Daf 3b - "In the middle of the night, in the face of death"

Talmudic Methodology

Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan

Talmud

23.01.2016

Text file

08taggada3b.doc

p.CC
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;
margin-left:18.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
}
p.a
{margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
text-align:center;
page-break-after:avoid;
text-autospace:none;
direction:rtl;
unicode-bidi:embed;
font-size:23.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
font-weight:bold;
}
p.MsoNormal
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
margin-left: 0cm;
margin-right: 0cm;
margin-top: 0cm;
}
a:link
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;
}
</style>
</head>

Ein Yaakov
- The World of Talmudic Aggada

By Dr.
Moshe Simon-Shoshan

<o:p> </o:p>

Lecture 8:
 Daf 3b

In the
middle of the night, in the face of death

<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

How many
watches during the night?

<o:p> </o:p>

The Gemara
now returns to the question of how to break down the night.  As we have already seen, there were
two options for breaking down the night in the ancient world:
 three watches, which was the biblical
(and Babylonian) tradition, or four watches, which was the Roman practice.  Previously, the Gemara sided with the
threefold division.  Now, however,
the Gemara presents these two options as a dispute between two Tannaim:

<o:p> </o:p>

Our Rabbis
taught:


The night has
four watches.  These are the words of
Rabbi. 


R. Natan
says: Three. 


What is the
reason of R. Natan?

It is
written:


So Gidon,
and the hundred men that were with him,


came into the
outermost part of the camp


in the
beginning of the middle watch (Shoftim 7:19).


And one
taught:


Under
'middle' is to be understood


only
something which is preceded by one and followed by one. 


And Rabbi? 

'The middle'
means: one of the middle ones.

And R. Natan?

Not 'one of
the middle ones' is written,


but 'the
middle' is written.

<o:p> </o:p>

First the
Gemara presents the dispute.  R.
Natan holds that there are three watches, while Rabbi holds that there are four.  Interestingly, R. Natan, who is from
Babylonia, holds that there are three parts to the night, as did the ancient
Babylonians.  In contrast, Rabbi, AKA
Rabbi Yehuda Ha-nasi, was one of the Patriarchs, who were known to be closer to
Greco-Roman culture than their colleagues. 
This may partially explain why Rabbi favors the Roman four-part division
of the night.

<o:p> </o:p>

The Gemara
then presents R. Natans proof for his position. 
As we discussed earlier, the verse in Shoftim refers to a middle
watch, suggesting that there are an odd number of watches, minimally three.  This verse is quite a good proof that
there are three, not four, watches. 
What then does Rabbi do with this verse? He has little choice but to suggest an
alternative reading of the verse. 
The verse could mean only that the watch was one of the middle watches,
leaving room for four watches.  R
Natan responds that if this were the case, the verse should have explicitly
stated that Gidon struck during one of the middle watches. 


<o:p> </o:p>

The Gemara
now turns to Rabbis proof for his position, which is not as straightforward as
R. Natans:

<o:p> </o:p>

R. Zerika, in
the name of R. Ami, in the name of R. Yehoshua b. Levi, says:


One verse
reads,


At <st1:time Minute="0" Hour="0"
w:st="on">midnight</st1:time> do I rise to give thanks unto Thee


because of
Thy righteous ordinances (Tehillim 119:62)


And another
verse reads:


Mine eyes
forestall the watches (Tehillim 119:148)


How is this?

[This is
possible only if] the night has four watches.

