪讞讚诇 诇讛转驻诇诇 讘注讚讻诐

And Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: Anyone who can ask for mercy on behalf of another, and does not ask is called a sinner, as it is stated following Samuel鈥檚 rebuke of the people: 鈥淎s for me, far be it from me that I should transgress against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you, but I will teach you the good and the right way鈥 (I Samuel 12:23). Had Samuel refrained from prayer, he would have committed a sin.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱 砖讬讞诇讛 注爪诪讜 注诇讬讜

Rava said: If the one in need of mercy is a Torah scholar, it is insufficient to merely pray on his behalf. Rather, one must make himself ill worrying about him.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讬谉 讞诇讛 诪讻诐 注诇讬 讜讗讬谉 讙讜诇讛 讗转 讗讝谞讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诪诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讗谞讬 讘讞诇讜转诐 诇讘讜砖讬 讜讙讜壮:

The Gemara seeks to clarify the source of this halakha. What is the reason that one must make oneself ill over a Torah scholar in need of mercy? If you say that it is because of what Saul said to his men, as it is written: 鈥淎nd there is none of you that is ill over me or tells unto me鈥 (I Samuel 22:8), meaning that because Saul was a Torah scholar, it would have been appropriate for people to make themselves ill worrying about him; this is not an absolute proof. Perhaps a king is different, and excessive worry is appropriate in that case. Rather, proof that one must make oneself ill over a Torah scholar in need for mercy is from here: When David speaks of his enemies, Doeg and Ahitophel, who were Torah scholars, he says: 鈥淏ut for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth, I afflicted my soul with fasting鈥 (Psalms 35:13). One must be concerned to the extent that he dresses in sackcloth and fasts for the recovery of a Torah scholar.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 讜诪转讘讬讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜 注诇 讻诇 注讜谞讜转讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇诪注谉 转讝讻专讬 讜讘砖转 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 注讜讚 驻转讞讜谉 驻讛 诪驻谞讬 讻诇诪转讱 讘讻驻专讬 诇讱 诇讻诇 讗砖专 注砖讬转 谞讗诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐

And Rabba bar 岣nnana Sava said in the name of Rav: One who commits an act of transgression and is ashamed of it, all of his transgressions are forgiven. Shame is a sign that one truly despises his transgressions and that shame has the power to atone for his actions (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto), as it is stated: 鈥淚n order that you remember, and be embarrassed, and never open your mouth anymore, because of your shame, when I have forgiven you for all that you have done, said the Lord, God鈥 (Ezekiel 16:63).

讚讬诇诪讗 爪讘讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 诇诪讛 讛专讙讝转谞讬 诇讛注诇讜转 讗转讬 讜讬讗诪专 砖讗讜诇 爪专 诇讬 诪讗讚 讜驻诇砖转讬诐 谞诇讞诪讬诐 讘讬 讜讛壮 住专 诪注诇讬 讜诇讗 注谞谞讬 注讜讚 讙诐 讘讬讚 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 讙诐 讘讞诇诪讜转 讜讗拽专讗讛 诇讱 诇讛讜讚讬注谞讬 诪讛 讗注砖讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讗讜专讬诐 讜转诪讬诐 诇讗 拽讗诪专

However this proof is rejected: Perhaps a community is different, as a community is forgiven more easily than an individual. Rather, proof that an individual ashamed of his actions is forgiven for his transgressions is cited from here, when King Saul consulted Samuel by means of a necromancer before his final war with the Philistines: 鈥淎nd Samuel said to Saul, why have you angered me to bring me up? And Saul said, I am very pained, and the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has removed Himself from me and answers me no more, neither by the hands of the prophets nor by dreams. And I call to you to tell me what to do鈥 (I Samuel 28:15). Saul says that he consulted prophets and dreams, but he did not say that he consulted the Urim VeTummim.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讟诇讬讛 诇谞讜讘 注讬专 讛讻讛谞讬诐

The reason for this is because he killed all the residents of Nov, the city of priests, and because of this transgression Saul was ashamed to consult the Urim VeTummim, which was accomplished by means of a priest.

讜诪谞讬谉 讚讗讞讬诇讜 诇讬讛 诪谉 砖诪讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 [讜]诪讞专 讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 注诪讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注诪讬 讘诪讞讬爪转讬

The Gemara concludes: And from where is it derived that Saul was pardoned by God in the heavens for his transgressions? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd Samuel said to Saul: Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me鈥 (I Samuel 28:19). And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With me does not only mean that they will die, but also means, in a statement that contains an aspect of consolation, that they will be in my company among the righteous in heaven, as Saul was pardoned for his transgressions.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪讛讻讗 讜讛讜拽注谞讜诐 诇讛壮 讘讙讘注转 砖讗讜诇 讘讞讬专 讛壮 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 讘讞讬专 讛壮

