Gemara Berachot (Blessings), daf (page) 14. Today’s daf has been dedicated by Joseph Saad, le’ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Avraham ben Ester (Abraham son of Esther), Ruach Adonai tenichenu beGan Eden (May the spirit of the Lord place him in the Garden of Eden), amen. Isaac Gemal, Masechet (tractate) Berachot. We are going to start on Yud gimmel amud bet (13b), one, two, three, four, five, six or seven lines from the bottom, with the last two words on the line: “u-vaperakim sho’el” (and in the sections, one may greet).
The Mishnah brought a machloket (dispute) between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah regarding the extent to which a person is allowed to greet different types of people between the paragraphs of Keriat Shema (recitation of the Shema) and within the paragraphs themselves. The Gemara says that, if you remember, the Mishnah said in Rabbi Meir’s opinion, “sho’el mipenei hakavod,” that one is allowed to greet somebody he is obligated to honor, “umeshiv,” and he is allowed to respond.
The Gemara asks: “meshiv”—when you tell me that you are allowed to respond, “machmat mai?” Respond to whom? Which type of person are you allowed to respond to? You told me that you are allowed to greet somebody you are obligated to honor. As Rashi explained, somebody you are allowed to honor could be an “adam chashuv,” somebody important, whether a wealthy man or another man of stature. HaRambam understood “kavod” (honor)—somebody you have to honor—as referring to a person’s father or rabbi.
In any event, the Gemara wants to understand: when you say that you can “sho’el,” that you can greet him, and that you can respond to his greeting, “meshiv,” who are you referring to? Is that also referring to a man of stature? The Gemara says, “ileima mipenei hakavod”—if you mean that you are allowed to respond to somebody of stature, “hashta mish’al sha’il”: if the Mishnah is telling me “sho’el,” that you are allowed to ask him “shalom” (greet him with the word “shalom”), do I have to be told that I can respond? If you can initiate a greeting, all the more so you can respond! The Mishnah does not have to tell us that; it would be superfluous.
Rather, it must be “sho’el mipenei hakavod umeshiv shalom lechol adam.” It must mean that “meshiv” is giving a greater leniency: you are allowed to respond to anybody’s greeting. “Sho’el mipenei hakavod”—and when the Mishnah says “meshiv,” it means “lechol adam,” to everybody.
The Gemara says, fine: “eima seifa”—how are we going to understand the second part of Rabbi Meir’s statement? “U-ve’emtza,” in the middle of the paragraphs themselves, “sho’el mipenei hayir’ah” (one may greet on account of fear): you are allowed to initiate a greeting to someone you have to fear, “umeshiv,” and you can respond. Again, the Gemara asks, “meshiv machmat mai?” Who are you responding to? “Ileima mipenei hayir’ah”—if it is the same person, someone you are obligated to fear, “hashta mish’al sha’il, ahadurei miba’ya?” If you are allowed to initiate a greeting, all the more so you should be allowed to respond! So that would be superfluous.
Rather, “ela mipenei hakavod”: it must mean that in the middle of a paragraph, you can respond to somebody you are obligated to respect. Rabbi Meir would then be saying, “be’emtza sho’el mipenei hayir’ah umeshiv mipenei hakavod.” That would be the “chiddush” (novel point). But the Gemara says that cannot be: “hainu de-Rabbi Yehudah!” If that is how you interpret Rabbi Meir in the middle of a paragraph, that is exactly what Rabbi Yehudah said. We have in the Mishnah, “Rabbi Yehudah omer be’emtza sho’el mipenei hayir’ah umeshiv mipenei hakavod.” So, according to the interpretation we just gave Rabbi Meir, he would be identical to Rabbi Yehudah.
“U-vaperakim sho’el mipenei hakavod umeshiv shalom lechol adam”: between the chapters, “sho’el mipenei hakavod”—you are allowed to initiate a greeting out of respect—and “umeshiv shalom lechol adam,” you can respond to everybody. So that, too, is identical to Rabbi Yehudah.
The Gemara says, fine: “chasorei mechasra vehachi katani.” The Mishnah is missing some words, and this is how you have to read it. “Bifrakim sho’el mipnei hakavod”: according to Rabbi Meir, between the chapters, you are allowed to initiate a greeting to somebody you are obligated to respect, “ve’ein tzarich lomar shehu meshiv.” Instead of saying “meshiv,” say “ve’ein tzarich lomar”—it goes without saying that you can respond, because if you can initiate a greeting, all the more so you can respond.
“U-ve’emtza,” in the middle of the paragraphs themselves, “sho’el mipnei hayir’ah”: you can initiate a greeting to somebody you fear, “ve’ein tzarich lomar shehu meshiv”—it goes without saying that he can respond. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir’s “shitah” (position) is quite simple: “sho’el” and “meshiv” refer to the same person. Between the chapters, as we said, between Parashat Shema and Parashat Vehayah, for example, you would be allowed to “sho’el mipenei hakavod” and “umeshiv mipenei hakavod.” In the middle of the paragraphs themselves, you would be allowed to “sho’el mipenei hayir’ah” and “umeshiv mipenei hayir’ah.” That would be Rabbi Meir’s opinion.
We said that “meshiv” is superfluous. The Gemara agrees in its explanation, “chasorei mechasra”: the Mishnah is effectively saying “ve’ein tzarich lomar”—you did not have to tell me that.
Now, what is Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion? The bottom line of the Gemara is: “Rabbi Yehudah omer u-ve’emtza.” In the middle of the paragraphs themselves, “sho’el mipenei hayir’ah”—you are allowed to initiate a greeting to somebody you have to fear—“umeshiv mipenei hakavod,” and you can respond to somebody you have to respect. Here we see the first machloket between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir only allows you to respond to somebody you fear; Rabbi Yehudah allows you to respond “mipenei hakavod,” out of respect. That is one machloket.
“U-vifrakim”—and we go to Yud-daled amud rishon (14a)—between the chapters, “sho’el mipenei hakavod,” you are allowed to initiate a greeting to somebody you have to respect, and “umeshiv shalom lechol adam,” you can respond to everybody. Here again we see a second machloket between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir only allows you to respond to somebody you respect, “mipenei hakavod”; Rabbi Yehudah allows you to respond “lechol adam,” to everybody.
