Daf 4b-5a - A Prayer against the Darkness
Ein Yaakov
- The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr.
Moshe Simon-Shoshan
Lecture
14: Daf 4b-5a
A Prayer
against the Darkness
The Gemara
now returns to its discussion of the halakhot (laws) of saying keriat
shema at night:
R. Yehoshua
b. Levi says:
Though a man
has recited the Shema in the synagogue,
it is a
religious act to recite it again upon his bed.
R. Yehoshua
ben Levi seems to be introducing the concept known to us as keriat shema al
ha-mita. In addition to reciting
keriat shema during the evening service, which is preferably recited in the
synagogue with a minyan, one should also say the Shema in the
privacy of ones bedroom before going to sleep at night. R. Yehoshua b. Levis
language of a religious act, mitzva, suggests that the basis for this
recitation is essentially halakhic. The Rabbis presumably instituted the
requirement to say this final keriat shema.
But what is
the source of this requirement? The verse seems to state quite clearly that we
only say Shema twice a day. Why would the Rabbis institute a third time? A careful study of R. Yehoshua ben
Levis position will show that things are not quite as they seem.
The reader
may recall that a few classes ago we saw a dispute in the Gemara between R.
Yochanan and R. Yehoshua b. Levi regarding reciting the evening Shema. R.
Yochanan said that one should say the evening Shema prior to saying the
Shemoneh Esrei of Maariv. R. Yehoshua ben Levi, on the other hand,
says that the prayers of Shemoneh Esrei were ordained in the middle,
meaning that the morning Shema should be said first and the evening
Shema last, with the daily three prayers of Shemoneh Esrei in the
middle. The Gemara goes on to suggest that this dispute is rooted in a
disagreement about the proper way to read the biblical phrase when you lay down
and when you get up. R. Yehoshua ben Levi interprets this phrase as meaning
that the Shema should be said immediately upon waking up and upon going
to sleep. If this is the case, the reason that R. Yehoshua b. Levi requires one
to repeat the Shema at bedtime is that he does not think one can fulfill
this requirement by saying it in the synagogue earlier in the evening.
Indeed Moshe
Benovitz, in his commentary on this passage, argues that R. Yehoshuas position
was actually the mainstream position in the Land of Israel. Only in Babylonia was it normative to
say the Shema at night in the synagogue as part of the Maariv
service. Benovitz cites the following passage from the Jerusalem Talmud to
support his case:
It was taught
[in a baraita]
He who reads
the Shema in the synagogue
In the
morning- he fulfills his obligation.
In the
evening-he does not fulfill his obligation.
Thus R.
Yehoshua ben Levi seems to hold that one can only fulfill ones obligation to
say the evening Shema right before bed and not in the synagogue. Only
when R. Yehoshua is quoted in the context of the Babylonian Talmud, which
assumes that one should say the Shema earlier in the synagogue, does he
appear to advocate saying Shema a third time in the day. His statement is
used by the Babylonian Talmud to support the practice of keriat shema al
ha-mita.
What then is
the reason for this extra Shema as advocated by the Babylonian Talmud?
The first explanation for this practice is found in the statement of R. Yosi,
which the Gemara cites in response to R. Yehoshua b. Levi:
R. Yosi says:
Which verse [may be cited in support]?
Tremble and
sin not;
Say in your
heart upon your bed, and be still, Selah. (Tehillim 4:5)
For R. Yosi,
the key part of the verse is the second half. More specifically, he is
interested in the phrase upon your bed (mishkavkhem) which recalls the
phrase from the Shema when you lay down (bi-shakhbikha). And
indeed this phrase ordains that one should say something on ones bed. The
verse, however, does not specify what to say. How does R. Yosi know that this
verse is talking about the Shema? Benovitz suggests that the phrase say
in your heart recalls the Shemas own call to place these words on your
heart, and based on this linkage R. Yosi sees this verse as mandating the
recitation of the Shema at bedtime.
