Berachot 31a: A drop of blood no bigger than a mustard seed as halacha psuka

A mustard seed

Just a quick thought today. In Berachot 31a:

Our Rabbis taught: A man should not stand up to say Tefillah either immediately after trying a case or immediately after a [discussion on a point of]halachah;⁵  but he may do so after a halachic decision which admits of no discussion.⁶  What is an example of a halachic decision which admits of no discussion? — Abaye said: Such a one as the following of R. Zera; for R. Zera said:⁷  The daughters of Israel have undertaken to be so strict with themselves that if they see a drop of blood no bigger than a mustard seed they wait seven [clean] days after it.⁸  Raba said: A man may resort to a device with his produce and bring it into the house while still in its chaff⁹  so that his animal may eat of it without its being liable to tithe.¹⁰  Or, if you like, I can say, such as the following of R. Huna. For R. Huna said in the name of R. Zeiri:¹¹  If a man lets blood in a consecrated animal, no benefit may he derived from it [the blood] and such benefit constitutes a trespass. The Rabbis followed the rule laid down in the Mishnah,¹²  R. Ashi that of the Baraitha.¹³

I don't know that this particular example of Abaye would count as a halacha pesuka for me. Indeed, it could readily distract me from tefillah. See my discussion here, where I discuss how it may have been a grass-roots practice adopted from Zoroastrian practice.

Maybe no discussion because it is a description of a practice of bnos yisrael. But not necessarily that it was universally adopted. After all, later on that same daf in Niddah where that practice is first mentioned, we see:

Raba took R. Samuel out for a walk³⁸  when he discoursed as follows: If a woman³⁹  was in protracted labour⁴⁰  for two days and on the third she miscarried she must wait seven clean days; he being of the opinion that the law relating to protracted labour⁴¹  does not apply to miscarriages and that it is impossible for the uterus⁴²  to open without bleeding. Said R. Papa to Raba: What is the point in speaking of one who was in protracted labour for two days seeing that the same applies even where there was the minutest discharge, since R. Zera stated, The daughters of Israel have imposed upon themselves the restriction that even where they observe only a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed they wait on account of it seven clean days? — The other replied: I am speaking to you of a prohibition,⁴³  and you talk of a custom which applies only where the restriction has been adopted.⁴⁴

And this is Rava, a contemporary of Abaye, who seems to indicate that in his days, this minhag had not necessarily been universally adopted.

Berachot 29a: Havinenu

In Berachot 29a:

אמר רב ביבי בר אביי כל השנה כולה מתפלל אדם הביננו חוץ מימות הגשמים מפני שצריך לומר שאלה בברכת השנים מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ונכללה מכלל ודשננו בנאות ארצך ותן טל ומטר אתי לאטרודי אי הכי הבדלה בחונן הדעת נמי אתי לאטרודי אמרי התם כיון דאתיא בתחלת צלותא לא מטריד הכא כיון דאתיא באמצע צלותא מטריד

R. Bibi b. Abaye said: A man may say 'Give us discernment' any time in the year except in the rainy season, because he requires to make a request in the benediction of the years.²²  Mar Zutra demurred to this. Let him include it [by saying], And fatten us in the pastures of Thy land and give dew and rain? — He might become confused. If so, by saying habdalah²³  in 'that grantest discernment' he might equally become confused? They replied: In that case, since it comes near the beginning of the Tefillah he will not become confused, here, as it comes in the middle of the Tefillah he will become confused. 

It seems that this is an instance of nishtaneh hametziut, since nowadays we daven from siddurim and would not be as likely to get confused by such an insertion. Should halacha change, or has it been established and stands as it stands?

In terms of Havinenu, the conclusion of the gemara is to say it because of tirda. The Shulchan Aruch so rules in Orach Chaim 110:1:

בשעת הדחק כגון שהוא בדרך או שהיה עומד במקום שהוא טרוד וירא שיפסיקוהו או שלא יוכל להתפלל בכוונה תפלה ארוכה מתפלל אחר ג' ראשונות הביננו ואומר אחריה ג' אחרונות וצריך לאמרה מעומד וכשיגיע לביתו אין צריך לחזור ולהתפלל ואינו מתפלל הביננו בימות הגשמים ולא במוצאי שבת ויום טוב:

However, in the Biur Halacha and Aruch Hashulchan, the idea is brought that nowadays one should not say it because of tirda because we don't have kavanah anyway. See the discussion here:

Now Playing:
Halacha from the Daily Daf: Berachos 29 -- 1) Forgot to say v'ten tal u'matar- what's the halacha? 2) Abridged tefillos-the halacha and do we say them today?

