Berachot 62: Roman Replacement

In today's daf yomi, Berachot 62b:

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר עָל לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא. אֲתָא הַהוּא רוֹמָאָה דַּחֲקֵיהּ. קָם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וּנְפַק. אֲתָא דְּרָקֹונָא שַׁמְטֵיהּ לְכַרְכְּשֵׁיהּ. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״וְאֶתֵּן אָדָם תַּחְתֶּיךָ״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״אָדָם״ אֶלָּא ״אֱדוֹם״.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Elazar entered a bathroom. This Roman came and pushed him away. Rabbi Elazar stood and left, and a serpent came and ripped out the intestines of the Roman. Rabbi Elazar recited the following verse about the Roman: “Therefore I will give man [adam] for you” (Isaiah 43:4); do not read it as adam, but rather read it as Edom, meaning a Roman.

Rashi translates כַרְכְּשֵׁיהּ as חלחולת שהרעי יוצא בו שקורין טבחיא, and so Artscroll translates it as rectum. (Rect 'um? Dang near killed 'im!)

I think the derasha here is more than the al tikrei for Adam / Edom. It is also based on the word tachtecha. Therefore I will give an Edomite as for your rectum.

Assuming the Babylonian Amoraim were Ashkenazim, there could be a similar derasha at play in the segment that follows, on the pasuk: ״וְאָמַר לַהֲרָגֲךָ וַתָּחָס עָלֶיךָ״, about what happened when King Shaul went to relieve himself.

Berachot 58a: No Reshut HaRabbim

On today's daf (Berachot 58a), the following statement of Ulla, accompanied by a brayta:

אָמַר עוּלָּא: נְקִיטִינַן אֵין אוּכְלוּסָא בְּבָבֶל. 

תָּנָא: אֵין אוּכְלוּסָא פְּחוּתָה מִשִּׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא.

Ulla said: We hold there is no multitude in Babylonia. 

The Sage taught: A multitude is no fewer than six hundred thousand people. 

Artscroll points us to Kesef Mishneh to Rambam Hilchot Berachot 10:11, that the blessing (chacham harazim) is only said in Eretz Yisrael, and to Maadanei Yom Tov on the Rosh that it is inappropriate to make such a blessing on Jews in exile.

That is one possible interpretation. Another is that there won't be a gathering of shishim ribo in Bavel, and perhaps by extension elsewhere in exile. And that might have repercussions elsewhere.

We should connect it to another statement of Ulla, which he might have made. People wonder at the basis of Rashi's statement that a reshut harabbim requires 600,000. That is, in Eruvin 6b, Rashi writes:

רה"ר - משמע רחב שש עשרה אמה ועיר שמצויין בה ששים ריבוא ואין בה חומה (או) שהיה רה"ר שלה מכוון משער לשער שיהא מפולש דומה לדגלי מדבר:

The Meira and Ravya each refer to a (slightly different) Talmudic text of Shabbat 6a that we don't have in our printed edition. But it exists in Ktav Yad Vatikan and in a rubbed out marginal text in Ktav Yad Minkin. You can read more about this on the Eruv Online blog. Here is the image from the Vatican manuscript of Shabbat 6a:

l

l 

That is, that there is no reshut harabbim in Bavel. And further, from Rabba bar bar Chana, if not for the walls of Yerushalayim closed at night, people would be liable because of Reshut HaRabbim.

This accords well with the Resh Lakish's opinion in the Yerushalmi Eruvin that there is no reshut harabbim nowadays. It will technically exist sometime in the messianic future, when all hills and mountains are flattened. This is a general trend of eliminating the reshut harabbim deorayta, so that various halachic positions can be applied.

Eruv Online also mentioned a Gra, who asks how Ulla can say there is no uchlesa (=shishim ribbo) in Bavel, if the same Ulla says (Ketubot 54a) that Mechoza would be a reshut harabbim if not for their closing their doors at night, given that Rashi there says that there was shishim ribbo in that city. And he cites an answer I don't like so much, about Bavel the city vs. Bavel the country, and then points out a Tosafot that contradicts that assumption.

I think the answer is straightforward. Ignore the details. Ulla in both cases comes to undo the status of reshut haraabim. There are ways of doing it: Resh Lakish's nuclear option; Ulla's statement that there is no multitude (=shishim ribbo); and Rabba bar bar Chana's statement about Yerushalayim and closing the doors at night.

That Ulla in Ketubot instead applies Rabba bar bar Chana's rule, to the Babylonian Mechoza, rather than the rule he possibly stated elsewhere, about shishim ribo, is not surprising. There is an overarching aim, and he could get to it in either way. He didn't have to resort to a population count given that the city closed its doors.



a

a

How Yaakov Avinu won the Nobel Prize

How do we know that Yaakov Avinu won the Nobel Prize? Because the pasuk says (Bereishit 31:4):

ד  וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב, וַיִּקְרָא לְרָחֵל וּלְלֵאָה, הַשָּׂדֶה, אֶל-צֹאנוֹ.

4 And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock,

And we also know that the Nobel Prize is given to people out standing in their field.

Anyhoo, there is a gemara in Berachos, 8b, based in part on this pasuk:

תניא אמר ר"ע בשלשה דברים אוהב אני את המדיים כשחותכין את הבשר אין חותכין אלא על גבי השולחן כשנושקין אין נושקין אלא על גב היד וכשיועצין אין יועצין אלא בשדה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מאי קראה (בראשית לא, ד) וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה השדה אל צאנו:

Or, in English:

It has been taught: R. Akiba says: For three things I like the Medes: When they cut meat, they cut it only on the table; when they kiss, they kiss only the hand; and when they hold counsel, they do so only in the field. R. Adda b. Ahabah says: Which verse [may be quoted in support of the last]? And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock.¹¹ 

Rashi comments, on the daf:

אלא בשדה - דאמרי אינשי אזנים לכותל:

"[They do so] only in the field: For as the expression goes, the walls have ears."

Torah Temimah cites this gemara and Rashi. He writes:

"And apparently, there is to comment from the proof [in the gemara] from Yaakov. For behold, there it to say that therefore he called them to the field, since he was unable to go from there, for he would then be abandoning his work. And we need to say that he was able to wait until evening, the time that he returned to his house, but perforce, he deliberately called them to the field, since it is good to hold counsel in the field."

An interesting and persuasive idea.