Thus far we
have seen only a technical basis for the bedtime Shema, derived from a
careful midrashic explication of a biblical verse. However, this explanation
does not tell us anything about the nature and purpose of this practice, which
only begin to be revealed to us in the following lines. These lines contain a brief
discussion of who is bound by this requirement and to what degree:
R. Nachman,
however, says:
If he is a
scholar, then it is not necessary.
Why would a
Torah scholar be exempt from saying the bedtime Shema? Torah scholars are
not generally exempt from ritual requirements, so why should they be in this
case? The supposition that a Torah scholar may be exempt from this practice
implies that there is an underlying reason for the bedtime Shema, and if
that reason is not operative, the requirement ceases to hold.
What could
this underlying reason be? This reason may be rooted in the dual nature of the
Shema. On the one hand, the Shema is a mandatory prayer, a type of
ritual. As we have seen, it is
surrounded by blessings and is closely linked by the Rabbis to the Shemoneh
Esrei, the prayer par excellence. Yet, the Shema is also a form of
Torah study. Indeed, the text of the first paragraph of the Shema appears
to be the true source in the Torah for constant and all-consuming commitment to
the words of Torah. The verse, Let not this Book of the Torah cease from your
lips, but recite it day and night, which is usually associated with this
commandment, is from the book of Yehoshua (1:8) and thus cannot be the
true source of a Torah requirement.
R. Yochanans statement suggests that reciting the Shema is the essential
fulfillment of the requirement of regular Torah study:
Rabbi
Yochanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai,
Even if a
person merely reads the Shema morning and evening,
He has
fulfilled [the commandment of the verse],
Let not
[this Book of the Torah] cease [from your lips].
(Talmud
Bavli Menachot 99b)
Here the
Rabbis clearly link the recitation of the Shema with the requirement to
study Torah day and night, interpreting this phrase minimally as meaning not
constantly but twice a day, in the morning and at bedtime, like medication.
If the Shema is essentially a way of ensuring that individuals get their
minimal daily intake of Torah, it makes sense that Torah scholars would be
exempt from at least part of this mitzva. Since they are engaged in so
much Torah scholarship all day as part of their regular diet, they have no need
to take an extra supplement of Torah before they go to sleep.
Abaye,
however, limits this exemption and suggests another reason for it:
Abaye says:
Even a
scholar should recite one verse of supplication, as for instance:
Into Thy hand
I commit my spirit.
Thou hast
redeemed me,
O Lord, Thou
God of truth (Tehillim 21:6).
Abaye
requires that the Torah scholar still recite one verse on his bed that literally
takes the form of a prayer for mercy. Abaye clearly identifies the bedtime
Shema as a form of prayer or begging for mercy and not as a form of Torah
study. Why is it so important to pray for mercy exactly at this time, and why
should a Torah scholar be even partially exempt from this requirement?
As we have
already seen, the nighttime for the Rabbis is a time of danger, both natural and
supernatural. Not only does the darkness place us at the mercy of our
environment, but when we go to sleep, we give up control of our body and our
very consciousness. We are as helpless as babies. The Shema, it seems,
functions as a sort of protective prayer meant to defend us against the threats
that lie in the darkness. Nighttime Shema is thus not an anomalous prayer
for its positioning after sunset, when the Temples operations cease, but a
quintessential prayer, positioned at a time of maximal need for Divine
protection. This protective aspect of the Shema is probably linked to the
prophylactic nature of tefilin (in English, phylacteries, from the Greek
word phlakter, also found in prophylactic, meaning to watch or guard)
and mezuzot found in the Jewish tradition.
If this is
the case, a Torah scholar may be exempt from the bedtime Shema because he
is thought to be protected, instead, by the merit of his Torah study. Abaye,
however, notes that even a scholar must ask for some extra protection at night,
and therefore should recite, minimally, a single appropriate verse at bedtime.
The Gemara
goes on to further explicate the verse on which the requirement of the evening
Shema was previously based:
R. Levi b.
Chama says in the name of R. Shimon b. Lakish:
A man should
always incite the good impulse [in his soul]
to fight
against the evil impulse.
For it is
written:
Tremble and
sin not.
If he subdues
it, well and good.