Speaker:Rabbi Chaim EisensteinGiven On:Sunday August 26, 2012

The Aruch Hashulchan writes:

אמנם בזמנינו לא שמענו מעולם מי שיתפלל "הביננו". והטעם פשוט: דבשלמא בימיהם שהיו מכוונים הרבה בתפילה – תיקנו "הביננו" לפעמים כשלא יוכל לכוין. אבל האידנא בלאו הכי אין אנו מכוונין כל כך, כמו שכתבתי כמה פעמים. אם כן למה לנו "הביננו"?

(ומהנכון היה להרגיל לאנשי חיל שנחוצים לעבודתם להתפלל "הביננו".)

which is sort of explaining the existing practice rather than explicitly outlawing it. But still, he makes the point that regardless, we are not having much kavvanah.

I wonder how much this has really changed. See the Yerushalmi (Berachot 17b) referenced in this blogpost at Shimush Chachamim, which I will cite in full:

Here is a fascinating Gemorah found in Yerushalmi Brachos at the end of Perek 2 Halacha 4 (Daf 17b at the bottom of the page.) A simple reading of the gemorah comes out that these Amoroim are saying that they didn't have kavana when davening! How could it be? What does this Gemorah mean? What is it coming to teach us? What can we take from it?

א"ר חייא רובא אנא מן יומי לא כוונית אלא חד זמן בעי מכוונה והרהרית בלבי ואמרית מאן עליל קומי מלכא קדמי ארקבסה אי ריש גלותא

שמואל אמר אנא מנית אפרוחיא

רבי בון בר חייא אמר אנא מנית דימוסיא

א"ר מתניה אנא מחזק טיבו לראשי דכד מטי מודים הוא כרע מגרמיה

Granted that the Pnei Moshe explains by all these Amoroim the problem was is that they were thinking in learning (and for that reason weren't m'kavain in their tefillah.) Could be there are other mafarshim, tzrich l'ayin. With this pashut it certainly comes to answer a little bit. Obviously one would say our lack of ability to be m'kavain in Tefillah has nothing to do with the fact that we are so "tored" in our learning. Again, tzrich inyun into the whole thing. None the less a very interesting Gemorah.

I think the Pnei Moshe is right, that they were thinking in learning. Thus, the example of אמרית מאן עליל קומי מלכא קדמי ארקבסה אי ריש גלותא. And some people have an intellectual bent and others an emotional bent in their avodas Hashem. See also zman tefillah lechud and zman Torah lechud. But if so, perhaps this lack of kavanah is not so unique in our days after all. And it is not nishtaneh hateva. And we should of course work, in general, on having real kavvanah in our davening.

Berachot 28b: How many vertebrae in the human spine?

In Berachot 28b:

To what do these eighteen benedictions correspond? R. Hillel the son of Samuel b. Nahmani said: To the eighteen times that David mentioned the Divine Name in the Psalm, Ascribe unto the Lord, O ye sons of might.¹⁵  R. Joseph said: To the eighteen times the Divine Name is mentioned in the Shema'. R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: To the eighteen vertebrae in the spinal column.

and then:

These eighteen are really nineteen? — R. Levi said: The benediction relating to the Minim¹⁸  was instituted in Jabneh.¹⁹  To what was it meant to correspond? — R. Levi said: On the view of R. Hillel the son of R. Samuel b. Nahmani,²⁰  to The God of Glory thundereth;²¹  on the view of R. Joseph, to the word 'One'²²  in the Shema'; on the view of R. Tanhum quoting R. Joshua b. Levi, to the little vertebrae in the spinal column.

Thus, there are eighteen or nineteen vertebrae in the spinal column. This does not seem, at first glance, to correspond to modern science, nor to what we know of contemporary science. For reading on this subject, see here, here and here. It might just be a matter of which bones they counted and which they did not.

One approach, which seems iffy to me:

Berachot 27-28: Bavli vs. Yerushalmi in the conflict with Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua

We will first mark up the gemara for Hebrew and Aramaic. One important point, though. While ליה  is Aramaic, as opposed to the Hebrew  לו , it is quite surprising to find  ליה in a brayta, especially when put together with words beginning with ש rather than ד. And I see in some manuscripts that it has לו. Therefore, I am not going to treat those ליהs as Aramaic.