“Tanya nami hachi”: we have a beraita (early rabbinic teaching) to support this. “Hakorei et Shema”—a person is reading the Shema—“paga bo rabbo o gadol heimenu,” and he meets his rabbi or someone greater than him. “Bifrakim,” between the chapters, “sho’el mipenei hakavod ve’ein tzarich lomar shehu meshiv”: he is allowed to initiate a greeting to somebody he respects, and it goes without saying that he can respond.
“U-ve’emtza,” in the middle of the paragraphs themselves, “sho’el mipenei hayir’ah ve’ein tzarich lomar shehu meshiv,” and it goes without saying that he can respond. These are the words of Rabbi Meir, exactly as we set out Rabbi Meir’s position. “Rabbi Yehudah omer ba’emtza sho’el mipenei hayir’ah umeshiv mipenei hakavod u-vifrakim sho’el mipenei hakavod umeshiv shalom lechol adam.” So we have a beraita supporting exactly the way we understood our Mishnah.
It should be pointed out that Tosafot on 13b, the bottom Tosafot, says that the “halachah” (Jewish law) follows Rabbi Yehudah. That would mean that in the middle of a paragraph, one may respond “meshiv mipenei hakavod.” Based on this, even though today we do not have these formalities of greeting people in the middle of Keriat Shema, Tosafot says that if you can respond in the middle of the paragraphs to a person you have to respect, then from here he learns, “nir’eh shemutar la’anot Kaddish u-Kedushah be’emtza Keriat Shema.” He allows a person to answer Kaddish (sanctification prayer) or Kedushah (sanctification) in the middle of Keriat Shema, “de’ein lecha mipenei hakavod gadol mizeh.” He says there is no greater “mipenei hakavod”; you are responding out of respect for HaKadosh Baruch Hu. So we can learn a practical halachah from this Gemara: it is permissible to answer Kaddish and Kedushah within Keriat Shema itself.
But Tosafot goes on to say that in the middle of the Amidah, one is not allowed to respond to anything. There, he would simply stand silently in his “lachash” and listen to the chazan, but he would not actually say anything during the Amidah.
The Gemara continues on 14a: “ba’a minei Achi”—they asked a question of a rabbi called Achi. Rashi says, “kach shemo”—that was his name. It is a strange name. However, we do find this name among Binyamin’s ten sons; one of his sons was named Achi. So there is a precedent for such a name.
“Ba’a minei Achi tanna debei Rabbi Chiya mi-Rabbi Chiya.” Achi used to teach beraitot in Rabbi Chiya’s yeshiva; that is what “tanna debei Rabbi Chiya” means: the rabbi who taught beraitot in Rabbi Chiya’s yeshiva. He asked Rabbi Chiya: “be-Hallel u-ve-Megillah,” regarding Hallel and Megillat Ester, “mahu she-yafsik?” Can we interrupt there, too? That is, do the same guidelines as Keriat Shema apply to Hallel and Megillah—interrupting out of respect or fear?
What is the basis of the question? The Gemara says, “mi amrinan kal va-chomer” (a fortiori argument): can we make a kal va-chomer and say, “Keriat Shema de-oraita posek”? If Keriat Shema, which is biblical, can be interrupted, then “Hallel de-rabbanan miba’ya”—Hallel is only rabbinic, so certainly it can be interrupted. Or perhaps you would argue the other way: “pirsumei nisa adif”—since Hallel and Megillah are passages or scrolls of pesukim (verses) intended to publicize God’s miracles, which we call “pirsum ha-nes,” publicizing God’s miracle, perhaps that takes precedence, and therefore we do not want to interrupt while publicizing the miracles of God?
The Gemara answers: “amar lei”—Rav Chiya answered him—“posek ve-ein bechach kelum.” You can interrupt, just as with Keriat Shema, and you do not have to be concerned about anything.
“Amar Rava”: Rava taught, “yamim she-ha-yachid gomer bahen et ha-Hallel”—on the days when an individual completes Hallel… The Gemara says in Megillah—or, I should say, in Arakhin (Tractate Arakhin), daf 10—that there are 21 days a year when an individual completes Hallel with a “Beracha” (blessing), meaning complete Hallel.
What are those days? We have the seven days of Pesach (Passover). We have the well—the first two days of Pesach. I mean the seven days of Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles), actually: we have eight days of Sukkot, and then in “galut” (exile) we have an extra day, so it is actually nine days of Sukkot. We have the two days of Pesach, which makes 11; the two days of Shavuot (Feast of Weeks), which makes 13; and the eight days of Chanukah (Festival of Dedication), which makes 21. Those are the 21 times that we recite Hallel in the diaspora. Of course, in Israel it would be one day of Shavuot and one day of Pesach.
The rabbis gave a “remez,” a way to remember this: “shenayim shenayim ba’u el Noach,” when they came on the “teivah” (ark): “shenayim shenayim ba’u el Noach.” “Shenayim” refers to the two days of Pesach; “shenayim” refers to the two days of Shavuot. “Ba’u” has a gematria of nine: beit, alef, vav, which is Sukkot. “El Noach”: Noach stands for “ner Chanukah,” the eight days of Chanukah. That is a way to remember all the days on which we say complete Hallel.
Of course, there is one night a year when we say full Hallel, the night of Pesach. In the diaspora, we would say it on the first two nights. What about the days when we say complete Hallel? It says, “bein perek le-perek,” between each chapter, one may interrupt, as we said in the Mishnah. You can greet somebody out of respect. “Be’emtza ha-perek,” but in the middle of the chapter itself, “eino posek”: we do not interrupt.
“U-ve-yamim she-ein ha-yachid gomer bahen et ha-Hallel”—on the days when an individual does not complete Hallel, such as Rosh Chodesh (new moon), when we do not say complete Hallel, “afillu be’emtza perek posek”: even in the middle of the chapter itself, one is allowed to interrupt out of respect.
The Gemara then says, “ini?” Is that so? We have a contradiction. “Veha Rav Bar Sheva ikla legabei de-Ravina,” Rav Bar Sheva found himself in front of Ravina, “u-ve-yamim she-ein ha-yachid gomer et ha-Hallel hava,” and it was on a day when we do not complete Hallel, for example, Rosh Chodesh, or perhaps the other days of Pesach. I would rather say that at this point the Gemara was talking about the other days of Pesach. Let’s leave out Rosh Chodesh; that was not a good example. We will see that in Tosafot immediately. Let’s say it was a day when they did not complete Hallel, meaning the rest of the days of Pesach.
