Daf 7b-8a - Better than Prayin' Alone
Ein Yaakov - The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan
Lecture 30: Daf 7b-8a
Better than Prayin Alone
Welcome to the summer semester of the Virtual Beit Midrash shiur
Ein Yaakov - The World of Talmudic Aggada.
Though we will continue with our study of
the first chapter of Masekhet Berakhot, we will begin a new section
starting at the bottom of daf 7b.
This section deals with one of the central concerns of our chapter, the
importance of communal prayer, especially in the synagogue. Our section begins with an
interesting exchange between two amoraim (Talmudic scholars):
R. Yitzchak said to
R. Nachman:
Why does the Master
(R. Nachman)
not come to the
synagogue to pray?
He said to him:
I am not able.
He asked him:
Let the Master
gather ten people
and pray with them
[in his house]?
He answered:
It is too much of a
trouble for me.
[He then said]:
Let the Master ask
the messenger of the congregation
to inform him of the
time when the congregation prays?
He answered:
Why all this
[trouble]?
He said to him:
For R. Yochanan said
in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai:
What is the meaning
of the verse:
But as for me, let
my prayer be made unto Thee,
O Lord, in an
acceptable time? (Tehillim 64:14).
When is the time
acceptable?
When the
congregation prays.
The simplest reading of this
story is to see R. Yitzchak as the teacher and R.
Nachman as the disciple. R. Yitzchak
teaches R. Nachman and us, the readers, the importance of praying with a
minyan (10 man quorum necessary for communal prayer) in the synagogue. If it is not possible to pray with a
minyan in the synagogue, one should pray with a minyan at home. Failing that, one should at least
pray at the exact time that the community is praying in the synagogue. In this reading, R. Nachman
understands the importance of praying in the synagogue. However, given his various
difficulties, he does not understand why R. Yitzchak makes such a big deal about
it. R. Yitzchak responds to this
query by citing the teaching of R. Yochanan in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai
on the importance of praying with or at least at the same time as the community. R. Nachman and we, the readers, are
meant to accept the authoritative nature of this teaching.
This approach would
seem to underlie some of the traditional commentaries on this passage. Rashi explains that R. Nachman says
that he is not able to go to the synagogue because he is too weak to go. Similarly, R. Moshe of Coucy (13th
century, France ) in his Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot, understands R. Nachmans
statement that it is too much trouble to gather a minyan in his home as
meaning that he does not want to trouble other people in the neighborhood for
his own sake. In each case, the
commentators assume that R. Nachman accepted R. Yitzchaks premise of the
importance of praying with a minyan.
R. Nachman, therefore, must have had a good reason for not doing so, even
if that reason is not mentioned explicitly in the text.
An alternative
reading is hinted at in the commentary of the Maharsha. He cites the Tur (Orach Chayim
90), who states that if a person has a regular study session at home, he should
pray there, even if it means forgoing praying with a minyan. The Tur, in turn, cites a passage
later on in our gemara which notes how R. Ami and R. Asi preferred to
pray where they studied rather than at the synagogue. The Maharsha assumes that R. Nachman had no such regular study
session in his home.
This commentary
hints to an alternative reading of our passage. Perhaps R. Nachman did not
accept R. Yitzchaks insistence on the importance of prayer with a minyan. Rather, he felt, like R. Ami and R.
Asi, that a scholar should pray where he studies.
Benovitz notes a consistent geographic pattern with regard to different
rabbis opinions about the importance of prayer in the synagogue. Rabbis from the land of Israel, like
R. Yitzchak, stress the importance of communal prayer, whereas R. Nachmans
colleagues in Babylonia see it as less important.
In light of this, we
might read R. Yitzchaks conversation with R. Nachman as a debate about the
importance of communal prayer, rather than as a univocal lesson on this topic. R. Nachmans responses of I am not
able and It is too much of a trouble for me
are not claims of extenuating circumstances to excuse himself from communal
prayer. Rather, they are polite ways
for R. Nachman to signal his rejection of R. Yitzchaks premise. R. Yitzchak may get the last word in
this story, but that does not mean that R. Nachman accepted R. Yitzchaks
conclusions. This remains an
open dialogue in which two great rabbis present opposing opinions.