I don't know that support in this case must be such a compelling support, though. Rabbi Akiva was speaking in admiration, based on his own sensibilities. And separate from this, R' Ada bar Ahava found a Scriptural support, which I would read as a remez, to this idea. Such an allusion does not, IMHO, need to disallow any other plausible and parallel causes. But this is just MHO, and one may feel free to argue whether this support is a mere asmachta or something more.

And even if one could say that this would be abandoning his work, one need not say this. At this stage, he was already somewhat wealthy. He could have taken in the flocks or handed them over to his eldest son, or a servant. Recall that Yaakov tells Esav in Vayishlach:

ה  וַיְצַו אֹתָם, לֵאמֹר, כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן, לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו:  כֹּה אָמַר, עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב, עִם-לָבָן גַּרְתִּי, וָאֵחַר עַד-עָתָּה.	5 And he commanded them, saying: 'Thus shall ye say unto my lord Esau: Thus saith thy servant Jacob: I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed until now.
ו  וַיְהִי-לִי שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, צֹאן וְעֶבֶד וְשִׁפְחָה; וָאֶשְׁלְחָה לְהַגִּיד לַאדֹנִי, לִמְצֹא-חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ.	6 And I have oxen, and asses and flocks, and men-servants and maid-servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favour in thy sight.'

(These servant might have been the ones Yaakov sent to Esav.) Surely he could have handed over the flocks to a man-servant. Maybe he would not want to. But all this is hypothetical, and just as Torah Temimah could presume that Yaakov would not want to abandon his work in the day -- which causes the problem -- one could hypothesize all sorts of resolutions, where he would be willing to leave even by day. His resolution is just one of many, and one need not assume that any of this was going through the mind of Rav Ada bar Ahava.

However, we see this idea raised by Torah Temimah, the idea of Yaakov's dedication, and of no bittul melacha in the perek itself, when Yaakov speaks to Rachel and Leah:

מ  הָיִיתִי בַיּוֹם אֲכָלַנִי חֹרֶב, וְקֶרַח בַּלָּיְלָה; וַתִּדַּד שְׁנָתִי, מֵעֵינָי.

40 Thus I was: in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep fled from mine eyes.

Also, since he is talking about the sheep, and the changing of wages, and the angel's reference to sheep, then it is more meaningful to do it in the presence of the various spotted, speckled, etc., sheep.

ח  אִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, נְקֻדִּים; וְאִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, עֲקֻדִּים.

8 If he said thus: The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: The streaked shall be thy wages; then bore all the flock streaked.

However, Rav Ada bar Ahava could point to another salient feature of this story, that this was done without Lavan's knowledge:

כ  וַיִּגְנֹב יַעֲקֹב, אֶת-לֵב לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי--עַל-בְּלִי הִגִּיד לוֹ, כִּי בֹרֵחַ הוּא.

20 And Jacob outwitted Laban the Aramean, in that he told him not that he fled.

On a peshat level, this would indeed account for calling them into the field. We see that Yaakov sought secrecy in this plan, to flee from Lavan.

Doing the Daf summary #8

To see this picture debunked, see here

Here are some recent posts at my Daf Yomi blog you may have missed.

Finishing up Berachot:

On Berachot 61-62, Rabbi Akiva forbids in every place. I suggest that this does not mean every location, but in every instance, and this leads to a reparse of the brayta and associated gemaras.

On Berachot 63, must we follow the pesak of Gedolim in Eretz Yisrael, under the theory of ki mitzion teitzei Torah udvar Hashem miyrushalayim, and in light of the fight for establishing the Jewish calendar inside and outside Eretz Yisrael. First I present the parallel Yerushalmi. Then I give some reasons one might distinguish between the cases.

On Berachot 64, Fate and Rabbinic leadership, I suggest that Rav Yosef did not avoid summoning the bloodletter to his home so as to avoid assuming any sort of power, but because he did not need to worry about his health so long as Rabba was in charge of the academy.

Then, we started masechet Shabbat.

On Shabbat daf 2 (and on), I consider the parallel "two which are four" in Shabbos and Shevuos, and whether they must be referring to the same set. I also begin the discussion of the identity of the four domains of Shabbat.

On daf 6, I continue the discussion of that identity in greater detail. Yerushalmi substitutes "closed alleyway" for mekom petur, with the rest of the brayta the same. Which fourth item reads better into the flow of the brayta. I also try to account for the usage of the word gemura (complete) on a peshat level. Either because what one might imagine is a complete private domain, an enclosed house, is left implicit, or because the very point is to contrast to a karmelit.

On daf 6-7, I consider the karmelit as the name of a class and the name of a specific domain. I believe it started as a known specific domain example, and was seized upon as a name for the class. Its identity as a class likely caused the forgetting of its precise identity. We can see Rabbi Yochanan in both Bavli and Yerushalmi giving a definition, and perhaps this is not then a relisting of karmelit in the brayta to include (in which case, as Tosafot asks, why not include tzidei reshut harabbim) but a definition. Finally, where Rabbi Yochanan identifies it as the chanut of bar Yustini, I venture a guess as to just what that is.

On daf 9, Bavel vs. Eretz Yisrael regarding the start of the meal, I consider in the ha lan ha lehu which is the practice of Bavel and which of Eretz Yisrael. It certainly makes more sense that the Babylonian practice was the girdle.

Related, on daf 10, girding oneself for prayer as a Zoroastrian practice picked up by Babylonian Amoraim.

On daf 10-11, Rava bar Mechasia, locating him in time and place. Was there some motivator to his collection of statements of Rav? Was he called bar Mechasia because he lived in Mata Mechasia? If the setama degemara disagrees with Rav Ashi and notes that Mata Mechasya was indeed destroyed, and we know that Mata Mechasia was still standing in the second half of the 7th century, does that provide an indication as to the late authorship of that particular setama degemara?

Doing the Daf summary #7

To see this picture debunked, see here

It has been difficult posting lately, especially because of Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and now Succot. It is not for lack of thoughts on the Daf but for lack of opportunity to write them down. But we are coming soon to the end of masechet Berachot.

Here are some recent posts on the Daf Yummy blog.