So Rava bar Sheva—Rav Bar Sheva was there with Ravina—“velo pasik lei,” and he did not greet him; he did not say “shalom” to him. So what do we see? Even during a half-Hallel, you cannot interrupt. The Gemara says, “shani Rav Bar Sheva delo chashiv alei de-Ravina.” For some reason, Ravina did not hold Rav Bar Sheva in esteem, and therefore he did not greet him. That means that really, during half-Hallel, even in the middle of a paragraph, one would be allowed to greet someone out of respect. It is just that Ravina himself did not consider Rav Bar Sheva worthy of his respect, so he did not interrupt.
That is the law from the Gemara regarding Hallel. Again, on the days when we say complete Hallel, the 21 times we mentioned, you are allowed to interrupt between the chapters, but in the middle of the paragraphs, “be’emtza ha-perek,” “eino posek”: we do not interrupt.
Tosafot has a long discussion on the page, “yamim she-yachid gomer bahem et ha-Hallel,” about the “minhag” (custom) of saying Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. Tosafot says that it is no more than a custom; it is not actually a law to say Hallel. It simply evolved into a custom. He brings a Gemara in Ta’anit (Tractate Ta’anit), where Rav once came into a synagogue and saw them saying Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. He reacted and said, “shema mina minhag avoteihem bideihem”—that must mean they have a tradition to say Hallel on Rosh Chodesh.
Based on that, Machzor Vitry says that since it is only a custom, we do not make a Beracha on this Hallel. He brings different sources saying that we do not make a Beracha on things that are customs. His example is “chavatat aravah” on Hoshana Rabbah (Great Supplication), when we bang the “aravah” (willow) on the ground and say, “chavit chavit vela barich”—we strike and strike, but do not bless—because it is a custom. Why “lo barich,” why do we not bless? Because we do not make a Beracha on a custom.
However, Rabbeinu Tam argues. He says, what do you mean, we do not make a Beracha on a custom? The whole second day of “Yom Tov” (festival day) that we celebrate, always “Yom Tov Sheni shel Galuyot,” is already “mita’am minhag.” It is just “minhag avoteinu beyadeinu.” And yet we see that on that day we make Berachot, we make Kiddush, and we make special Berachot pertaining to Yom Tov. So clearly we do make a Beracha on a custom.
So we have a machloket between Machzor Vitry and Rabbeinu Tam: can you make a Beracha on the Hallel of Rosh Chodesh? Tosafot then says that we distinguish between them: for full Hallel, we say “ligmor et ha-Hallel,” and for half-Hallel, we say “likro et ha-Hallel.” Really, he says either one would be acceptable. If someone said “ligmor et ha-Hallel” even on Rosh Chodesh, that would be fine, because you are completing the Hallel—meaning whatever you are supposed to read that day, you are completing. But to distinguish and make clear which is full and which is half, we say “ligmor” and “likro.” That is the custom of the Ashkenazim (Ashkenazi Jews). However, as we said, we Sefaradim (Sephardic Jews) do not make a Beracha on half-Hallel.
We continue with the Gemara. The question was asked by Ashiyan: “ba’a minei Ashiyan, tana debei Rabbi Ami,” who used to teach beraitot in Rabbi Ami’s yeshiva, “me-Rabbi Ami.” He asked Rabbi Ami: “hasharui beta’anit,” a person who is fasting, “mahu sheyitom?” Is he allowed to taste food?
Rashi says, on the fourth line, “mahu sheyitom et ha-tavshil lada’at im tzarich melach o tavlin”: could you taste the food to see if it needs spices or salt? Tosafot says it seems that here we are talking about a “ta’anit yachid,” a personal fast that a person accepted upon himself. We are not talking about any of the scriptural fasts, such as Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) or any of the “arba ta’aniyot,” the four fasts written in the verses.
The Gemara asks, “hasharui beta’anit mahu sheyitom,” “achilah u-shtiyah kabil aleih?” Tosafot makes a point of the words “kabil aleih”: he accepted it upon himself. That seems to indicate an individual, personal fast. Did he accept upon himself not to eat and drink? “Veha leika”—this is not considered eating and drinking; it is only tasting. Or perhaps he accepted upon himself not to have any pleasure from food, “o dilma hana’ah kabil aleih,” and by tasting, there is pleasure as well?
The Gemara says, “amar leih”—he answered him—“to’em ve-ein bechach kelum”: you can taste, and there is no problem. “Tanya nami hachi”: we have a beraita supporting this: “meta’emet einah te’unah Beracha.” First of all, somebody who tastes the food does not even need to make a Beracha.
So Tosafot quotes Rabbeinu Chananel and says: what do you mean, if you are tasting, you do not have to make a Beracha? We know the principle that even if you eat a “kol shehu,” a drop, you have to make a Beracha. How can the Gemara tell us that if you taste food and ingest it, you do not make a Beracha? For that reason, Rabbeinu Chananel says, as we see in the second-to-last Tosafot, “peirush le’achar shechozer u-folet”: the explanation is that he spits it out. “Velo chashiv hana’ah min ha-te’imah”: that is not considered receiving pleasure from the tasting. If he swallows it, “bala,” then of course he is obligated to make a Beracha.
Tosafot says that this is what we were talking about on a fast day, too. When we allow you to taste food on a fast day, we mean you can put it in your mouth and then spit it out, but not swallow it. The beraita continues: “ve-hasharui beta’anit to’em ve-ein bechach kelum.” “Ad kamah?” How much can a person put in his mouth on a fast day, even though he plans to spit it out? “To’em ad shi’ur revi’it,” he may taste up to the measure of a “revi’it” (quarter-log measure), which is anywhere between three and five ounces. The point is that they do not want you to put in more than that, for fear that you might swallow it.
The Gemara says, “amar Rav”: “kol ha-noten shalom lechaveiro kodem sheyitpallel,” anybody who greets his friend with the word “shalom” before he prays, before he says the Amidah, “ke’ilu asa’o bamah.” It is as if he built a “bamah” (private altar). The “bamot” (private altars) were personal altars that were permissible at some point in history. Once the Beit HaMikdash was built, the bamot became forbidden.