Thus, 

Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale , II.1.7

:


















and so too Munich:

At any rate, here is the text, with blue for Aramaic and green for Hebrew. Berachot 27b - 28a:

ת"ר מעשה בתלמיד אחד שבא לפני ר' יהושע א"ל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה אמר ליה רשות בא לפני רבן גמליאל א"ל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה א"ל חובה א"ל והלא ר' יהושע אמר לי רשות א"ל המתן עד שיכנסו בעלי תריסין לבית המדרש כשנכנסו בעלי תריסין עמד השואל ושאל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה א"ל רבן גמליאל חובה אמר להם רבן גמליאל לחכמים כלום יש אדם שחולק בדבר זה אמר ליה ר' יהושע לאו א"ל והלא משמך אמרו לי רשות אמר ליה יהושע עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר אלמלא אני חי והוא מת יכול החי להכחיש את המת ועכשיו שאני חי והוא חי היאך יכול החי להכחיש את החי היה רבן גמליאל יושב ודורש ור' יהושע עומד על רגליו עד שרננו כל העם ואמרו לחוצפית התורגמן עמוד ועמד אמרי עד כמה נצעריה וניזיל בר"ה אשתקד צעריה בבכורות במעשה דר' צדוק צעריה הכא נמי צעריה תא ונעבריה מאן נוקים ליה נוקמיה לרבי יהושע בעל מעשה הוא נוקמיה לר' עקיבא דילמא עניש ליה דלית ליה זכות אבות אלא נוקמיה לר' אלעזר בן עזריה דהוא חכם והוא עשיר והוא עשירי לעזרא הוא חכם דאי מקשי ליה מפרק ליה והוא עשיר דאי אית ליה לפלוחי לבי קיסר אף הוא אזל ופלח והוא עשירי לעזרא דאית ליה זכות אבות ולא מצי עניש ליה אתו ואמרו ליה ניחא ליה למר דליהוי ריש מתיבתא אמר  להו איזיל ואימליך באינשי ביתי אזל ואמליך בדביתהו אמרה ליה 
דלמא מעברין לך אמר לה [לשתמש אינש] יומא חדא בכסא דמוקרא ולמחר ליתבר אמרה ליה לית לך חיורתא ההוא יומא בר תמני סרי שני הוה אתרחיש ליה ניסא ואהדרו ליה תמני סרי דרי חיורתא היינו דקאמר ר' אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה ולא בן שבעים שנה תנא אותו היום סלקוהו לשומר הפתח ונתנה להם רשות לתלמידים ליכנס שהיה ר"ג מכריז ואומר כל תלמיד שאין תוכו כברו לא יכנס לבית המדרש ההוא יומא אתוספו כמה ספסלי א"ר יוחנן פליגי בה אבא יוסף בן דוסתאי ורבנן חד אמר אתוספו ארבע מאה ספסלי וחד אמר שבע מאה ספסלי הוה קא חלשא דעתיה דר"ג אמר דלמא ח"ו מנעתי תורה מישראל אחזו ליה בחלמיה חצבי חיורי דמליין קטמא ולא היא ההיא ליתובי דעתיה הוא דאחזו ליה תנא עדיות בו ביום נשנית וכל היכא דאמרינן בו ביום ההוא יומא הוה ולא היתה הלכה שהיתה תלויה בבית המדרש שלא פירשוה ואף ר"ג לא מנע עצמו מבית המדרש אפילו שעה אחת דתנן בו ביום בא יהודה גר עמוני לפניהם בבית המדרש אמר להם מה אני לבא בקהל א"ל ר"ג אסור אתה לבא בקהל א"ל ר' יהושע מותר אתה לבא בקהל א"ל ר"ג והלא כבר נאמר (דברי הימים ב כג, יט) לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה' א"ל ר' יהושע וכי עמון ומואב במקומן הן יושבין כבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות שנאמר (ישעיהו י, יג) ואסיר גבולות עמים ועתידותיהם שוסתי ואוריד כאביר יושבים וכל דפריש מרובא פריש אמר לו ר"ג והלא כבר נאמר (ירמיהו מט, ו) ואחרי כן אשיב את שבות בני עמון נאם ה' וכבר שבו אמר לו ר' יהושע והלא כבר נאמר (עמוס ט, יד) ושבתי את שבות עמי ישראל ועדיין לא שבו מיד התירוהו לבא בקהל אר"ג הואיל והכי הוה איזיל ואפייסיה לר' יהושע כי מטא לביתיה חזינהו לאשיתא דביתיה דמשחרן א"ל מכותלי ביתך אתה ניכר שפחמי אתה א"ל אוי לו לדור שאתה פרנסו שאי אתה יודע בצערן של ת"ח במה הם מתפרנסים ובמה הם נזונים אמר לו נעניתי לך מחול לי לא אשגח ביה עשה בשביל כבוד אבא פייס אמרו מאן ניזיל ולימא להו לרבנן אמר להו ההוא כובס אנא אזילנא שלח להו ר' יהושע לבי מדרשא מאן דלביש מדא ילבש מדא ומאן דלא לביש מדא יימר ליה למאן דלביש מדא שלח מדך ואנא אלבשיה אמר להו ר"ע לרבנן טרוקו גלי דלא ליתו עבדי דר"ג ולצערו לרבנן א"ר יהושע מוטב דאיקום ואיזיל אנא לגבייהו אתא טרף אבבא א"ל מזה בן מזה יזה ושאינו לא מזה ולא בן מזה יאמר למזה בן מזה מימיך מי מערה ואפרך אפר מקלה א"ל ר"ע רבי יהושע נתפייסת כלום עשינו אלא בשביל כבודך למחר אני ואתה נשכים לפתחו אמרי היכי נעביד נעבריה גמירי מעלין בקדש ואין מורידין נדרוש מר חדא שבתא ומר חדא שבתא אתי לקנאויי אלא לדרוש ר"ג תלתא שבתי וראב"ע חדא שבתא והיינו דאמר מר שבת של מי היתה של ראב"ע היתה ואותו תלמיד ר' שמעון בן יוחאי הוה:

This seems an odd mix. See it in English, if you want. I am not sure that the switches to Aramaic are all meaningful.

Here is the Yerushalmi, Berachot 32b:

אמר רבי יעקב בר אחא תניא תמן תפילת הערב מהו ר"ג אמר חובה רבי יהושע אומר רשות אמר ר"ח אתיין אילין פלגוותא כאינון פלגוותא מ"ד חובה אין נעילה פוטרת של ערב ומ"ד רשות נעילה פוטרת של ערב ומעשה בתלמיד אחד שבא ושאל את רבי יהושע תפלת הערב מהו א"ל רשות בא ושאל את ר"ג תפלת הערב מהו א"ל חובה א"ל והא רבי יהושע אמר לי רשות א"ל למחר כשאכנס לבית הוועד עמוד ושאל את ההלכה הזאת למחר עמד אותו תלמיד ושאל את ר"ג תפלת הערב מהו א"ל חובה א"ל והא ר' יהושע אמר לי רשות אמר ר"ג לר' יהושע את הוא אומר רשות א"ל לאו א"ל עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך והיה ר"ג יושב ודורש ורבי יהושע עומד על רגליו עד שריננו כל העם ואמרו לרבי חוצפית המתורגמן הפטר את העם אמרו לרבי זינון החזן אמור התחיל ואמר התחילו כל העם ועמדו על רגליהם ואמר לו (נחום ג) כי על מי לא עברה רעתך תמיד הלכו ומינו את ראב"ע בישיבה בן שש עשרה שנה ונתמלא כל ראשו שיבות והיה ר"ע יושב ומצטער ואמר לא שהוא בן תורה יותר ממני אלא שהוא בן גדולים יותר ממני אשרי אדם שזכו לו אבותיו אשרי אדם שיש לו יתד במי להיתלות בה וכי מה היתה יתידתו של ראב"ע שהיה דור עשירי לעזרא וכמה ספסלין היו שם רבי יעקב בר סיסי אמר שמונים ספסלין היו שם של תלמידי חכמים חוץ מן העומדים לאחורי הגדר רבי יוסי ב"ר אבון אמר שלש מאות היו שם חוץ מן העומדים לאחורי הגדר כיי  דתנינן תמן ביום שהושיבו את ראב"ע בישיבה תמן תנינן זה מדרש דרש ראב"ע לפני חכמים בכרם ביבנה וכי כרם היה שם אלא אלו תלמידי חכמים שהיו עשוין שורות שורות ככרם מיד הלך לו ר"ג אצל כל אחד ואחד לפייסו בביתו אזל גבי רבי יהושע אשכחיה יתיב עביד מחטין א"ל אילין את חיי א"ל ועד כדון את בעי מודעי אוי לו לדור שאתה פרנסו א"ל נעניתי לך ושלחון גבי ראב"ע חד קצר ואית דמרין ר"ע הוה א"ל מי שהוא מזה בן מזה יזה מי שאינו לא מזה ולא בן מזה יימר למזה בן מזה מימך מי מערה ואפרך אפר מקלה א"ל נתרציתם אני ואתם נשכים לפתחו של ר"ג אעפ"כ לא הורידוהו מגדולתו אלא מינו אותו אב בית דין:

Some obvious missing and changed elements here.

In Yerushalmi, check the difference where they tell the Turgeman to stop and to let the (common) people go off. They don't recount every single prior instance where Rabban Gamliel had made Rabbi Yehoshua suffer. Though they do call to Rabbi Zinon the Chazan and use the pasuk before him, כי על מי לא עברה רעתך תמיד, which implies that Rabban Gamliel had behaved in such imperious manner in the past, and to other rabbis as well. We don't hear what these specifically are.

Meanwhile, in Bavli, אמרי עד כמה נצעריה could have meant a question how long Rabban Gamliel planned to make Rabbi Yehoshua suffer in this incident, except that then it digresses to list prior transgressions.