Daf 54: Miracles personal and non-existent. A seeming machlokes between the Bavli and Yerushalmi about personal miracles. Also, the brayta lists miracles which are non-existent, and tells the bracha for them. If Og was not so large and did not lift a mountain, but it is rather allegorical, as some Rishonim have it, then how can there be a bracha for seeing that rock? If Lot's wife was not turned into a pillar of salt, but rather she saw that the city was turned into a pillar of salt, as Ralbag, a rishon, writes, then how can the brayta give a bracha for seeing Lot's wife?

Daf 58: Censored texts -- min and goya become Tzeduki and Mitri, perhaps.

For 59, a repost from parshablog about causes of earthquakes.

For daf 60: Regarding vain prayers, see what I wrote here. Regarding the prayer for bloodletting, see what I wrote here.

For daf 61, about the counsel of the kidneys, see this parshablog post and this post at Rationalist Judaism. I think it was intended literally. About common descent (part of evolutionary theory), see this post.

Doing the Daf summary #6

To see this picture debunked, see here

I missed a week, but here is the lastest on my Daf Yomi site.

Berachot 38-39: When is it proper to fulfill all positions? Sometimes we see an Amora praised, and sometimes we see an Amora criticized, for trying to fulfill all positions. Can we figure out some sort of pattern or guiding principle to this?

Daf 42: Why didn't Abaye get a shkoyach? Because of an issur to give someone a shkoyach on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Daf 50: Who is Rabba Tosfaa? A bridge to the savoraim.

Also, נברך שאכלנו משלו and the meaning of ש. I suggest that the she means "because".

Daf 51: Sitting for bentching -- it is not that one must sit, rather than recline. It is that one may sit, and we do not force him to recline, or wrap himself in a tallis.

Also, Asparagus in the gemara and in ancient science. Parallels. We see both have wine mixed in, and that depending on the ingredients, there are different effects to this asparagus drink mix.

Daf 51-52: Why say the halacha is like Bet Hillel? Because the Tosefta, written by Rav Oshaya or Rabbi Chiyya, is saying we pasken in all of the four instances of dispute like Bet Hillel, not just in this first one. And thus, it argues about how we pasken in the dispute about order of washing vs. sweeping, where some Amoraim hold we pasken like Bet Shammai.

Also, the Tosefta here is a proto-gemara, and it is not Bet Hillel who is giving two explanations, under davar acher, but the setama deTosefta. Note how the Tosefta here, repeatedly first gives the dispute and then gives the explanation of the dispute. And that is also the reason for halacha ke-X. The setama degemara meanwhile analyzes this proto-gemara as if it were your typical brayta. Also, don't make to much of the use of the word teikef.

Berachot 42b: Why didn't Abaye get a shkoyach?

In Berachot 42b:

גמ' אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס אתמר נמי אמר רבה בר מרי א"ר יהושע בן לוי לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים ובשעה שאדם יוצא מבית המרחץ ובשעת הקזת דם הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס

Or, in English:

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This³  was meant to apply only to Sabbaths and festivals, because then a man makes wine an essential part of his meal.⁴  On others days of the year, however, a blessing is said over each cup,⁵  it has also been reported: Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: This was meant to apply only to Sabbaths and festivals, and to meals taken when a man leaves the bath or after bloodletting, because on such occasions a man makes wine an essential part of the meal. On other days of the year, however, a blessing is said over each cup. 

To illustrate this, two parallel stories, one of which took place during a weekday and the other during Yontiff.

בה בר מרי איקלע לבי רבא בחול חזייה דבריך לפני המזון והדר בריך לאחר המזון א"ל יישר וכן אמר ריב"ל רב יצחק בר יוסף איקלע לבי אביי בי"ט חזייה דבריך אכל כסא וכסא א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דריב"ל א"ל נמלך אנא

Rabbah b. Mari was once at the house of Raba on a weekday. He saw him say a blessing [over the wine taken] before the meal and again after the meal. He said to him: 'Well done; and so said R. Joshua b. Levi!'

R. Isaac b. Joseph visited Abaye on a festival, and saw him say a blessing over each cup. He said to him: Does your honour not hold with the rule laid down by R. Joshua b. Levi? — He replied: I have just changed my mind.⁶

So, for the same action, but taken on Yom Tov, instead of getting an ayasher, which is equal to yeyasher kochacha, or shkoyach, Abaye gets a criticism!

I think the reason for this goes beyond the position of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rather, both Shabbat and Yom Tov are referred to as Shabbaton. Thus, for example, Vayikra 23:39:

אַךְ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בְּאָסְפְּכֶם אֶת-תְּבוּאַת הָאָרֶץ, תָּחֹגּוּ אֶת-חַג-יְהוָה, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים; בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן שַׁבָּתוֹן, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי שַׁבָּתוֹן.

And we know from the zemer of Yona Matza that it is forbidden to say shkoyach on such a day:

יוֹם שַׁבָּתוֹן אֵין לִשְׁכּֽוֹחַ, זִכְרוֹ כְּרֵֽיחַ הַנִּיחֹֽחַ, 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

היוֹם נִכְבָּד לִבְנֵי אֱמוּנִים, זְהִירִים לְשָׁמְרוֹ אָבוֹת וּבָנִים, 
חָקוּק בִּשְׁנֵי לֻחוֹת אֲבָנִים, מֵרֹב אוֹנִים וְאַמִּיץ כֹּֽחַ. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

וּבָֽאוּ כֻלָּם בִּבְרִית יַֽחַד, נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע אָמְרוּ כְּאֶחָד, 
וּפָתְחוּ וְעָנוּ יְיָ אֶחָד, בָּרוּךְ הַנּוֹתֵן לַיָּעֵף כֹּֽח. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

דִּבֶּר בְּקָדְשׁוֹ בְּהַר הַמּוֹר, יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי זָכוֹר וְשָׁמוֹר, 
וְכָל פִּקּוּדָיו יַֽחַד לִגְמוֹר, חַזֵּק מָתְנַֽיִם וְאַמֵּץ כֹּֽח. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

הָעָם אֲשֶׁר נָע כַּצֹּאן תָּעָה, יִזְכּוֹר לְפָקְדוֹ בְּרִית וּשְׁבוּעָה, 
לְבַל יַעֲבָר בָּם מִקְרֵה רָעָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּֽעְתָּ עַל מֵי נֹֽחַ. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ.

Berachot 31a: Shlish beMikra, and peshat in Daniel's prayer 'as he did aforetime'

Cross-posted to my Daf Yomi blog.