Before proceeding to
the continuation of the gemara, I would like to make two notes on the
teaching of R. Yochanan in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai. First, the teaching links this new
section on communal prayer to the previous section, which consisted of a series
of statements of R. Yochanan in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai followed by some
discussion. Second, this passage is
not the first time we have seen the idea that certain times are better for
praying than others. Previously, we
saw that there is a moment each day in which God is angry and will answer all
prayers for the destruction of ones enemies.
Similarly, we learned that the time of the mincha prayer is a
particularly auspicious time to pray.
We noted that these statements seem to reflect a somewhat mythological
view of God, in which He is in some way bound by the time of day. This is quite distant from a rational
notion of God as beyond temporal constraints.
This teaching of R. Yochanan in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai has a
different take on eit ratzon, the concept that there are particularly
good times to pray. Eit ratzon
refers not to times of day, but rather to circumstances. God prefers to hear the prayers of
the community over those of the individual.
The Gemara now
presents several other possible biblical sources for communal prayer:
R. Yosi b. R.
Chanina says:
[You learn it] from
here:
Thus saith the
Lord,
In an acceptable
time have I answered thee (Yishayahu 49:8).
R. Acha son of R.
Chanina says:
[You learn it] from
here:
Behold, God
despiseth not the mighty (Iyov 36:5)
And it is further
written:
He hath redeemed my
soul in peace
so that none came
nigh me;
for they were many
with me (Tehillim 55:19)
It has been taught
also to the same effect;
R. Natan says:
How do we know that
the Holy One, blessed be He,
does not despise the
prayer of the congregation?
For it is said:
'Behold, God
despiseth not the mighty'.
And it is further
written:
'He hath redeemed my
soul in peace so that none came nigh me, etc.'
from among the
nations of the world.
This passage brings
three verses as possible sources for the notion that God prefers communal
prayer. The first verse, from
Yishayahu, is very similar to the verse quoted by R. Shimon b. Yochai above. Both verses refer to an acceptable
time for prayer and both understand this as referring to the time when the
community gathers to pray. The final verse, from Tehillim, is also fairly
straightforward. As the rabbis read
it, this verse tells how the psalmist was saved from attack because he prayed
with many others.
The verse from
Iyov, however, is problematic.
The entire verse reads in Hebrew: hen el kabir vlo yimas kabir koach lev. This is a difficult verse. A
literal translation would be, Behold, God is mighty, and He does not despise,
mighty strong of heart. We
can understand how the rabbis understood this verse as referring to God
answering prayers. The phrase lo
yimas, he does not despise, might be understood to mean that God does not
reject prayers, though no explicit reference to prayer is made here. But how do we know that this verse
refers specifically to communal prayer? The central element of this
interpretation remains a mystery.
The first step towards solving this conundrum is to look at a different
and presumably more original version of R. Natans interpretation of this verse. This interpretation is preserved in
the Sifrei, the early midrash on the last two books of the Torah. Though this passage appears in the
Sifreis discussion of parashat Pinchas (paragraph #135), it actually
comments on Gods rejection of Moshes prayers to enter the land at the
beginning of
parashat Va-etchanan (Devarim 3:26). R.
Natan cites our verse from Iyov, and then gives the following
interpretation,
The Holy One Blessed be He
does not despise the prayers of the many (rabim)
But here, He did not listen to me
And did not accept my (i.e. Moshes) prayers.
This passage is
curiouser and cursiouser. What
does Gods acceptance of communal prayers have to do with His rejection of
Moshes prayers? In a discussion of this Sifrei passage, Professor
Menachem Kahana suggests that the term rabim should be translated here
not as the many but as the great ones i.e.
the tzadikim (righteous ones) (Mechkerei Talmud I,
Jerusalem, 1990, 5-7.) The midrash would then make sense in its
context in Sifrei, which deals with Gods failure to answer Moshes
prayers. God rejected Moshes pleas
despite his general policy of answering the prayers of the righteous.