In Bavli, it is 400 or 700 benches added. In Yerushalmi, it is either 80 or 300, besides those who stood behind the geder. In Yerushalmi, no mention is made of the dream; or explicitly, of opening up the bet midrash.

In Bavli, it is unclear why Rabban Gamliel sought to appease Rabbi Yehoshua. All we hear is אר"ג הואיל והכי הוה איזיל ואפייסיה לר' יהושע. By juxtaposition, perhaps this is when he regretted keeping all these talmidim out. But probably because of being deposed. Perhaps, as Soncino suggests, if Rabbi Yehoshua is held in such high regard. In Yerushalmi, this is more clear. They mention opening up of the beit midrash, but no upset by Rabban Gamliel: מיד הלך לו ר"ג אצל כל אחד ואחד לפייסו בביתו אזל גבי רבי יהושע . Immediately, Rabban Gamliel went to each individual to placate him. Not just Rabbi Yehoshua.

In Yerushalmi, no mention is made of consulting his wife, which gives the reason his beard should turn white. Only  ומינו את ראב"ע בישיבה בן שש עשרה שנה ונתמלא כל ראשו שיבות. And there is no kvetch in Yerushalmi on harei ani k'ven shivim shana, which finds not precise match but similar pattern in:

א"ר כהנא כד הוינא בר תמני סרי שנין והוה גמירנא ליה לכוליה הש"ס ולא הוה ידענא דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו עד השתא מאי קמ"ל דליגמר איניש והדר ליסבר:

In Yerushalmi, they don't remove R' Elazar ben azarya from his gedula but appoint him av bet din. And no split of weeks is mentioned. And we don't discovered that the talmid who started it all was Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai.

These are just some differences I noticed. I don't have time or presence of mind, at the moment, to properly analyze it.

Thoughts on Berachot 26-27

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 25b: The Chazon Ish's Glasses

Originally posted here, and related to today's daf. But "last week in shul" refers to 2006:

Last week in shul, I was reading through Ateres Hashavua, a parsha sheet from the high school I went to (Ateres Yaakov), and right at the end, they printed the following inspirational story:

Before the Chazon Ish zt’l moved to Eretz Yisroel, he lived in Vilna, where Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzenski zt’l was the Rav and Dayan. When the Chazon Ish first moved into Vilna, Rav Chaim Ozer invited him to daven in his Shul, where the Chazon Ish received an aliyah. Rav Chaim Ozer noticed that before the Chazon Ish began to make the brachos on the Torah, he removed his glasses. Curious, Rav Chaim Ozer asked the Chazon Ish why he had removed his glasses. “Don’t you need them to see?” The Chazon Ish simply answered, “Yes, I do,” but did not explain why he had removed his glasses. It was only later that someone revealed that the Chazon Ish loved the Torah so much that he could not bear to have any physical barrier between himself and the Torah!

The next week, the Chazon Ish received an aliyah once again. Rav Chaim Ozer noticed that before the Chazon Ish began to make the brachos on the Torah, he removed all of his clothing. Curious, Rav Chaim Ozer asked the Chazon Ish why he had removed his all of his clothing. “Won’t you be cold?” The Chazon Ish simply answered, “Yes, I will,” but did not explain why he had removed his all of his clothing. It was only later that someone revealed that the Chazon Ish loved the Torah so much that he could not bear to have any physical barrier between himself and the Torah!

All right, so the second paragraph is my addition. But at least the punch line makes more sense!

Note that it is not the Chazon Ish that revealed the "reason," nor does it account why specifically glasses, more than anything else he was wearing, were a physical barrier. Nor does it strike me as a particularly plausible explanation for the Chazon Ish's actions - begause of his great love for Torah, he removed the physical barrier, even though it would prevent him from seeing what thebaal koreh was reading!

My father suggested that perhaps the Chazon Ish's nose was feeling pinched by his glasses. My father-in-law suggested that perhaps his perscription was such that he needed to remove his glasses in order to read.

My intuition is that there was an halachic, rather than emotional, cause to the Chazon Ish's actions. In Brachot 25b (page 16b-17a in the Rif, on the Rif blog) we encounter the following:

Rava said: excrement through a glass {ashashit}, it is permitted to read Shema opposite it. erva through a glass, it is forbidden to read Shema opposite it.
What is the reason? There {by excrement}, Dvarim 23:15:

טו כִּי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ, לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ, קָדוֹשׁ: וְלֹא-יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ. {ס

15 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in thee, and turn away from thee. {S}

and there is {a separation}. And here {via erva}, it is written (Dvarim 23:15)

טו כִּי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ, לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ, קָדוֹשׁ:וְלֹא-יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ. {ס

15 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in thee, and turn away from thee. {S}

and behold he {the one saying Shema} sees!