If not, let
him study the Torah.
For it is
written:
'Commune with
your own heart.
If he subdues
it, well and good.
If not, let
him recite the Shema.
For it is
written: 'Upon your bed.
If he subdues
it, well and good.
If not, let
him remind himself of the day of death.
For it is
written:
'And be
still, Selah.
The Gemara
interprets this verse in what has been called an atomized style. The verse is
broken down into words or phrases, each one of which is understood as a separate
element of a list or continuum. In this case, the Gemara sees this verse as
narrating a series of weapons to be used in the struggle against the evil urge.
First, one should engage his good urge against the evil urge. If that fails, one
should, successively, study Torah, recite the bedtime Shema, and, finally,
contemplate ones own mortality. Once again, we find the juxtaposition of
reciting the Shema and studying Torah as protective devices. This time,
however, the text is clear that they protect against spiritual danger, rather
than physical danger as we suggested previously. As we noted before, the night
is also a time for all sorts of sins that one could not get away with in the
light of day.
The final
section of this passage further explicates the notion that the bedtime Shema has
a protective effect on those who recite it. (The Ein Yaakov reverses the
order of the next two passages, perhaps so as not to break up the thematic
discussion regarding the Shema. I am following his order rather than the
Gemaras original order.)
R. Yitzchak
says:
If one
recites the Shema upon his bed,
it is as
though he held a two-edged sword in his hand.
For it is
said:
Let the high
praises of God be in their mouth,
and a
two-edged sword in their hand. (Tehillim 149:6)
How does it
indicate this?
Mar Zutra,
(some say, R. Ashi) says:
[The lesson
is] from the preceding verse.
For it is
written:
Let the
pious exult in glory,
let them sing
for joy upon their beds, (ibid. v. 5)
and then it
is written:
Let the high
praises of God be in their mouth,
and a
two-edged sword in their hand.
R. Yitzchaks
statement here is somewhat cryptic. He cites a verse from the penultimate psalm
which portrays those who sing Gods praise as wielding a double-edged sword.
However, R. Yitzchak does not explain why this verse should be applied
particularly to those who recite the bedtime Shema. A later Bablyonian Amora, either Mar
Zutra or R. Ashi, then comes to explicate this Tanaitic statement. As is often
the case, the Midrash here fails to cite a second verse, which provides the
underlying logic of the interpretation. The reader or listener is expected to
figure out this verse on his own. In this case, we are expected to know the
context of the verse which is cited. Immediately preceding the verse quoted by
R. Yitzchak, the psalm refers to those who sing for joy upon their beds. As in the Gemaras previous
explication of Tehillim 4:5, the Rabbis understand this description of
verbal activity on ones bed as referring to the recitation of the bedtime
Shema. It is now a small jump to interpret the next verse, which portrays
the pious with a prayer in their mouths and a sword in their hands, as referring
to those who recite the bedtime Shema as well.
By citing
this verse, the Gemara significantly changes the tone of the conversation.
Previously, the bedtime Shema was recited in an atmosphere of fear and
trembling. It was only a part of what may be a losing struggle against the evil
urge. Even the scholar could not be confident of his safety against the perils
of the night. The Shema appeared as a desperate prayer for mercy. Now the
Shema is identified with the joyous and triumphant song of the pious who
confidently vanquish their enemies. One who says the bedtime Shema no
longer has reason to tremble, because he is now counted among these righteous.
The Gemara
concludes:
R. Yitzchak
says further:
If one
recites the Shema upon his bed,
the demons
keep away from him.
For it is
said:
And the sons
of reshef fly [uf] upward. (Iyov 5:7)
The word uf
refers only to the Torah,
as it is
written:
Wilt thou
cause thine eyes to close [ha-taif] upon it?
It is gone.
(Mishlei 23:5)
And 'reshef'
refers only to the demons,
as it is
said:
The wasting
of hunger,
and the
devouring of the reshef [fiery bolt]
and bitter
destruction. (Devarim 32: 24).