(The content directly related to the gemara in Berachot appears towards the end of this post. But I have an elaborate and interesting introduction first.)

Many people unfortunately think they learn all the Tanach by learning the gemara. After all, the gemara cites all these pesukim!

Such is the position of Tosafot. That is, there is a gemara in Kiddushim, 30a, which reads:

אמר רב ספרא משום ר' יהושע בן חנניא: מאי דכתיב (דברים ו, ז) "ו וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ "? אל תקרי "ושננתם" אלא "ושלשתם" - לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו: שליש במקרא שליש במשנה שליש בתלמוד. מי יודע כמה חיי? לא צריכא – ליומי.

"Rav Safra cited Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania: What is meant by 'veshinantam levanecha' {'and you shall teach them to your children'}? Read not veshinantam but veshilashtam. A person should always divide his learning / years (שנותיו -- perhaps this is the ambiguity?). A third in Scripture, a third in Mishna, and a third in Talmud. Who knows how long he will live? No, it is necessary. For each day."

Rashi there explains:

ליומי - ימי השבוע:

"For days: the days of the week."

That is, alternate days of the week, each day devoted to one such topic.

Tosafot there writes:

לא צריכא ליומי. פירש בקונטרס ימי השבת כלומר שני ימים מקרא ושני ימים משנה ושני ימים גמרא ולא נהירא דא"כ אכתי הוה מצי למיפרך מי ידע כמה חיי ונ"ל לפרש בכל יום ויום עצמו ישלש על כן תיקן בסדר רב עמרם גאון כמו שאנו נוהגים בכל יום קודם פסוקי דזמרה לומר מקרא ומשנה וגמרא ור"ת פי' שאנו סומכין אהא דאמרינן בסנהדרין (דף כד.) בבל בלולה במקרא במשנה ובגמרא דגמרת בבל בלול מכולם:

"No, it is necessary, for days. It is explained in the notebook [of Rashi] 'the days of the week'. That is to say, two days of Scripture, two days of Mishna, and two days of Gemara. And this is unconvincing, for if so, one could still ask, 'who knows how long he shall live'? And it appears to me to explain that within each day itself, one should divide into three. Therefore, it was instituted in the seder [siddur] of Rav Amram Gaon before Pesukei deZimra to say Mikra, Mishna, and Gemara. And Rabbenu Tam explained that we rely on that which we say in Sanhedrin (daf 24a) that Babel is mixed, in Mikra, Mishna, and Gemara; that the gemara of Bavel is mixed with all of them.

That gemara in Sanhedrin 24a reads:

What does [the name] Babel connote?³⁰  — R. Johanan answered: [That the study of] Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud was intermingled [therein].³¹

I am not at all convinced by Tosafot's argument against Rashi. Yes, one does not know how many days he will live, but it does not need to be such a precise accounting. Where the gemara asked that a man does not know the days of his life, this was because one might devote 15 years to Mikra, then next 15 years to Mishna, and then never reach Gemara. Or only end up devoting 2 years to gemara.

But, if one devotes 10 years to Mikra, 10 years to Mishna, and 10 years minus 2 days to Gemara, then Rav Safra and Rabbi Yehohua ben Chanania would still consider this as shlish for each. To expect such precision seems a bit silly, and reminiscent of Rabbi Yirmiyah, who was kicked out of the bet midrash for such precise measurements.

Still, splitting each day into thirds is a rather plausible reading of the gemara as well. I dislike the proof but I do like the reading of the gemara.

In terms of the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon, is it really so clear that his purpose was this shlish in each field? If he said so, fine, but I always assumed that the basis was what we learned earlier in masechet Berachot, about whether Birchat HaTorah was necessary for each of the three, and if it is necessary later when one picks up the later field; this sets the stage at the start of the day, after the berachot, with a selection from each of the three.

But no, we are talking about a different selection from all three, namely the Korbanot ending with the hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael.

In terms of the gemara in Sanhedrin, here is what Tosafot says there:

בלולה במקרא ובמשנה וכו'. פירש רבינו תם דבתלמוד שלנו אנו פוטרין עצמנו ממה שאמרו חכמים (מסכת ע"ג דף יט.) לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו שליש במקרא שליש במשנה שליש בש"ס אע"פ כן אנו קוראים בכל יום פרשת התמיד ושונים במשנת איזהו מקומן וגורסין רבי ישמעאל אומר בשלש עשרה מדות וכו':

Is Rabbi Yochanan, an early Amora from Eretz Yisrael, really talking about Talmud Bavli, which was closed and redacted well after his death? And why would he not say the same about Talmud Yerushalmi, which also encompasses all three?!

At any rate, now to our gemara, just to give a little taste of what one might be missing if one relies on learning gemara as one's only source of Mikra, which unfortunately many people do.

The gemara in Berachot 31a reads:

יכול יתפלל אדם כל היום כלו כבר מפורש על ידי דניאל (דניאל ו, יא) וזמנין תלתא וגו' יכול משבא לגולה הוחלה כבר נאמר (דניאל ו, יא) די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא

Or, in English:

I might say that a man should pray the whole day? It has already been expressly stated by the hand of Daniel, And three times. etc.²³  But perhaps [this practice] began only when he went into captivity? It is already said, As he did aforetime.²⁴ 

So, one would think that it is clear, on a peshat level, that the purpose of די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא is to indicate that this was a practice of Daniel since before he went into galut. However, if we consider the context of the pasuk in sefer Daniel, we realize that:

1) this was not in the days of Nevuchadnezzar, but of Darius, a successor, which means that "aforetime" could have even been while in galut.

2) this was part of a plot in which certain people who were jealous of Daniel convinced the king to outlaw prayer to anyone but the king. Despite knowledge of this decree, Daniel continued his regular practice of prayer. The function of this statement of די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא on a peshat level is to say that Daniel payed no heed to their conspiracies and to the king's decree, but continued his established practice of facing Yerushalayim and praying three times a day while bowing on his knees.

This is explicit in Daniel, perek 6:

א  וְדָרְיָוֶשׁ, מדיא (מָדָאָה), קַבֵּל, מַלְכוּתָא--כְּבַר שְׁנִין, שִׁתִּין וְתַרְתֵּין.