Thus, there are times that glass functions as a partition in terms of the laws of reading Shema. Perhaps the Chazon Ish felt that his glasses would be considered an halachic separation from actually seeing the Torah during his aliyah. Why not tell this to Rav Chaim Ozer? Perhaps he considered this a chumra he accepted upon himself as a middat chassidut, but did not want this to become normative law. (Or perhaps he did not want to go into extended halachic discussions bein gavra legavra, or so as not to hold up the tzibbur, etc.)

Indeed, such an explanation could perhaps be found in the words of whoever revealed the reason after the fact.

"It was only later that someone revealed that the Chazon Ish loved the Torah so much that he could not bear to have any physical barrier between himself and the Torah!"

Perhaps at the root of this is that "the Chazon Ish loved the Torah so much that he could not bear did not wish to have any physical barrier between himself and the Torah."


-----------------------------

Nowadays, of course, we have glasses that are more clearly a division. I mean, of course, the deliberately blurry glasses that some (few) are wearing, in order to block out non-tznius sights. 

Berachot 24a: The definition of shok, part ii

As a follow-up to the previous post, it might be nice to see what shok means in Akkadian. This could shed light on the Biblical usage, which in turn could shed light on the meaning of the word in the gemara.

According to An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew, by Dr. Tawil, the following is the definition of שוק. (I've approximated the symbols for some of the below.) (See on Amazon, Akkadian Lexicon Companion for Biblical Hebrew Etymological, Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalence.)

שוק = Akk. siqu s. MA on (CAD 305b; AHw 1028a), thigh

The Heb. sequential hapax שֹּׁקַיִם -a בִּרְכַּיִם "knees - thighs" (Deut 28:35) may parallel the referent in ABL 453:6 in which siqu is a variant for birku in the same blessing formula, "marmareshunu sharru ina siqushu lintuh, "may the king (live to) lift their (his sons') grandchildren onto his lap" (CAD S 305b) = marmareshu sharru beli ina birkishu lintuh, "may the king, my lord, (live to) lift his grandsons onto his knees (CAF M 259a); Heb: (for a similar blessing formula), e.g. וּרְאֵה-בָנִים לְבָנֶיךָ: שָׁלוֹם, עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל (Ps. 128:6 cf also Prov 17:6).

This might then help decide this dispute as to whether shok means thigh or calf. If it is used to mean lap, in parallel to birkayim, then it means the thigh area.

This is in accordance with the Mishnah Berurah, as well as, more recently, Rabbi Yehuda Henkin. In discussion shok be'isha erva, he analyzes the prooftext in sefer Yeshaya,

ב  קְחִי רֵחַיִם, וְטַחֲנִי קָמַח; גַּלִּי צַמָּתֵךְ חֶשְׂפִּי-שֹׁבֶל גַּלִּי-שׁוֹק, עִבְרִי נְהָרוֹת.	2 Take the millstones, and grind meal; remove thy veil, strip off the train, uncover the leg, pass through the rivers.
ג  תִּגָּל, עֶרְוָתֵךְ--גַּם תֵּרָאֶה, חֶרְפָּתֵךְ; נָקָם אֶקָּח, וְלֹא אֶפְגַּע אָדָם.  {פ}	3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen; I will take vengeance, and will let no man intercede. {P}

and writes:

Berachot 24a: The definition of shok, part i

This first part of the series is based on a parshablog post. It is relevant to our gemara here which states:

אמר רב חסדא שוק באשה ערוה שנאמר (ישעיהו מז, ב) גלי שוק עברי נהרות וכתיב (ישעיהו מז, ג) תגל ערותך וגם תראה חרפתך

 R. Hisda said: A woman's leg is a sexual incitement, as it says. Uncover the leg, pass through the rivers,²³  and it says afterwards, Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.²⁴ 

Here is what I wrote about the definition of shok:

Note: Reading or writing a blogpost is no substitute for reading through all the relevant halachic literature on the subject or consulting your local Orthodox rabbi. This is most certainly notintended as halacha lemaaseh. And there are other sources I am not mentioning. And I have not given this enough thought, and these are off the cuff reactions.

In parshas Tzav, upon {Vayikra 7:32}

לב וְאֵת שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין, תִּתְּנוּ תְרוּמָה לַכֹּהֵן, מִזִּבְחֵי, שַׁלְמֵיכֶם.