The Gemara is saying that if someone, instead of praying to God first, goes and greets his friend by saying “shalom,” it is as if he built a bamah. Instead of going to God first, he went to this person; it is as if he brought a sacrifice on a forbidden altar. “Shene’emar,” as the pasuk says in Yeshayah (Isaiah): “chidlu lachem min ha-adam” (refrain from going to the person), “asher neshamah be’apo” (who has a soul within him), “ki vameh nechshav hu”—what is he? “bameh nechshav hu”—what is he worth?
The Gemara says, “al tikrei” (do not read) bameh ela bamah: do not read it as “bameh,” but as “bamah.” So the pasuk is as if it says, refrain from going to the person. Why should a person refrain from going to his friend? On the contrary, it is praiseworthy to go to his friend to greet him. Rashi says it must be talking about a time when it is forbidden. When is it forbidden? Before he prays. And what is the pasuk saying? “Ki bamah nechshav hu”: he will be considered as if he constructed a bamah.
“U-Shemuel amar”: Shemuel says no, we do not have to change the wording of the verse; we can read it as written: “bameh chashavto lazeh velo le-Eloah.” For what purpose? Why did you give importance to this man and not to God? It is as if Yeshayah is asking, “bameh nechshav hu?” What is his importance, that you went to him instead of greeting God first?
“Meitiv Rav Sheshet”: Rav Sheshet raises an obvious question. “Baperakim sho’el mipenei hakavod umeshiv.” We just learned in the Mishnah that between the chapters of Keriat Shema you are allowed to greet someone out of respect. What does that mean? He is greeting somebody with the salutation “shalom.” And Shema comes before the Amidah. You just told me that before praying the Amidah you should not greet somebody with “shalom,” and here we are greeting somebody with “shalom.”
“Targemah Rava bemaskim lefitcho.” Rava explains: when is it forbidden? Only when you go out of your way to the person’s house to say “shalom.” However, if it is incidental—for example, you are sitting in the synagogue and the rabbi walks by, and you did not pursue him or go after him—then, of course, the halachah is that you would say “shalom.” When is it forbidden to make a conscious effort to go out of your way to greet somebody? “Bemaskim lefitcho,” by waking up early and going to his house. We will skip the parentheses there.
“Amar Rav Idi bar Avin amar Rav Yitzchak bar Ashyan: asur lo le-adam la’asot chafatzav kodem sheyitpalel.” A person should not take care of his personal needs or business before he prays, as the pasuk says, “tzedek lefanav yehalech.” First he has to make himself righteous in the eyes of God, meaning by praying. “Tzedek lefanav yehalech”: first he involves himself in righteousness, and then “veyasem la-derech pe’amav,” he can go on his way. “Veyasem la-derech” means he can set his feet on the road; “pe’amav” means his steps. Then he can go take care of his needs.
“Ve’amar Rav Idi bar Avin amar Rav Yitzchak bar Ashyan: kol ha-mitpalel ve’achar kach yotzei la-derech.” This is a different law: a person should also not go on the road before he prays. He should pray first and then begin travelling. “Kol ha-mitpalel ve’achar kach yotzei la-derech, HaKadosh Baruch Hu oseh lo chafatzav”: God fulfills that person’s needs. “Shene’emar, tzedek lefanav yehalech”—if a person makes himself righteous before God by praying first—“veyasem la-derech pe’amav,” then God will set his feet on the road, and he will be successful.
The Gemara continues: “amar Rav Yonah amar Rabbi Zeira: kol halan shiv’at yamim belo chalom nikra ra.” Anybody who goes seven nights sleeping without having a dream is called bad. The Gemara says that he is called a bad person. Why? “Shene’emar, vesave’a yalin bal yipaked ra.” “Al tikrei save’a ela sheva.” The Gemara makes a “derashah” (interpretation), as if the pasuk says, “vesheva yalin bal yipaked”: if you slept for seven nights and were not remembered by God—meaning He did not communicate with the person through a dream—the pasuk ends, “ra.” Again, “vesheva yalin bal yipaked”: he slept seven nights without being remembered, and the verse says, “ra.”
“Amar leih Rav Acha bereih de-Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba, hachi amar Rabbi Chiyya amar Rabbi Yochanan: kol ha-masbi’a atzmo midivrei Torah.” He has a different derashah. Anyone who satiates himself with divrei Torah before going to sleep, “ve-lan,” and then falls asleep, “ein mevasrin oto besorot ra’ot”: he will not hear bad things, meaning he will not have nightmares or bad dreams. “Shene’emar, vesave’a yalin”: if a person goes to sleep satiated, meaning with Torah, that is the reference to the beginning of the verse; “bal yipaked ra,” he will not be remembered for bad.
The Gemara continues: “elu hen bein ha-perakim.” If you remember, our Mishnah gave us the different stopping points at which a person is allowed to interrupt. We call those “bein ha-perakim,” between the paragraphs. “Amar Rav Abbahu amar Rabbi Yochanan: halachah ke-Rabbi Yehudah.” The halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah, who says, “bein Eloheichem le’emet veyatziv lo yafsik.” If you remember, Rabbi Yehudah said in the Mishnah that this is not a stopping point. Once you finish “Ani Hashem Eloheichem,” you are not allowed to interrupt between “Eloheichem” and the word “emet.” You are supposed to go directly into “emet veyatziv venachon,” and the halachah follows that.
“Amar Rav Abbahu amar Rabbi Yochanan: mai ta’ama de-Rabbi Yehudah?” What is Rabbi Yehudah’s reason? “Dechtiv”—and we go to 14b—because the verse says, “va-Hashem Elohim emet.” We see a verse in Yirmiyah that says, “va-Hashem Elohim emet.” The verse does not separate between Hashem and the word “emet,” because God is the ultimate truth, and therefore it would not be possible to split between those words.
At the top of the page, the Gemara continues: “chozer ve’omer emet o eino chozer ve’omer emet?” Does a person repeat “emet” or not? Let’s say a person was ahead of the chazan and said, “Ani Hashem Elokeichem emet.” Now they catch up with him. Does he have to say “emet” again before he begins “veyatziv venachon,” and so on? Or let’s say he interrupted between “Hashem Elokeichem” and the word “emet” by greeting somebody. Since he greeted somebody, does he have to repeat the word “emet” or not?