This suggestion
might also explain R. Natans reading of the verse in Iyov. Elsewhere in Iyov, we find a
verse that is nearly identical to the one cited by R. Natan, hen el lo yimas
tam- God does not despise the blameless (Iyov 8:20).
This verse differs from ours primarily
because it clearly identifies whom God does not despise the blameless or the
righteous. R. Natan interpreted our
ambiguous verse in Iyov as referring to the righteous in light of this
more explicit verse.
How does this help
us understand our gemara, which clearly interprets the verse as referring
to God heeding the prayer of the community, not of the righteous? Once R.
Natans midrash was separated from its context regarding Moshe Rabbeinu,
there was no way of knowing that its use of the term rabim was meant to
refer to the righteous and not the many.
As a result, this tradition was understood by the Babylonian rabbis as
referring to communal prayer, even though this understanding did not fit with
the verse. The Gemara cited the
inherited tradition as it understood it.
This explanation of the gemara is both complex and speculative,
and it posits that there are misunderstandings and even mistakes in the
transmission of Torah she-be-al peh.
I suggest this explanation with some hesitation, but it seems to be
the best explanation of this difficult line in the gemara.
This section
concludes with an anonymous paean to the value of praying with the community:
The Holy One,
blessed be He, says:
If a man occupies
himself
with the study of
the Torah
and with works of
charity
and prays with the
congregation,
I account it to him
as if he had redeemed
Me and My children
from among the nations of the world.
This passage recalls
the famous statement of R. Shimon at the beginning of Pirkei Avot that
the world stands on three things: Torah, avoda (service), and
gemilut chasadim (good deeds).
In its original context, the term avoda referred to the Temple
service. What keeps the world going
in the absence of the Temple? Some sources suggest that the world continues on
the force of Torah study and good deeds alone.
Other sources suggest that prayer takes the place of sacrifices. This passage implies that communal
prayer, in particular, takes the place of sacrifices. This notion is in line with the idea
that a synagogue is a mikdash meat, a lesser version of the Temple in
Jerusalem (Megilla 29a). Only
communal prayer takes the place of the communal sacrifices that were at the
heart of the Temple service. We
might thus understand Gods statement that praying in a minyan is
equivalent to redeeming Israel from exile.
Such a prayer almost makes up for the lack of the Temple and thus returns
Israel to its redeemed state.
But God goes
further. He says that communal
prayer has the equivalent effect of redeeming God Himself, as well as
Israel, from exile among the nations.
The Gemara states in a well-known passage that when Israel went into
exile the Shekhina went with them (Megilla 29a). I do not claim to know the exact
meaning of the term Shekhina.
However, the word appears to refer to some sort of manifestation of God that is
in some way distinct from God. Our
gemara would seem to go even further; it suggests that God Himself
followed Israel into exile. While I
know of no parallel to this concept, it does recall the gemara that we
saw at the beginning of the chapter on daf 3a, in which God is described
as suffering with His people in exile.
The idea that God suffers with us adds a new dimension to our prayers.
God does not simply hear our pleas or even sympathize with our problems. He quite literally feels our pain. He understands our circumstances
because in some way, He too experiences them.
Prayers in the Hood
The Gemara now
presents statements from the two great amoraim of the land of Israel,
Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan. Each
one emphasizes the importance of regular prayer in the synagogue. First Reish Lakishs statement:
Resh Lakish said:
Whosoever has a
synagogue in his town
and does not go
there in order to pray,
is called an evil
neighbor.
For it is said:
Thus saith the
Lord,
as for all Mine evil neighbors,
that touch the
inheritance
which I have caused
My people Israel to inherit (Yirmiyahu 12:14).
And more than that,
he brings exile upon himself and his children.
For it is said:
Behold, I will
pluck them up from off their land,
and will pluck up
the house of Judah from among them (ibid).