1 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

and then:

ה  אֱדַיִן סָרְכַיָּא וַאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא, הֲווֹ בָעַיִן עִלָּה לְהַשְׁכָּחָה לְדָנִיֵּאל--מִצַּד מַלְכוּתָא; וְכָל-עִלָּה וּשְׁחִיתָה לָא-יָכְלִין לְהַשְׁכָּחָה, כָּל-קֳבֵל דִּי-מְהֵימַן הוּא, וְכָל-שָׁלוּ וּשְׁחִיתָה, לָא הִשְׁתְּכַחַת עֲלוֹהִי.	5 Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel as touching the kingdom; but they could find no occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.
ו  אֱדַיִן גֻּבְרַיָּא אִלֵּךְ, אָמְרִין, דִּי לָא נְהַשְׁכַּח לְדָנִיֵּאל דְּנָה, כָּל-עִלָּה; לָהֵן, הַשְׁכַּחְנָא עֲלוֹהִי בְּדָת אֱלָהֵהּ.  {ס}	6 Then said these men: 'We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him in the matter of the law of his God.' {S}
ז  אֱדַיִן סָרְכַיָּא וַאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא, אִלֵּן, הַרְגִּשׁוּ, עַל-מַלְכָּא; וְכֵן אָמְרִין לֵהּ, דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מַלְכָּא לְעָלְמִין חֱיִי.	7 Then these presidents and satraps came tumultuously to the king, and said thus unto him: 'King Darius, live for ever!
ח  אִתְיָעַטוּ כֹּל סָרְכֵי מַלְכוּתָא, סִגְנַיָּא וַאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא הַדָּבְרַיָּא וּפַחֲוָתָא, לְקַיָּמָה קְיָם מַלְכָּא, וּלְתַקָּפָה אֱסָר:  דִּי כָל-דִּי-יִבְעֵא בָעוּ מִן-כָּל-אֱלָהּ וֶאֱנָשׁ עַד-יוֹמִין תְּלָתִין, לָהֵן מִנָּךְ מַלְכָּא--יִתְרְמֵא, לְגֹב אַרְיָוָתָא.	8 All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the ministers and the governors, have consulted together that the king should establish a statute, and make a strong interdict, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.
ט  כְּעַן מַלְכָּא, תְּקִים אֱסָרָא וְתִרְשֻׁם כְּתָבָא:  דִּי לָא לְהַשְׁנָיָה כְּדָת-מָדַי וּפָרַס, דִּי-לָא תֶעְדֵּא.	9 Now, O king, establish the interdict, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.'
י  כָּל-קֳבֵל, דְּנָה--מַלְכָּא, דָּרְיָוֶשׁ, רְשַׁם כְּתָבָא, וֶאֱסָרָא.	10 Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the interdict.
יא  וְדָנִיֵּאל כְּדִי יְדַע דִּי-רְשִׁים כְּתָבָא, עַל לְבַיְתֵהּ, וְכַוִּין פְּתִיחָן לֵהּ בְּעִלִּיתֵהּ, נֶגֶד יְרוּשְׁלֶם; וְזִמְנִין תְּלָתָה בְיוֹמָא הוּא בָּרֵךְ עַל-בִּרְכוֹהִי, וּמְצַלֵּא וּמוֹדֵא קֳדָם אֱלָהֵהּ, כָּל-קֳבֵל דִּי-הֲוָא עָבֵד, מִן-קַדְמַת דְּנָה.  {ס}	11 And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house--now his windows were open in his upper chamber toward Jerusalem--and he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. {S}
יב  אֱדַיִן גֻּבְרַיָּא אִלֵּךְ, הַרְגִּשׁוּ, וְהַשְׁכַּחוּ, לְדָנִיֵּאל--בָּעֵה וּמִתְחַנַּן, קֳדָם אֱלָהֵהּ.	12 Then these men came tumultuously, and found Daniel making petition and supplication before his God.

I think it quite plausible that your typical student of Daf Yomi, or even yeshiva student learning this gemara somewhat be-iyun, would not realize the peshat intent of this pasuk of become aware of the background to this story.

Of course, the gemara is entitled to reinterpret the pasuk as it wishes, to show this as a prior practice of prayer from before churban bayis rishon. But people should not think that they are really getting their shlish bemikra such that they are now experts in Mikra.

Thoughts on Berachot 26-27

Cross-posted from Daf Yummy. I don't repost everything here that I post there, so you should check that other blog out.

Berachot 26b:

תנו רבנן טעה ולא התפלל מנחה בערב שבת מתפלל בליל שבת שתים טעה ולא התפלל מנחה בשבת מתפלל במוצאי שבת שתים של חול מבדיל בראשונה ואינו מבדיל בשניה ואם הבדיל בשניה ולא הבדיל בראשונה שניה עלתה לו ראשונה לא עלתה לו

למימרא דכיון דלא אבדיל בקמייתא כמאן דלא צלי דמי ומהדרינן ליה

ורמינהו טעה ולא הזכיר גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים ושאלה בברכת השנים מחזירין אותו הבדלה בחונן הדעת אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה על הכוס קשיא

Or, in English:

Our Rabbis taught: If a man erred and did not say the afternoon prayer on the eve of Sabbath, he says the [Sabbath] Tefillah¹  twice on the night of the Sabbath. If he erred and did not say the afternoon Tefillah on Sabbath, he says the [weekday] Tefillah twice on the outgoing of the Sabbath; he says habdalah²  in the first but not in the second;³  and if he said habdalah in the second and not in the first, the second is counted to him, the first is not counted to him. 

This is equivalent, is it not, to saying that since he did not say habdalah in the first, it is as if he had not said theTefillah and we make him say it again. 

To this was opposed the following: If one forgot and did not mention the miracle of rain⁴  in the benediction for the resurrection of the dead⁵  and prayed for rain in the benediction of the years,⁶  he is turned back; if he forgot habdalah in 'who graciously grants knowledge',⁷  he is not turned back, because he can say it over wine! — This is indeed a difficulty.

The resolution of this difficulty may simply be one of context. Indeed, saying ata chonantanu [=havdalah] in Ata Chonen is not required, and we would not make him go back if he accidentally skipped it. In this instance, however, by omitting it in the first one and saying it in the second one, he is thus designating the second one as his maariv and the first one as the additional one. And if the first one is his additional one, then it is a tefillat nedava rather than a tashlumin for the missed mincha.