The Gemara says, “amar Rav Abbahu amar Rabbi Yochanan: chozer ve’omer emet.” Yes, he can repeat the word “emet.” “Rabbah amar”: Rabbah says no, “eino chozer ve’omer emet.” Once you have said it once, you do not repeat it.
“Hahu denachit kameih de-Rabbah.” There was a fellow who sat in front of Rabbah. “Shameiah Rabbah de’amar emet emet terei zimnei.” Rabbah heard the fellow repeat the word “emet” twice. Rabbah was not happy about that. “Amar Rabbah: kol emet emet tafsei lehai.” A stream of “emet” has grabbed onto this man; in other words, this man is locked into the word “emet.” How many times is he going to say it? Rashi says he had “dashna de’emet,” like a custom, a fluency of “emet”; “tafsato lezeh” had grabbed him. That means Rabbah did not want him to say it twice.
“Amar Rav Yosef: kamah me’alya ha-shma’teta”—how great is this halachah! “Dechi ata Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah,” when Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah came from Eretz Yisrael, he said, “amrei be-ma’arava”: they say in the West, in Eretz Yisrael, “Arvit,” during Arvit, “daber el benei Yisrael ve’amarta aleihem Ani Adonai Eloheichem emet.” They skipped Parashat Tzitzit.
Rashi says on the second line, “ha-shma’teta de-Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah amar amrei be-ma’arava Keriat Shema shel Arvit ein korin bah Parashat Tzitzit kulah.” They would not read all of Parashat Tzitzit, “lefi she-ein mitzvat tzitzit ba-lailah,” since the mitzvah of tzitzit does not apply at night. “Aval matchilin otah,” they begin the passage, “u-mafsikin bah,” and skip to the end, saying, “u-medalgin ve’omrim Ani Hashem Elokeichem emet.” They start at the beginning, “daber el benei Yisrael ve’amarta aleihem,” and then go to the end by saying, “Ani Hashem Elokeichem emet.”
The Radvaz points out that we learned in a previous Gemara that we are not allowed to say any pasuk that Moshe Rabbeinu did not say. Here, it seems they joined two verses together: they took “daber el benei Yisrael ve’amarta aleihem,” which is the beginning of the passage, and then went to the end, saying “Ani Hashem Elokeichem emet,” thereby making up their own verse. The Radvaz says that he found in Sefer Vayikra that this verse actually exists. There is a pasuk exactly like this, so it was not considered making up their own pasuk.
“Amar leih Abaye”—Abaye says, “mai ma’alyuta?” Why is this such a great halachah? What is so special about it? “Veha amar Rav Kahana amar Rav lo yatchil.” Rav Kahana taught in the name of Rav that you do not have to say Vayomer in Arvit. “Ve’im hitchil,” but if you started the passage, “gomer”: you have to finish it.
So I do not know what you are telling me: in Eretz Yisrael they would start the passage and then go straight to the end. That is not good! Rav taught that once you start the passage, you have to finish it. “Vechi teima,” perhaps you will answer me, “ve’amarta aleihem lo hevei hatchalah”: maybe you will say that merely saying “daber el benei Yisrael ve’amarta aleihem” is not considered starting the passage, and therefore it was okay. That is not so.
“Veha amar Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak amar Rav.” Rav taught again, “daber el benei Yisrael lo hevei hatchalah.” The words “daber el benei Yisrael” are not considered starting the passage. “Ve’amarta aleihem hevei hatchalah.” But once you say “ve’amarta aleihem,” that is considered having started. And if you start, you have to finish! So how did the people in Eretz Yisrael start and not finish?
“Amar Rav Pappa: ka-savri be-ma’arava ve’amarta aleihem nami lo hevei hatchalah.” They must have held in the West, in Israel, that even “ve’amarta aleihem” is not considered a beginning “ad de’amar ve’asu lahem tzitzit,” until they actually say the words “ve’asu lahem tzitzit.” Therefore they had not started, and according to their opinion, did not have to finish.
“Amar Abaye: hilkach, anan atchulei matchilinan.” Therefore, we start the passage. Why? In Bavel, “deka matchilei be-ma’arava,” because we see that in Eretz Yisrael they also start. However, in Bavel they held that once you say “daber el benei Yisrael ve’amarta aleihem,” that is already considered starting. So he says, “vecheivan de’atchilinan,” once we have started according to our opinion, “migmar nami gamrinan,” we also have to finish. That is how the custom began of saying Keriat Shema with Parashat Vayomer at night.
The Gemara says, “veha amar Rav Kahana amar Rav lo yatchil”: Rav taught that you do not have to start Parashat Vayomer, “ve’im hitchil gomer,” but if you started, you have to finish it. “Chiyya bar Rav amar”: Chiyya bar Rav, Rav’s son, said, “amar Ani Hashem Elokeichem.” Rashi explains that this means Parashat Tzitzit: if you said Parashat Tzitzit in Arvit, “tzarich lomar emet,” then you have to continue and say “emet.” Once you say “Ani Hashem Elokeichem”—“asher hotzeiti etchem me’eretz Mitzrayim lihyot lachem le-Elokim Ani Hashem Elokeichem”—you must finish with the word “emet” and continue with the next paragraph, “ve’emunah kol zot.”
“Lo amar Ani Hashem Elokeichem”: if he did not say Parashat Vayomer in Arvit, which we are seeing was optional, “eino tzarich lomar emet.” Then he does not have to say the following paragraph of “ve’emunah kol zot.” The Gemara asks, what do you mean? “Veha ba’ei le’adkurei yetzi’at Mitzrayim.” Fine, you do not want to say Parashat Vayomer. You can omit it because it is about tzitzit, which does not apply in the evening. But “ve’emunah kol zot” is necessary because you have to mention yetzi’at Mitzrayim. We learned in the previous Mishnah that in “kol yemei chayecha,” Ben Zoma’s derashah understands “kol” to include the evenings!