R. Yitzchak
now explicitly states that the Shema protects one from physical as well
as spiritual danger. He says that the Shema protects from demons, mazikin,
literally -- damagers. These mysterious beings, who are dominant at night,
are responsible for destruction and suffering in this world. These mazikin
are referred to earlier in this chapter as one of the dangers of entering a
ruined house. We also suggested that they may underlie the nocturnal braying of
the donkey and barking of dogs, which mark the progression of the night. Now
they are directly linked to the saying of the nighttime Shema, and
that Shemas role as a protector against demonic forces is stated
explicitly.
R. Yitzchaks
actual derivation of this idea from the biblical verses is not straightforward.
The initial verse from Iyov that he cites is quite difficult. It is not clear what the words mean,
how they fit together, or their place in the context of the biblical passage.
The JPS translation renders the entire verse as follows:
For man was
born to do mischief,
Just as
sparks fly upward.
Amos Chakham,
however, in his Daat Mikra commentary on this verse gives an
interpretation that would result in a translation as follows:
For man is
born to suffering,
Causing
arrows to strike from great heights.
The Rabbis
were often drawn to ambiguous or difficult verses, because these verses have
more potential for generating midrashic meanings which grow organically from the
words of Scripture. A verse whose meaning is clear-cut is much more difficult to
manipulate in order to produce new and interesting meanings.
The next
verse cited, Mishlei 23:5, is meant to prove that the verbal root uf
can be understood as a reference to the noun Torah.
The simple meaning of this verse.
however, refers to the futility of pursuing riches. It is not clear what signals
the Rabbis to understand this verse in terms of Torah. Even if we do understand
this verse as referring to the elusiveness of Torah and the difficulty in
acquiring it, it is still not clear why this would mean that the root uf
necessarily refers to Torah.
R. Yitzchak
then goes on to demonstrate the meaning of the word reshef.
As reflected in the JPS translation, the
word generally means flame in the Bible. Hence JPS renders sons of reshef
as sparks. In some cases the word can be a metaphor for arrows. As reflected in
Amos Chakhams commentary, R. Yitzchak insists that this refers to a demon.
However, in the verse that he cites, reshef may easily be translated
using one of the common meanings cited above. The translation above renders the
word as fiery bolt, whereas JPS translates the entire verse as:
Wasting
famine, ravaging plague,
Deadly
pestilence, and fanged beasts
Will I let
loose against them
With venomous
creepers in the dust.
Whether one
translates reshef here as a fiery bolt or a ravaging plague, there does
not seem to be any reason why the translator should need to take recourse to
supernatural phenomena in translating the term. However, this verse does
catalogue the litany of disasters that will befall Israel should they stray from
God. It is precisely these sorts of calamities that the Rabbis associated with
mazikin, demons. It is, therefore, not unreasonable for the Rabbis to
associate the terms for the plagues mentioned in this verse with the various
mazikin that cause them, rather than with the plagues themselves. Evidence
for such a tradition of interpretation is to be found in the Gemara, in
Pesachim 111b, which is part of perhaps the most extensive discussion of
demonology in the Talmud. Here we read that:
[Demons] who
live on roofs are called rishfei.
A little
later, the Gemara discusses the term qetev meriri, the phrase which
follows reshef in our verse and is rendered by JPS as deadly pestilence.
The Talmud states:
There are two
types of qetev,
one that
comes before noon
and one that
comes after noon.
The one that
comes before noon is called
qetev
meriri.
It can be
seen in a jug of sour milk porridge,
moving about.
The Rabbis
clearly identify both the terms reshef and qetev in this verse as
specific mazikin, each with its own habitat, showing that the Rabbis had
a tradition of interpreting this verse as referring to mazikin.
This
interpretation is supported by modern scholars of Semitic languages who cite
arguments that the word reshef can refer to an evil god or demon
in biblical Hebrew.
Finally, if
one reads this last passage in the Gemara carefully, one will notice that
whereas R. Yitzchak at first states that the recitation of the Shema
keeps the mazikin at bay, his proof from the verses talks more generally
about how Torah conquers mazikin. This further supports my argument about
the close interrelationship between saying Shema and studying Torah.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!