32 And the right thigh shall ye give unto the priest for a heave-offering out of your sacrifices of peace-offerings.

Rashi writes:

the right thigh refers to [the part of the animal’s hind leg extending] from the אַרְכּוּבָה [knee-joint, the bone and the flesh of which are usually] sold together with the head, up till the middle joint [of the upper leg] which is called "sovech shel regel." [The animal’s leg has three sections to it; thus, the שׁוֹק is the middle of those three sections.] [Chul. 134b]

His basis, as noted, is Chullin 134b. For what follows, we will need to refer to a cow skeleton. I got the following image from another website. It is of a cow skeleton, mounted on a wooden platform. For a limited time,you can purchase it from them for only $2100. The bones are marked for identification, so I guess it is good for people studying bovine anatomy. I am not sure how many parshablog readers will take them up on the offer, though. You can also click on the picture they feature on their website, to get to this full screen image of the same.

Note how both the front and the hind legs have three separate sections.

Rashi refers to one opinion in a dispute in a Mishna in Chullin.

איזהו הזרוע מן הפרק של ארכובה עד כף של יד והוא של נזיר וכנגדו ברגל שוק
ר' יהודה אומר שוק מן הפרק של ארכובה עד סובך של רגל
אי זהו לחי מן הפרק של לחי עד פיקה של גרגרת

Based on the definitions provided by Rashi on the daf, the Chachamim hold that the zeroa is the uppermost of the three bones -- from the kaf shel yad -- which is the shoulder -- until the first joint. And they hold that this definition of zeroa is specifically on the front legs. Meanwhile, the same, uppermost section on the hind legs is called the shok. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yehuda argues, and maintains that the shok is really from that top joint (knee) until the lower joint. Thus, Rabbi Yehuda holds the shok is the middle of the three bones.

How is it possible to have such a dispute about the definition of a well-known part of a creature's anatomy (and at least a person's anatomy)? Chazal were familiar with the term shok. Rav Chisda was able to say elsewhere that shok beIsha erva, and his assumption was that any listener would be able to comprehend what it means. It was a Hebrew word that was used. Similarly, in modern Hebrew, it has a standard definition, as calf, though meanings of words change over time.

So what gives? Was there a dispute among the Tannaim of the definition of this basic term by humans, such that they had difficulty defining it in terms of cows? And would Rav Chisda's statement, with a Scriptural source defining shok as erva, would take different meanings depending on whether you held like the Tanna Kamma or Rabbi Yehuda?

I don't think this is the case.

Rather, I am of the opinion that there was a known definition to shok, such that they thought it really should mean thigh (just like yarech, and this is the standard Biblical usage). But now there was a problem. In terms of cows, the Torah and halacha refer to two separate items. There is the zeroa and there is the shok. And obviously the two terms cannot refer to the same thing. And yet, there would appear to be only one thigh! This is the problem which faced both the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Yehuda.

The two Tannaitic opinions took two separate approaches to resolve this issue. The Tanna Kamma's approach is as follows:

A person has two legs and two arms. The zeroa refers to the arm (perhaps upper arm) of a person, while the shok refers to a thigh. Therefore, image the cow standing upright on its hind legs. Thus, the zeroa is on the front legs, which we would think of as a thigh only because the cow stands on all fours.

Rabbi Yehuda's approach is that it is speaking of two parts of the same limb. Still, it presumably refers to a thigh. And so it is not the lowest of the three sections, but rather the portion above a joint. Since the top portion was already grabbed, in context it must refer to a lower part, which has a type of joint under it.

Similarly, in Avodah Zara 25a, reference is made to I Shmuel 9:24:

כד וַיָּרֶם הַטַּבָּח אֶת-הַשּׁוֹק וְהֶעָלֶיהָ וַיָּשֶׂם לִפְנֵי שָׁאוּל, וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה הַנִּשְׁאָר שִׂים-לְפָנֶיךָ אֱכֹל--כִּי לַמּוֹעֵד שָׁמוּר-לְךָ לֵאמֹר, הָעָם קָרָאתִי; וַיֹּאכַל שָׁאוּל עִם-שְׁמוּאֵל, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא.

24 And the cook took up the thigh, and that which was upon it, and set it before Saul. And [Samuel] said: 'Behold that which hath been reserved! set it before thee and eat; because unto the appointed time hath it been kept for thee, for I said: I have invited the people.' So Saul did eat with Samuel that day.

The gemara:

וישם לפני שאול מאי והעליה ר' יוחנן אומר שוק ואליה מאי והעליה דמסמכא שוק לאליה ורבי אלעזר אומר שוק וחזה מאי והעליה דמחית לה לחזה עילויה דשוק כי בעי אנופי ומנפי ליה ורבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר שוק ושופי מאי והעליה שופי עילויה דשוק קאי

Thus shok is assumed to be the thigh, and that which is upon it is either the tail which is upon it, the breast which was placed upon it, or according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni, the cap of the hip-bone.

It certainly seems that they understood Biblical usage, at least by cows, to mean thigh.