So he says, fine, “de’amar hachi”: you can say the following: “Modim anachnu lach Hashem Elokeinu,” we thank You, God, “shehotzetanu me’eretz Mitzrayim,” that You took us out of Egypt, “ufeditanu mibeit avadim,” and redeemed us from the house of slavery, “ve’asita lanu nissim ugevurot al ha-yam,” and performed miracles and mighty acts for us at the sea, “ve-sharnu lach,” and we sang to You. What did we sing? Rashi says, “Mi chamocha ba’eilim Hashem,” “malchutecha,” and so on. That means he was saying that you do not have to say the full text of “ve’emunah kol zot”; you can say an abridged version.
If you remember, when we learned one of the Mishnayot in the previous chapter, it said, “makom she’amru leha’arich eino rashai lekatzer, lekatzer eino rashai leha’arich.” Tosafot understood this to refer to the blessing of “ve’emunah kol zot.” From this Gemara, he understood that sometimes “ve’emunah kol zot” was said in the long version and sometimes in the short version. So he understood that where they tell you to say it at length—that is, where you said Vayomer—you have to say “ve’emunah kol zot” in the long version. Where you did not say Vayomer, you can say it in the short version. That is how he understood it.
Rashi understood it differently there, as we explained: he understood that “lekatzer” and “leha’arich” referred to the two blessings of “ve’emunah kol zot” and Hashkiveinu (lay us down to rest).
The Gemara continues: “amar Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah: lamah kadmah Parashat Shema?” Do you remember that we learned in the Mishnah that the Mishnah asked about the order of the passages of Keriat Shema? We say Shema, Vehayah, and Vayomer. Rabbi Yehoshua’s question in the Mishnah was: why does Parashat Shema come before “Vehayah im shamo’a”?
Now let’s look at the top Tosafot. Tosafot asks, “ve’im tomar, tipok lei de-kadmah baTorah,” which we discussed yesterday. What is your question, Rabbi Yehoshua? Shema precedes Vehayah in the Torah, so it is simply written in that order! “Ve-yesh lomar dehachi ka’amar”: this is what the Mishnah’s question meant: “lamah kadmah af le-Parashat Tzitzit?” Why did Shema come first even before Parashat Tzitzit, “de-kadmah lechulan”? If you want to follow the sequence, Parashat Vayomer should have come first.
Rather, “ela vadai anu chosheshim lazeh shehi kodemet baTorah, mishum de’amrinan ein mukdam u-me’uchar.” Tosafot says we must not be concerned that Vayomer came first, because of the rule “ein mukdam u-me’uchar”: the Torah is not necessarily written in sequence. “Ve’im ken”—if so, in chronological order, “hayah lanu lehagdim Vehayah shehi medaberet bilshon rabim.” Once we are not following the order of the Torah, why did Shema come before Vehayah? Vehayah speaks to the many: “Vehayah im shamo’a tishme’u.” So there would be a preference to put Vehayah before Shema, which speaks to the individual. That was Rabbi Yehoshua’s question.
Rabbi Yehoshua’s answer was: no, Keriat Shema is “ol Malchut Shamayim,” and then we have “ol mitzvot” (yoke of commandments). “Ol mitzvot” is in Vehayah, and then we have Vayomer, because Vayomer is about the mitzvah of tzitzit, which applies only during the day, while in Parashat Vehayah we refer to Torah, which applies at night as well. That was the logic behind the order of Keriat Shema.
The Gemara says, “tanya”: we have a beraita. The beraita says, “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai omer: bedin hu sheyakdim Shema le-Vehayah im shamo’a.” It makes sense, it is logical, to put Shema before Vehayah im shamo’a. He gives a new reason, different from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah. “Shezeh lilmod vezeh lelamed”: in Parashat Shema, we discuss the mitzvah of learning. “Ve’ahavta” says “vedibarta bam,” which refers to learning. Vehayah is “lelamed,” to teach; it says “velimadtem otam et beneichem.” Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says that first you have to speak about learning, and then you speak about teaching.
Again, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says, “bedin hu sheyakdim Shema le-Vehayah im shamo’a, shezeh lilmod”—that is “vedibarta bam”—“vezeh lelamed,” and this is to teach, “veshinantam lebanecha.” Why does Vehayah come before Vayomer? “Shezeh lelamed”—the word should be “lelamed,” as emended in the margin of the Gemara, “velimadtem otam”—“vezeh la’asot.” Parashat Vayomer is about action, meaning “ve’asu lahem tzitzit,” actually making the tzitzit. So the sequence would be learning, teaching, and doing.
The Gemara asks, “atu Shema lilmod it bah, lelamed vela’asot leit bah?” Are you saying that the first passage, Ve’ahavta, contains only learning, and not teaching and doing? “Veha ketiv veshinantam”! It says “veshinantam lebanecha,” which is teaching, and it says “ukeshartam uchtavtam,” which is doing—putting on tefillin and writing mezuzot.
Furthermore, “Vehayah im shamo’a lelamed hu de’it bah, vela’asot leit bah?” Does Parashat Vehayah contain only teaching and no mention of doing? “Veha ketiv ukeshartam uchtavtam”—it also speaks about tefillin and mezuzah!
The Gemara adjusts the explanation: “ella hachi ka’amar.” This is what he meant: “bedin hu shetagdim Shema le-Vehayah im shamo’a.” It makes sense to put Shema before Vehayah, “shezeh lilmod u-lelamed vela’asot.” Parashat Ve’ahavta has everything. “Vehayah im shamo’a le-Vayomer”: Vehayah comes before Vayomer, “shezeh yesh bah lelamed vela’asot.” It has teaching and action. “Vayomer, ein bah ella la’asot bilvad”: it contains only action.
The Gemara asks, “vetipok leh mi-de-Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah?” Why do we need this reason? We already gave a reason for the order of the passages: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says “ol Malchut Shamayim,” then “ol mitzvot,” and then tzitzit at the end. The Gemara says that we are not rejecting Rabbi Yehoshua’s reason. “Chada ve’od ka’amar”: he is giving one reason and then another. The first reason is, as Rabbi Yehoshua said, “chada kedei sheyekabel alav ol Malchut Shamayim techilah, ve’achar kach yekabel alav ol mitzvot”—first to accept upon himself the yoke of Heaven’s sovereignty, and then the yoke of commandments. “Ve’od,” secondly, “mishum de’it bah hani milei achranyata,” because there are these additional reasons.