Next in the daf:

איתמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר תפלות אבות תקנום רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר תפלות כנגד תמידין תקנום

It has been stated: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: The Tefillahs were instituted by the Patriarchs. R. Joshua b. Levi says: The Tefillahs were instituted⁸  to replace the daily sacrifices.

As the gemara continues to point out, and as is obvious anyway, the tefillot do correspond to the daily sacrifices. Thus Mussaf corresponds to the Mussaf offering, and Mincha to the Mincha offering, etc., in time and perhaps in function.

But these are two differing philosophical stands. In the patriarchal period, prior to the Mishkan, yes, there were korbanot, but the relationship between the avot and Hashem was of a very personal nature. Forget about the specific derashot. Hashem spoke to them, and they spoke to Hashem. For instance, for Avraham, at the end of Lech Lecha:

א  אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, בַּמַּחֲזֶה, לֵאמֹר:  אַל-תִּירָא אַבְרָם, אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ--שְׂכָרְךָ, הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד.	1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying: 'Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.'
ב  וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה מַה-תִּתֶּן-לִי, וְאָנֹכִי, הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי; וּבֶן-מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי, הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר.	2 And Abram said: 'O Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go hence childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?'
ג  וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם--הֵן לִי, לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע; וְהִנֵּה בֶן-בֵּיתִי, יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי.	3 And Abram said: 'Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is to be mine heir.'

And as for Yitzchak, in Toledot:

כא  וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִוא; וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ יְהוָה, וַתַּהַר רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ.

21 And Isaac entreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD let Himself be entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

and Yaakov, in Vayishlach:

י  וַיֹּאמֶר, יַעֲקֹב, אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי אַבְרָהָם, וֵאלֹהֵי אָבִי יִצְחָק:  יְהוָה הָאֹמֵר אֵלַי, שׁוּב לְאַרְצְךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתְּךָ--וְאֵיטִיבָה עִמָּךְ.	10 And Jacob said: 'O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who saidst unto me: Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will do thee good;
יא  קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים, וּמִכָּל-הָאֱמֶת, אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ, אֶת-עַבְדֶּךָ:  כִּי בְמַקְלִי, עָבַרְתִּי אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה, וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי, לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת.	11 I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which Thou hast shown unto Thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two camps.
יב  הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי, מִיַּד עֵשָׂו:  כִּי-יָרֵא אָנֹכִי, אֹתוֹ--פֶּן-יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי, אֵם עַל-בָּנִים.	12 Deliver me, I pray Thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and smite me, the mother with the children.

The avos had a personal relationship to Hashem, and if they needed something, they asked Hashem for it; and if they received it, they thanked Hashem for it.

The korbanot can be personal, but they were part of a larger, more impersonal, and structured, system. And the particular korbanot that the tefillot are patterned after are the korbanot of the tzibbur. Are we trying to recreate the national worship in our batei knisayot to give Hashem his daily due?

I think that at the end of the day, both approaches are true, to different levels, and in different ways.

Next:

איבעיא להו עד ועד בכלל או דלמא עד ולא עד בכלל תא שמע ר' יהודה אומר עד פלג המנחה אי אמרת בשלמא עד ולא עד בכלל היינו דאיכא בין ר' יהודה לרבנן אלא אי אמרת עד ועד בכלל ר' יהודה היינו רבנן

R. JUDAH SAYS: TILL THE FOURTH HOUR. It was asked: Is the point mentioned itself included in the UNTIL or is it not included?²⁷  — Come and hear: R. JUDAH SAYS, UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON. If you say that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL, then there is no difficulty; this is where the difference lies between R. Judah and the Rabbis.²⁸  O But if you say that the point mentioned is not included,²⁹  then R. Judah says the same thing as the Rabbis?

If Rabbi Yehuda's ad is ad ve'ad bichlal, wouldn't the ad of the Rabbanan also be ad vead bechlal? If so, wouldn't ad ha-erev be inclusive of a later time, going into the evening as well?

Maybe they treat erev like chatzot, as a fixed instant. Still, I am not convinced of the strength of the question here.

On 27b:

א"ר חייא בר אבין רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת רבי יאשיה מצלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת

R. Hiyya b. Abin said: Rab used to say the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath;¹³  R. Josiah said the Tefillah of the outgoing of Sabbath on Sabbath.

This is in fact related to the idea that maariv ain lo keva. Since it has no keva, any approximate time is good for it, and it may indeed intersect the zman of mincha. And therefore, contrary to those who say one must choose a time and be consistent in terms of end of mincha time and beginning of maariv time, they may even "conflict" on a single day, or be inconsistent from week to week.

This is the meaning of:

תפלת הערב אין לה קבע:

מאי אין לה קבע אילימא דאי בעי מצלי כוליה ליליא ליתני תפלת הערב כל הלילה אלא מאי אין לה קבע כמאן דאמר תפלת ערבית רשות

THE EVENING PRAYER HAS NO FIXED LIMIT. What is the meaning of HAS NO FIXED LIMIT? Shall I say it means that if a man wants he can say the Tefillah any time in the night? Then let it state, 'The time for the evening Tefillah is the 'whole night'! — But what in fact is the meaning of HAS NO FIXED LIMIT? It is equivalent to saying, The evening Tefillah is optional.

Tomorrow, considering the difference between the Bavli and Yerushalmi accounts of the conflict involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. (See here for parallel Yerushalmi, and chech our gemara carefully for the switch from Hebrew into Aramaic.)

Berachot 20a: Rabbi Yochanan and Maternal Impression

Cross listed to Daf Yummy.

On Berachot 20a, the following:

R. Johanan was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the bathing place. He said: When the daughters of Israel come up from bathing they look at me and they have children as handsome as I am.¹²

This corresponds to an ancient belief held by Galen, and also held by Chazal, of maternal impression. What the woman sees of is thinking about when she has intercourse would have an impact on the baby. This accounts, if I recall correctly, for a Roman matron having a black baby.

In that regard, I am reminded of the following joke:

A missionary is sent into deepest darkest depths of Africa to live with a tribe. He spends years with the people, teaching them to read, write and good Christian values. One thing he particularly stresses is the evil of sexual sin. “Thou must not commit adultery or fornication!”

One day the wife of one of the Tribe’s noblemen gives birth to a white baby. The village is shocked and the chief is sent by his people to talk with the missionary.  