In terms of humans, there seems an explicit Mishna in Ohalot 1:8 that the shok is the calf,rather than the thigh.

מאתיים ושמונה וארבעים אברים באדם, שלושים בפיסת הרגל, שישה בכל אצבע, עשרה בקורסל, שניים בשוק, חמישה בארכובה, אחד בירך, ושלושה בקטלית, ואחת עשרה צלעות, שלושים בפיסת היד, שישה בכל אצבע, שניים בקנה, שניים במרפק, אחד בזרוע, וארבעה בכתף. מאה ואחד מזה, ומאה ואחד מזה. ושמונה עשר חוליות בשזרה, תשעה בראש, שמונה בצוואר, שישה במפתח של לב, וחמישה בנקביו. וכל אחד ואחד, מטמא במגע ובמשא ובאוהל. אימתיי, בזמן שיש עליהן בשר כראוי; אבל אם אין עליהן בשר כראוי--מטמאין במגע ובמשא, ואין מטמאין באוהל

The phrase שניים בשוק presumably refer to the tibia and fibula below the knee. And אחד בירך presumably refers to the femur. And the Mishna works up the body, from the shok to the knee to the yarech.

Of course, this could perhaps only mean this in context. Think of the word regel. Regel can mean leg or foot. In general, when we have a general word, it could mean the whole, or a part, or specific parts at different times. Perhaps once yarech was going to be used, and that is used specifically, it was clear what shok was to mean. But in other uses it might mean thigh. But we would have to inspect these cases one by one.

In Yeshaya 47:2, which is Rav Chisda's prooftext in Berachot daf 24 that shok beIsha erva:

א רְדִי וּשְׁבִי עַל-עָפָר, בְּתוּלַת בַּת-בָּבֶל--שְׁבִי-לָאָרֶץ אֵין-כִּסֵּא, בַּת-כַּשְׂדִּים: כִּי לֹא תוֹסִיפִי יִקְרְאוּ-לָךְ, רַכָּה וַעֲנֻגָּה.	1 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.
ב קְחִי רֵחַיִם, וְטַחֲנִי קָמַח; גַּלִּי צַמָּתֵךְ חֶשְׂפִּי-שֹׁבֶל גַּלִּי-שׁוֹק, עִבְרִי נְהָרוֹת.	2 Take the millstones, and grind meal; remove thy veil, strip off the train, uncover the leg, pass through the rivers.
ג תִּגָּל, עֶרְוָתֵךְ--גַּם תֵּרָאֶה, חֶרְפָּתֵךְ; נָקָם אֶקָּח, וְלֹא אֶפְגַּע אָדָם. {פ}	3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen; I will take vengeance, and will let no man intercede. {P}

In this translation, at least (and in the translation given by Soncino), it refers to the whole leg, not just the shin. Rabbi Yehuda Henkin writes:

Note that in verse 2 all the verbs are in the imperative: “kehi” (take), “hespi” (expose), and “gali” (reveal); while verse 3 is in the passive future tense: “tigal” (will be revealed) and “tiraeh” (will be visible). I think the inference is clear: if she uncovers her shok her erva will then be revealed, even unintentionally. Shok and actual erva are adjacent to each other, and uncovering one will result in uncovering the other. This may be the meaning of R. Avraham Alshvili and Shita Mekubbetset in Berakhot 24a who wrote, “although occasionally [shok] is revealed, it has the status of a covered area of the body because it leads to [uncovering the actual] erva.”

It also supports the ruling that shok with regard to erva refers to a woman’s upper leg, above 32a and not below the knee, 33 for the lower leg is not adjacent to erva and uncovering it will not result in uncovering oto makom. Isaiah’s depiction of a woman exposing her shok in order to cross rivers (neharot) 34 is further indication that shok is above the knee; were it below the knee and she were clothed down to her ankles to cover it, she would have to raise her skirts to cross even a puddle. The only reference in Scripture to a woman’s shok, then, appears to refer to her upper leg, as opposed to talmudic usage where it invariably connotes an area below the knee.

I am not sure that I am persuaded by the shift from imperative to passive. The argument from the river imagery is more convincing to me.

I agree that there is a likely shift between Biblical and Talmudic usage of the term. But did Rav Chisda intend Biblical or Talmudic usage of the term? Is he making a derasha based on proximity, or is he making a careful reading of the verse in Yeshaya in context?

(In terms of regel, it is interesting how in Yevamot 103 Chazal restrict and redefine Biblical usage of regel so that it cannot mean thigh, because the verse in Devarim 35 uses the termregel.)

Even if it does mean calf here, that does not mean that Rav Chisda's statement is lehalacha, or might be limited in its definition for other reasons, as Rav Henkin discusses in his article. And here is not the place to elaborate.