Reish Lakish cites a
verse from Yirmiyahu which discusses the exile of the evil neighbors
from the land of Israel. As R.
Yoshiyahu Pinto (otherwise known as the Rif, 1565-1648, Damascus)
explains in his commentary on the Ein Yaakov, R. Lakish apparently
understood the term that touch the inheritance as referring to those that are
close to a synagogue so that they touch it, but do not actually go in. The
simple meaning of the term my inheritance refers to the land of Israel. Reish Lakish establishes a link
between the synagogue and the land, a connection that will be picked up on in R.
Yochanans statement that follows.
The way in which
Reish Lakish transforms the verses in Yirmiyahu is fascinating. In their original biblical context,
the bad neighbors are the nations that lived around the land of Israel. They will be punished and exiled,
apparently for their idol worship.
The severity of the nations punishment is likely in part because their
practices influenced Israel to worship foreign gods. In its original context, this passage
deals with the larger political and theological spheres, as entire nations are
removed from their land because they worship false gods. Reish Lakish understands this passage
in more local and communal terms. He
interprets the term bad neighbors in a more literal sense, in terms of the
proverbial bad neighbor, shakhen ra referred to in Pirkei Avot
(1:7, 2:9). This bad neighbor is an
individual whose bad character traits threaten to influence those around him. When this evil-doer is ultimately
punished by God, those nearby may suffer as well.
This shift from focusing on national and political to individual and
communal issues is characteristic of the differing central interests of the
Tanakh and of Chazal.
Why is the person
who does not go to synagogue considered a bad neighbor? Such a person refuses
to participate in the spiritual life of the community. His anti-social behavior undermines
the community directly and threatens to influence others to withdraw from the
community as well.
Shocked, Shocked!
R. Yochanans
statement comes in the context of a dialogue with his students:
When they told R.
Yochanan
that there were old
men in Babylon,
he showed
astonishment and said:
Why, it is written:
That your days may
be multiplied,
and the days of your
children,
upon the land (Devarim 11:21)--
but not outside the
land [of Israel]!
When they told him
that
they came early to
the synagogue
and left it late,
he said:
That is what helps
them.
Even as R. Yehoshua
b. Levi said to his children:
Come early to the
synagogue
and leave it late
that you may live
long.
R. Acha son of R. Chanina says:
Which verse [may be quoted in support of this]?
Happy is the man that hearkeneth to Me,
watching daily at My gates,
waiting at the posts of My doors (Mishlei 8:34),
after which it is written:
For whoso findeth me findeth life (ibid. v. 35).
R. Yochanans statements here are polemical in intent. Certainly, he knew before his
students told him that not everyone in Babylonia dies young.
Rather,
R. Yochanan expresses shock at this revelation in order to teach a lesson to his
students. He wishes to drive home
the message that according to the Torah, the only people who are promised long
life are those who live in the land of Israel.
In making this statement, R. Yochanan implicitly criticizes the Jews of
Babylonia by suggesting that all Jews belong in the land of Israel. This is hardly surprising coming from
the leading Israeli rabbi of the day.
However, R. Yochanan then turns around and pays a compliment to his
brethren on the other side of the Euphrates.
The fact that Babylonians do live long lives (and flourish in other ways
as well) even though they remain in exile can only mean that they have some
special merit in their favor. This
merit is their regular attendance at synagogue.
Once again, going to the synagogue is linked with living in the land; it
may even be a substitute for it.
Viewed in its wider
context in the gemara, R. Yochanans statement appears somewhat ironic. As we have discussed previously, the
amoraim of the land of Israel were the ones who saw communal prayer in
the synagogue as a supreme value. At
least some of the Babylonian amoraim believed that attendance at
synagogue was not necessarily a top priority for scholars. Perhaps R. Yochanan here is also
criticizing those Babylonian rabbis who do not attend synagogue regularly,
suggesting that those rabbis may be giving up their one chance of attaining long
life while living in the Diaspora.
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!