You have taught us of the evils of sexual sin, yet here a black woman gives birth to a white child. You are the only white man who has ever set foot in our village. Anyone can see what’s going on here!”

The missionary replies, “No, no, my good man. You are mistaken. What you have here is a natural occurrence - what is called an albino. Look to thy yonder field. See a field of white sheep, and yet amongst them is one black one. Nature does this on occasion.” 

The chief pauses for a moment then says, “Tell you what, you don'’t say anything about the sheep, I won'’t say anything about the white baby.”

This also finds purchase in the Torah, with Yaakov using striped sticks to influence the sheep to have striped offspring, and as interpreted by Chazal.

Even Shadal adopts this ancient science as likely. See here on parshablog. Other interpretations of that pasuk are still possible.

It seems that the following halacha:

See for example Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 198:48, where R. Moses Isserles states that if a woman coming home from the mikveh enounters a דבר טמא או גוי , if she is pious she will immerse again.

Is based on this theory of maternal impression. Here is the Rama:

And here is the Shach on the side who brings other sources that say that she should not go back and re-immerse if she encounters a horse, because it means that her children will come out quite nicely:

Nowadays, perhaps halacha is not widely practiced because it is so difficult not to encounter someone on the way, or because, as some explain, it is the first thing encountered, which is the mikveh lady.

I think that even besides this, we don't need to concern ourselves with these quasi-kabbalistic concerns which are really rooted in ancient science which was only recently uprooted. This was not encoded as halacha by the gemara, and at this point, we know that this recommendation by specific Rishonim and Acharonim was based on incorrect science.

Doing the Daf summary #2

To see this picture debunked, see here

Continuing what I started last week, here is a summary of Daf Yomi posts at my Daf Yomi blog:

Berachot daf 8: Is there any Targum Onkelos on Atarot v'Divon? Given that the gemara assumes that there is no such Targum, how come we have it in our Mikraos Gedolos?

Daf 10: יִתַּמּוּ חַטָּאִים מִן-הָאָרֶץ -- Considering Beruriah's derasha, what the pasuk means on a peshat level, how the gemara itself assumes the peshat level elsewhere.

Also, College students and sof zman krias Shema -- Given that we pasken like Rabbi Yehoshua that Shema is so long as someone is doing ובקומיך, though his example is kings who wake up "late", perhaps our sof zman krias Shema should shift to when college students wake up.

Daf 11: Is Midrash == Mikra? Considering the implications of the Beis Yosef conflating the two. I don't think that ultimately there are implications of this.

Also, 'As you travel on the road' as a kiyum -- that saying it on the road, rather than stopping to lie down, reflects the idea of integrating kabbalas ol malchus Shamayim into your life.

Daf 12: All the days of your life -- trying to understand the respective derashot of Ben Zoma and the Chachamim, about how kol includes the nights or the messianic days.

Also, Making oneself ill by praying -- I think it is actually a derasha on גם אנכי חלילה לי.

Also, The Heart as the seat of the Intellect -- a reaction to a mussar point in Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein's daf shiur. Don't derive deep messages about the nature of those who turn to heresy on the basis of the derasha of אחרי לבבכם זו מינות. After all, Chazal viewed the heart as the seat of the intellect, just like many of their non-Jewish contemporaries.

Daf 13: Extending the daled in Echad -- is possible, if you pronounce it as Chazal did, like the 'th' in 'either'.

Daf 14: Tefillin before Shema or after it? Don't blame the messenger from bringing Rav's tefillin late, since putting on tefillin after Shema is his explicit position, as stated in the Yerushalmi.

Daf 15: What does Rabbi Yossi derive from 'Shema'? Does he really derive two lessons from one word?

Also, Careful pronunciation of the Shema -- and which letters run together, for which individuals.

Also, A transfer of a sugya: going after water for tefillah -- as described in the Rosh, and further developed by yours truly.

Daf 15 and 16: In defense of Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet -- how we can save their original statements?

Daf 16: How does ובלכתך בדרך exempt intercourse with a virgin? It is unclear that the girsa of the brayta, as it appears in printed Bavli and Yerushalmi, is correct. Perhaps the Tosefta is correct. But, if our girsa is correct, then we can make a lovely derasha on the basis of a pasuk in Mishlei, וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה.

Berachot 15: A transfer of a sugya: going after water for tefillah

Cross-posted to my Daf Yomi blog, but an interesting point to make here about the concept of haavarah (a transferred sugya) in general.

A fascinating discussion by the Rosh (see my Rosh Yomi blog), about searching for water for tefillah, rather than for Shema. My comments afterward.

Ravina said to Rava: Does Master see this member of the Rabbinate who has come from the West {=Israel} and said: one who does not have water to wash can rub his hands with a pebble, or dirt, or sawdust?
He {Rava} said: He says well. Does it (the pasuk in Tehillim 26:6) say beMayim - with water? It says בְּנִקָּיוֹן - in cleanliness. Any substance which cleans.

Rav Chisda would curse anyone who looked after water at the time of prayer.

Rosh: There are some seforim in which is written "And these words are in terms of reading Shema but for prayer {=Shemoneh Esrei}, he needs to go back {looking for water to clean your hands}. For Resh Lakish said: for kneading {betahara} and for netila {before eating} and for praying {with a tzibbur}, four mil." As we learn in Pesachim, perek Elu Ovrin (daf 46a) and in Chullin perek haOr vehaRotev (da 122b). 

And the Rif as well wrote so, and this girsa is not found in old sefarim. And also [Rashi] did not explain [have a girsa] of this. And it seems that he was not gores this, for {it doesn't make sense, for just as} he should not go back at the time of kriat Shema, so that the zman would not pass, so too would be the case in terms of tefillah, for why should one differentiate one from the other? And even though kriat Shema is Biblical while tefillah is Rabbinic, the Sages gave strength to their words just as for Torah.

And Rashi as well does not explain there {in Pesachim} a reason for tefillah {going back} as because of netilat yadayim, but rather in order to pray with ten. And so too later on in perek Mi Shemetu (daf 22a) it is stated 'they cancelled the washing like Rav Chisda, for Rav Chisda cursed one who went back for water at time of prayer', and it does not mention kriat Shema at all.