It is worth looking at the second Tosafot. For a moment, when our Gemara said that Parashat Vayomer applies only during the day, because Parashat Tzitzit is for the daytime, let’s read quickly: “mikan mashma ke-Rabbi Shimon,” from here it sounds like we follow Rabbi Shimon, “de’amar be-perek ha-Techelet de-tzitzit mitzvat aseh she-hazman grama.” From here we see that since tzitzit applies only during the day, it must be a positive time-bound commandment, and therefore women would be exempt. “Ve-hachi ita be-Kiddushin (Tractate Kiddushin) de-kamar tzitzit mitzvat aseh she-hazman grama.”
Tosafot asks, “ve’im tomar im ken leman de’amar tzitzit chovat tallit hu”—this is according to the opinion that says the obligation of tzitzit is on the person. There is a dispute: how do we understand the mitzvah of tzitzit? Is it an obligation on the person, “chovat gavra,” or an obligation on the garment? If it is an obligation on the person, the man is obligated during the day, not at night, and therefore women would be exempt. But according to the opinion that says the obligation is on the “beged” (garment), if you have a four-cornered garment, the garment is obligated even if you are not wearing it, even if it is in your closet; the garment must have tzitzit. So what does it mean that it is a time-bound positive commandment? How does that apply if it is a four-cornered garment that has to have tzitzit?
Tosafot answers, “ve-yesh lomar de’im hayah kesut ha-meyuchad le-laylah patur.” If the garment was designated for use only at night—for example, a quilt on a bed or a nightshirt—then even according to the opinion that the obligation is on the garment, it would be exempt because it is a night garment. So it is still considered a time-bound positive commandment.
The Gemara continues: “Rav mashei yedeih,” Rav used to wash his hands, “vekara Keriat Shema,” and then read Shema, “ve’anach tefillin.” After reading Shema, he put on his tefillin, “vetzalei,” and then prayed the Amidah.
The Gemara asks, “veheichi avid hachi?” How did Rav put on his tefillin after Keriat Shema? “Vehatanya”: we learned in a beraita, “ha-chofer kuch lamet.” A person is digging a burial niche for a dead person. Rashi says that in the old days they used to dig it in a cave, like in the wall, so it was called a “kuch” (burial niche). Rashi says it was four “amot” (cubits) long, about six feet, and seven “tefachim” (handbreadths) wide; that was called a kuch. The beraita says, “ha-chofer kuch lamet ba-kever patur mi-Keriat Shema u-min ha-tefillah u-min ha-tefillin u-mi-kol mitzvot ha-amurot baTorah.” Those digging it are exempt from all the commandments: Keriat Shema, prayer, tefillin, and all the commandments stated in the Torah.
“Higia zeman Keriat Shema,” when the time for Shema arrives, “oleh”—he climbs out of the grave, not the dead man, but the man doing the digging—“oleh ve-notel yadav,” washes his hands, “u-maniach tefillin,” puts on tefillin, “ve-korei Keriat Shema,” says Shema, “u-mitpallel,” and prays.
The Gemara says, we do not understand this beraita. “Ha-gufa kashya”: there is a question within the beraita itself. “Reisha amar”: at the beginning you told me “patur”—the man digging a grave is exempt from all the commandments. “Ve-seifa”: then at the end you tell me he is obligated; when the time for Shema comes, he climbs out. You just told me he was exempt, so why is he climbing out to say Shema?
The Gemara says, “ha lo kashya.” That is not a question. “Seifa be-trei ve-reisha be-had.” The end of the statement, which says he reads Keriat Shema, is when there are two diggers. One can continue digging while his companion climbs out and says Keriat Shema. The beginning, where we said he is entirely exempt, is talking about a case with one person. He continues digging, because, as we learned before, “osek be-mitzvah patur min ha-mitzvah” (one engaged in a commandment is exempt from another).
But in any case, “mikol makom kashya le-Rav.” It is a question on Rav, because the order in the beraita is that he comes out of the grave, washes his hands, puts on tefillin, and then says Keriat Shema. How was Rav able to do the opposite? Rav said Shema and then put on his tefillin.
The Gemara says, “Rav ke-Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah sevira leih.” It must be that Rav agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, who says, “de’amar ol Malchut Shamayim techilah ve’achar kach ol mitzvot.” Just as the order of Keriat Shema is based on first accepting upon yourself the yoke of Heaven and then performing the commandments, so too, first he accepts the yoke of Heaven in Shema and then performs the mitzvah of putting on tefillin.
The Gemara says, hold on: “eimar de’amar Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah lehakdim keriah li-keriah.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah said this about putting one reading before another: when it comes to reading one passage before another, read the passage of the yoke of Heaven first, and then the passage of the commandments. “Keriah la’asiyah mi shema’at leih?” Who says Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says that when it comes to reading or action, you should not do the action first? He was talking about reading two passages. Here we are talking about action—actually putting on tefillin. Rabbi Yehoshua may not extend his principle that far, to the performance of a commandment.
The Gemara continues, “ve-tu, u-mi savar lah ke-Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah?” Does Rav actually subscribe to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah’s opinion? “Veha amar Rav Chiya bar Ashi”: Rav Chiya bar Ashi says, “zimnin sagi’in havah ka’imna kameih de-Rav.” Many times I was standing before Rav, “u-makdim u-mashi yadeih,” and he would first wash his hands, “u-mevarech,” make a blessing—meaning Birkat haTorah—“u-matni lan pirkin,” teach us Mishnayot, “u-manach tefillin,” then put on his tefillin, “ve-hadar karei Keriat Shema,” and then say Keriat Shema.
What do we learn from this story? Rashi says that he learned first and then went to perform an action. So you see clearly that even when it comes to action, he performed the action first: he taught the shi’ur (lesson), which is considered an action, meaning he does not hold like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says to accept the yoke of Heaven first, and then the yoke of commandments. But from Rav’s behavior, you see clearly that he used to perform the action first: he taught the shi’ur, and then said Shema. If anything, Rav holds that the yoke of commandments comes before the yoke of Heaven. So do not answer me that he followed Rabbi Yehoshua, and that is why he said Shema before putting on tefillin. First, who says Rabbi Yehoshua said that in this case? He only said it about reading the passages. Second, we have proof that Rav himself does not hold that opinion, because he first performed the action of learning and then accepted the yoke of Heaven.