And the Rabbis say that proof that Saul was pardoned is derived from here, from what the Gibeonites said to David: 鈥淟et seven men of his sons be given to us and we will hang them up unto the Lord in the Giva of Saul, the chosen of the Lord鈥 (II Samuel 21:6). Certainly the Gibeonites, who were furious at Saul, would not refer to him as the chosen of the Lord. Therefore, this phrase must be understood as having been spoken by a Divine Voice that emerged and said the chosen of the Lord, because Saul had been pardoned for his transgressions and included among the completely righteous.
The Gemara returns to the primary focus of the chapter, the recitation of Shema.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘谉 讝讜讟专转讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讘拽砖讜 诇拽讘讜注 驻专砖转 讘诇拽 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 拽讘注讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜专讞 爪讘讜专

Rabbi Abbahu ben Zutarti said that Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevida said: The Sages sought to establish the blessings of Balaam that appear in the Torah portion of Balak, as part of the twice-daily recitation of Shema. And why did they not establish it there? Because extending Shema would place an encumbrance on the congregation, from which the Sages sought to refrain.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讗诇 诪爪讬讗诐 诪诪爪专讬诐 诇讬诪讗 驻专砖转 专讘讬转 讜驻专砖转 诪砖拽诇讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛谉 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐

The Gemara seeks: Why did the Sages seek to add the blessings of Balaam in the first place? If you say that they did so because the exodus from Egypt is mentioned, as it is written therein: 鈥淕od, who brought them forth out of Egypt, is like the horns of the wild ram鈥 (Numbers 23:22), certainly mention of the Exodus is not unique to this Torah portion. Many other portions mention the exodus as well. Let us say the portion of usury (Leviticus 25:35鈥38) or the portion of weights (Leviticus 19:35鈥37), as the exodus from Egypt is written therein as well. In addition, they are brief and would not constitute an encumbrance on the congregation.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讻专注 砖讻讘 讻讗专讬 讜讻诇讘讬讗 诪讬 讬拽讬诪谞讜

Rather, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: The reason the Sages sought to establish the portion of Balak as part of the recitation of Shema is because it is written therein: 鈥淗e couched, He lay down like a lion and a lioness; who shall rouse Him? Those who bless You are blessed and those who curse You are cursed鈥 (Numbers 24:9). This is reminiscent of what is said in Shema: When you lie down, and when you rise.

讜诇讬诪讗 讛讗讬 驻住讜拽讗 讜转讜 诇讗

On this, the Gemara asks: And if it is important to include this as part of Shema because of this single verse, then let us say this verse and nothing more.

讙诪讬专讬 讻诇 驻专砖讛 讚驻住拽讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 驻住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 诇讗 驻住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to do this, as they learned through tradition that any portion that Moses, our teacher, divided, we too divide and read separately. However, a portion that Moses, our teacher, did not divide, we do not divide and read separately. And, as stated above, the Sages did not wish to institute the recitation of the entire portion of Balak to avoid placing an encumbrance on the congregation.

驻专砖转 爪讬爪讬转 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 拽讘注讜讛

The Gemara continues: Why was the portion of ritual fringes established as part of the recitation of Shema when its content is unrelated to that of the preceding portions?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞讘讬讘讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪爪讜转 爪讬爪讬转 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 注讜诇 诪爪讜转 讜讚注转 诪讬谞讬诐 讛专讛讜专 注讘讬专讛 讜讛专讛讜专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣viva said: The portion of ritual fringes was added because it includes five elements including the primary reason for its inclusion, the exodus from Egypt (Melo HaRo鈥檌m): The mitzva of ritual fringes, mention of the exodus from Egypt, the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot, admonition against the opinions of the heretics, admonition against thoughts of the transgressions of licentiousness, and admonition against thoughts of idolatry.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪驻专砖谉 注讜诇 诪爪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讗讬转诐 讗转讜 讜讝讻专转诐 讗转 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛壮 爪讬爪讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讜注砖讜 诇讛诐 爪讬爪讬转 讜讙讜壮 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讛讜爪讗转讬 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 讚注转 诪讬谞讬诐 讛专讛讜专 注讘讬专讛 讛专讛讜专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, these three are mentioned explicitly: The yoke of mitzvot is mentioned in the portion of ritual fringes, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall look upon them and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord and you shall do them鈥 (Numbers 15:39). Ritual fringes are mentioned explicitly, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they will make for themselves ritual fringes鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The exodus from Egypt is also mentioned explicitly, as it is written: 鈥淚 am the Lord, your God, who took you out from the Land of Egypt鈥 (Numbers 15:41). But where do we derive the other elements mentioned above: Admonition against the opinions of the heretics, admonition against thoughts of transgressions of licentiousness, and admonition against thoughts of idolatry?

讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬 诇讘讘讻诐 讝讜 诪讬谞讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诪专 谞讘诇 讘诇讘讜 讗讬谉 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬 注讬谞讬讻诐 讝讛 讛专讛讜专 注讘讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪砖讜谉 讗诇 讗讘讬讜 讗讜转讛 拽讞 诇讬 讻讬 讛讬讗 讬砖专讛 讘注讬谞讬 讗转诐 讝讜谞讬诐 讝讛 讛专讛讜专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讝谞讜 讗讞专讬 讛讘注诇讬诐:

In response, the Gemara cites a baraita where these elements were derived from allusions in the verse, 鈥淵ou shall stray neither after your hearts nor after your eyes, after which you would lust鈥 (Numbers 15:39). As it was taught: 鈥淎fter your hearts鈥 refers to following opinions of heresy that may arise in one鈥檚 heart. The Gemara offers a proof, as it is stated: 鈥淭he fool said in his heart: 鈥楾here is no God鈥; they have been corrupt, they have acted abominably; there is none who does good鈥 (Psalms 14:1). The phrase: 鈥淎fter your eyes,鈥 in this verse refers to following thoughts of transgressions of licentiousness, that a person might see and desire, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Samson said to his father, 鈥楾hat one take for me, for she is upright in my eyes鈥欌 (Judges 14:3). The passage: 鈥淵ou shall stray after鈥 refers to promiscuity, which in the parlance of the prophets is a metaphor for idol worship, as it is stated: 鈥淭he children of Israel again went astray after the Be鈥檃lim鈥 (Judges 8:33).

诪转谞讬壮 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讘诇讬诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛专讬 讗谞讬 讻讘谉 砖讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讝讻讬转讬 砖转讗诪专 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讘诇讬诇讜转 注讚 砖讚专砖讛 讘谉 讝讜诪讗

MISHNA: It is a mitzva by Torah law to mention the exodus from Egypt at night, but some held that this mitzva was, like phylacteries or ritual fringes, fulfilled only during the day and not at night. For this reason it was decided: The exodus from Egypt is mentioned at night, adjacent to the recitation of Shema. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am approximately seventy years old, and although I have long held this opinion, I was never privileged to prevail (Me鈥檌ri) and prove that there is a biblical obligation to fulfill the accepted custom (Ra鈥檃vad) and have the exodus from Egypt mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma interpreted it homiletically and proved it obligatory.

砖谞讗诪专 诇诪注谉 转讝讻专 讗转 讬讜诐 爪讗转讱 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讻诇 讬诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讬诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讛讬诪讬诐 讻诇 讬诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讛诇讬诇讜转

Ben Zoma derived it as it is stated: 鈥淭hat you may remember the day you went out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). The days of your life, refers to daytime alone; however, the addition of the word all, as it is stated: All the days of your life, comes to add nights as well.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讻诇 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讬诪讜转 讛诪砖讬讞:

And the Rabbis, who posit that there is no biblical obligation to mention the exodus from Egypt at night, explain the word, all, differently and say: The days of your life, refers to the days in this world, all is added to include the days of the Messiah.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘谉 讝讜诪讗 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诇讬诪讜转 讛诪砖讬讞 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讛谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讘讗讬诐 谞讗诐 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 注讜讚 讞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讛注诇讛 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 讞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讛注诇讛 讜讗砖专 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讝专注 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 爪驻讜谞讛 讜诪讻诇 讛讗专爪讜转 讗砖专 讛讚讞转讬诐 砖诐

GEMARA: The fundamental dispute between Ben Zoma and the Sages appears in the mishna, and the baraita cites its continuation. Disputing the position of the Sages that: All the days of your life, refers to both this world and the days of the Messiah, it was taught in a baraita that Ben Zoma said to the Sages: And is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in the days of the Messiah? Was it not already said that Jeremiah prophesied that in the days of the Messiah: 鈥淏ehold, days are coming, says the Lord, that they will no longer say: The Lord lives Who brought up the children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt. Rather: As the Lord lives, that brought up and led the seed of the house of Israel up out of the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them鈥 (Jeremiah 23:7鈥8).

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖转注拽专 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪诪拽讜诪讛 讗诇讗 砖转讛讗 砖注讘讜讚 诪诇讻讬讜转 注讬拽专 讜讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讟驻诇 诇讜

The Sages rejected this claim and they said to him that these verses do not mean that in the future the exodus from Egypt will be uprooted from its place and will be mentioned no more. Rather, redemption from the subjugation of the kingdoms will be primary and the exodus from Egypt will be secondary.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讗 砖诪讱 注讜讚 讬注拽讘 讻讬 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讬讛讬讛 砖诪讱

On a similar note, you say: The meaning of the expressions: It will not say, and they will no longer mention, are not absolute, as in the verse: 鈥淵our name shall no longer be called Jacob; rather, Israel will be your name鈥 (Genesis 35:10). There, too, the meaning is

Scroll To Top