We should compare our gemara with what appears in Pesachim. Our gemara has:

Rabina said to Raba: Sir, pray look at this student who has come from the West [Palestine] and who says: If one has no water for washing his hands, he can rub³  his hands with earth or with a pebble or with sawdust. He replied: He is quite correct. Is it written, I will wash in water? It is written: In cleanliness — with anything which cleans. For R. Hisda cursed anyone who went looking for water at the time of prayer.⁴  This applies to the recital of the Shema', but for the tefillah one may go looking. How far? — As far as a parasang. This is the case in front of him, but in the rear, he may not go back even a mil. [From which is to be deduced], A mil he may not go back; but less than a mil he may go back.

whereas the gemara in Pesachim reads:

 R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: For kneading, for prayer, and for washing the hands, [the standard is] four mils.  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Aibu stated this, and he stated four [laws] about it, and one of them is tanning. For we learned: And all these, if he tanned them or trod on them to the extent of tanning, are clean, excepting a man's skin. And how much is ‘the extent of tanning’? — Said R. Aibu in R. Jannai's name: The extent of walking four mils. R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: They learned this only [about going on] ahead: but [as for going] back, he need not return even a mil. Said R. Aha: And from this [we deduce]: it is only a mil that he need not go back, but less than a mil he must go back.

The word of the day is העברה, haavara. That is, the transfer of one sugya to another. This is quite clearly what happened in this instance. The proof of this is (a) that the names of Amoraim which appear in Pesachim are stripped out here in brachot; and (b) that, as the Rosh notes, there are old manuscripts of the gemara which lack it; and finally, (c) as Rosh notes, there is another gemara in which Rav Chisda's statement is taken plainly as referring also to tefillah, which to me indicates separate development in parallel from the initial state of the gemara.

Thus, this setama degemara, composed perhaps as late as the Geonim, transfers the discussion from Pesachim. Likely because of the juxtaposition of netilah and tefillah as things one must go back for.

I side with the Rosh, who basically undoes what is printed in our modern gemaras.

Berachot 10: College students and sof zman krias Shema

Cartoon from Ohr Sameach

Cross-posted to my Daf Yomi blog (check it out).

There is a famous story about what happened when NASA sent the first frum Jew into space. On his return, he was asked by reporters how he liked it.

He came into the room completely dishevelled. His beard was tangled, his kippah was askew and his tallis was creased. The reporters asked him whether he enjoyed the experience.
He threw his hands in the air and said, "Enjoy? Oy vay, you must be joking. How could I find time to enjoy? Every few minutes the sun was rising and setting! So it was on with the tefillin, off with the tefillin, shacharis, mincha, maariv, shacharis, mincha, maariv...."

Obviously, the halachos of tefillah and tefillin would change given the different metzius.

This brings me to the following Mishna and gemara. On Berachot daf 9b, we have the Mishna:

מתני' מאימתי קורין את שמע בשחרית משיכיר בין תכלת ללבן ר' אליעזר אומר בין תכלת לכרתי (וגומרה) עד הנץ החמה ר' יהושע אומר עד שלש שעות שכן דרך מלכים לעמוד בשלש שעות הקורא מכאן ואילך לא הפסיד כאדם הקורא בתורה:

Or, in English:

MISHNAH. FROM WHAT TIME MAY ONE RECITE THE SHEMA IN THE MORNING? FROM THE TIME THAT ONE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BLUE AND WHITE. R. ELIEZER SAYS: BETWEEN BLUE AND GREEN. AND HE HAS TIME TO FINISH UNTIL SUNRISE. R. JOSHUA SAYS: UNTIL THE THIRD HOUR OF THE DAY, FOR SUCH IS THE CUSTOM OF KINGS, TO RISE AT THE THIRD HOUR. IF ONE RECITES THE SHEMA' LATER HE LOSES NOTHING, BEING LIKE ONE WHO READS IN THE TORAH.¹²

To explain the position of Rabbi Yehoshua, the Torah sets the time of Shema via the following pasuk, in Devarim 6:7:

ז  וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ.

7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

And 'when thou risest up' means the time of rising. Since kings rise three hours after sunrise, it is considered to be a time of kima, waking up, even for non-kings.

On daf 10b:

ר' יהושע אומר עד ג' שעות:

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהושע:

Thus,we pasken like Rabbi Yehoshua.

Now, there are two ways of understanding the halacha. One is that the Torah said וּבְקוּמֶךָ and so it is as if the Torah said 'until three hours'. Or, more correct, that the Torah said וּבְקוּמֶךָ and so it means 'when people in general are waking up', and the application of that is 'until three hours'.

The position of the Chazon Ish is that reality at the time of the Talmud defines halachic practice. Thus:

Should the halachot of treifot then change to fit the current reality? The Chazon Ish explains, based on the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 9a, that the world was divided into three periods - two thousand years of tohu, two thousand years of Torah, and two thousand years of Mashiach. The full explanation of this passage is fascinating but will take us well off topic. However, the Chazon Ish explained that the halachot of treifot were based on nature as it was during the time of Torah, the two thousand years between Avraham and approximately the close of the Mishna. Since at that time the treifot as described in the Talmud caused an animal to die within a year, we are still forbidden to eat such animals even if they can now survive for over a year.

So too (Rav Schachter mentioned in shiur), it might be that we must be koveah the sof zman krias Shema based on when people rose at the time of the gemara.

I don't think we should say like the Chazon Ish. And if so, consider that on the day I wrote the post, the sof zman krias Shema was:

Latest Shema Magen Avraham		סוף זמן קריאת שמע מגן אברהם
Using "90 minutes..." as dawn and nightfall	8:31:26	לפי 90 דקות במעלות
Using "Fixed 72 minutes..."	8:54:41	לפי 72 דקות שוות
Using "72 minutes as 16.1 degrees"	8:44:09	לפי 72 דקות במעלות
Latest Shema Gra & Baal Tanya	9:30:41	סוף זמן קריאת שמע גר"א ובעל התני

Meanwhile, when does your typical college student wake up? Nishtaneh hateva, nature changed! College students are a demographic just as much as kings are. And if the zeman is indeed when people are waking up, then I would not worry too much about sof zman krias Shema.

Speaking more broadly, two things have changed since the time of the gemara: we are no longer an agrarian society, and the introduction of cheap electric lights. A farmer wakes at dawn and works till dusk, since he needs the daylight. Nowadays, by and large, not so many people are working the land, and we can set for ourselves what the day, and workday, will look like. Should this cause a shift in ובשכבך ובקומיך?

Of course, consult your local Orthodox rabbi.