“Vechi teima de-lo mata zeman Keriat Shema?” If you are going to tell me that in the episode where Rav learned before saying Shema, the time for Shema had not yet arrived, “ei hachi mai ata le’ashme’inan Rav Chiya bar Ashi?” Then what was Rav Chiya bar Ashi testifying to? If it was not yet time for Keriat Shema, of course Rav was allowed to make Birkat haTorah and learn. It must be that the chiddush was that even though it was time for Keriat Shema, he still learned first, to show us that action precedes the yoke of Heaven.
The Gemara says no, there is no proof from that story: “la’afukei mi-man de’amar le-mishnah ein tzarich levarech.” We had an opinion, which we learned above, that you do not make Birkat haTorah for Mishnayot. So Rav Chiya bar Ashi’s chiddush was that Rav used to get up in the morning, teach us Mishnayot, and make a blessing first. “Ka mashma lan de’af le-mishnah nami tzarich levarech.” The story can mean that it had not yet become the time for Keriat Shema. The chiddush of his testimony—that Rav used to make a blessing and then teach us—is that you make Birkat haTorah for Mishnah as well.
But the Gemara says, fine, “mikol makom kashya le-Rav.” Bottom line, we still have a question on Rav from the beraita. Leave aside Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah’s opinion. The beraita about the man digging graves clearly says he climbs out, washes his hands, puts on tefillin, and then says Keriat Shema. Rav did the opposite!
The Gemara answers, “shelucha hu de’avit.” It was the attendant’s fault: that day, the shamash was late bringing Rav his tefillin, and Rav was going to miss the time for Keriat Shema. He had no choice but to read Keriat Shema without tefillin so that he would not miss the time, and then put on his tefillin afterward.
That is what the Sho’el u-Meishiv learns from here. He says, “mikan re’ayah”: from here we have proof, “de-mutar likrot Keriat Shema ba-boker beli tefillin keshe-mityarei sheya’avor ha-zeman.” You see clearly that if a person is worried that the time will pass, then—even though we will learn that anybody who says Keriat Shema without tefillin is like giving false testimony—that applies when he is able to put on tefillin. If the time is going to pass, then it is proper for him to say Keriat Shema without tefillin and put on tefillin afterward.
Tosafot has an interesting chiddush here. It says, “u-manach tefillin u-matzli”: he said Shema, then put on his tefillin, and then prayed. So it seems that the shamash must have given him his tefillin after Shema and before the Amidah. That means he must have put them on somewhere during “Ezrat Avoteinu” or “atah me’olam,” somewhere around there.
Tosafot says, “u-me’atah mashma she-mutar lehaniach tefillin bein ge’ulah li-tefillah.” Tosafot takes it a step further: perhaps he received his tefillin right after “Ga’al Yisrael.” Even though we said that you do not make an interruption between “Ge’ulah li-tefillah,” you see that because it is so important to pray wearing tefillin, you would be allowed to interrupt to put them on. It seems that he even made a Beracha.
“Vechen be-tallit”: he says the same applies to the tallit. “Maniach adam talito bein ge’ulah li-tefillah.” This is a very great chiddush. Tosafot continues: “vechen matzinu she-Rabbi Yitzchak berebbi Yehudah,” one of the Ba’alei HaTosafot, “shalach achar talito,” sent for his tallit “be-sha’ah she-sheliach tzibbur kevar kara Keriat Shema u-virchoteha.” Keriat Shema was already over. “Ve-nit’atef be-talito,” he put on his tallit, “ve-gamar Shemoneh Esreh.” He put on his tallit just before the Amidah, and he brought proof from Rav: Rav put on his tallit and tefillin—or at least the text says that he put on tefillin—before the Amidah.
“U-mikol makom yesh lechalek bein tefillin le-tallit.” Tosafot says no, there is a big difference between tefillin and tallit. “De’ikar Keriat Shema u-tefillah shaichei bi-tefillin”: the main thing to have on during the Amidah is tefillin. A tallit is not as necessary. As the Gemara says, a person is like one giving false testimony against himself if he says Keriat Shema and the Amidah without tefillin. It does not mention a tallit.
Therefore, he says: “aval tzitzit she-einah ella chovat tallit, she’im yesh lo tallit chayav, ve’im ein lo patur mi-tzitzit, ve-yachol likrot Keriat Shema belo tzitzit, vadai havei hafaskah.” Tzitzit is only an obligation on the garment: if you have a tallit, you are obligated; if you do not, you are exempt from tzitzit and can say Keriat Shema without tzitzit. That would certainly be an interruption. Tzitzit is not mandatory in the same way: if you have a tallit, you wear it; if not, you do not. But tefillin is mandatory. Therefore, for tzitzit you would not be able to interrupt between Ge’ulah and prayer, but for tefillin, you would.
Then he says, “ve-Rabbi Moshe mi-Kotzi omer de’afilu mikan ein re’ayah.” Rabbi Moshe mi-Kotzi says that even from this story there is no proof, even regarding tefillin. “De-ha de’amar heniach tefillin belo Beracha”: perhaps he put on his tefillin without a Beracha. Who says he interrupted between Ge’ulah li-tefillah with speech? Perhaps he simply put on the tefillin without a Beracha. When did he make the Beracha? “U-le’achar yud-chet amad u-mishmesh bahem u-verach aleihem.” After the Amidah, he stood, touched the tefillin, and made the Beracha. “U-ve-hachi sagi she-gam mutar le-hit’atef be-tallit be’et she-yadav metunafot ad she-yitol yadav u-mishmesh u-verach.”
Fine. According to this Tosafot, it is possible that he put on his tefillin without a Beracha beforehand. Another Tosafist says no, he actually put on the tefillin as well. In any event, in halachah it would be more proper not to do that right before “Ga’al Yisrael.” A person should wait before that point—for example, at “Tehilot Le’el Elyon,” before “Ga’al Yisrael”—and then he can put on his tefillin. He can even put on his tallit without a Beracha at that point, and then pray the Amidah.
Baruch Hashem le’olam amen ve’amen.