<o:p> </o:p>

Rabbis proof
comes, not from a straightforward reading of a single verse, but from a
deduction based on the juxtaposition of two verses from Tehillim 119.  Psalm 119, the longest chapter in 
Sefer Tehillim, is an eight-ply acrostic, consisting of eight verse units in
which each verse starts with the same successive letter of the alphabet.  The entire chapter is devoted to
praise of God and His word.  In the
section of verses beginning with the letter chet, we read, At midnight (chatzot)
do I rise to give thanks unto Thee. This verse seems to firmly establish the
fact that David arose at midnight. 
Yet later on in the psalm, in the tzadi section, the psalmist declares,
Mine eyes forestall the watches. The exact meaning of this verse is clear.  Literally, the verse reads my eyes
precede (kidmu) the watches." 
JPS translates the verse as, My eyes greet each watch of the night.
Robert Alter, in his translation of Tehillim, similarly understands this
verse as meaning that David stayed up all night studying Torah.  Amos Chakham zl in Daat Mikra,
in contrast, understands the word ashmorot as singular, referring to the
last, morning watch.  According to
him, David arose before dawn, during the final watch.

<o:p> </o:p>

The Sages,
however, in keeping with midrashic method, present a hyper-literal
interpretation of the verse.  They
understand the words my eyes precede as meaning I awake before. They
understand the term watches as referring to exactly two watches.  In other words, David arose two
watches before the dawn.  Now, Rabbi
argues, since we know from the first verse that David awoke at midnight, there
must be two watches from midnight to dawn. 
This means that there are a total of four watches. 


<o:p> </o:p>

Just as the
Gemara tried to understand how Rabbi would have responded to R. Natans proof
that there are only three watches, now the Gemara tries to understand how R.
Natan would have responded to Rabbis proof:


<o:p> </o:p>

And R. Natan?

He is of the
opinion of R. Yehoshua, as we have learnt:


R. Yehoshua
says:


until the
third hour, for such is the custom of kings, to rise in the third hour.

Six hours of
the night and two hours of the day amount to two watches.

R. Ashi says:
One watch and a half are also spoken of as 'watches.

<o:p> </o:p>

R. Natan has
a different understanding of the second verse from Tehillim 119.  He reads the verse as saying my eyes
have preceded [other kings] by two watches. In other words, David arises at
the time equivalent to two watches prior to the time when other kings awake.  If there are three watches, then each
watch is four hours and David arises eight hours before the other kings.  If David awakes at midnight, as
stated in the first verse from Tehillim, then this would mean that the
other kings arise eight hours later, which takes us to the beginning of the
third daylight hour.  R.  Yehoshuas statement, that kings
arise in the third hour, corroborates this finding.  Thus these two verses can be
reconciled, even according to R. Natans position. 


<o:p> </o:p>

R. Ashi has a
more straightforward understanding. 
According to his understanding, like Rabbi, R. Natan agrees that the verse
refers to David awaking watches before the dawn.  However, R. Natan argues that the
term watches does not necessarily refer to two or more watches; rather, it can
refer to any amount of time more than one watch. 
In this case, there are one and a half watches between midnight and dawn,
according to R. Natan.  So R. Natan
may read the verse as saying I arise one and a half watches before dawn, just
as Rabbi reads it as saying, I arise two watches before dawn.

<o:p> </o:p>

By citing
these two verses from Tehillim in the discussion of the evening Shema,
this section raises two larger thematic issues. 
The first issue is the significance of midnight.  Previously, we saw that the Mishna
concludes that midnight has no halakhic significance on the biblical level.  Biblically, the only significant
points in the night are the end of the first watch and dawn.  When the Mishna states that a certain
action must be done before midnight, it refers only to an artificial precaution
instituted by the rabbis.  In fact,
in all such cases, one can really do the action until the end of the night. 


<o:p> </o:p>

Now midnight
appears once again as central to Rabbis argument for a fourfold division of the
night.  The fourfold scheme, by
definition, divides the night in half and thereby marks midnight as a
significant time.  The threefold
model does not mark midnight at all. 
Though the Bible mentions midnight, it gains real significance only in the Roman
world.  The Romans, whose legacy
lives on till this day, mark the beginning of the new day at midnight.  Not coincidentally, they are also the
source of the fourfold division of the night. 
The Gemara will continue its discussion of <st1:time Minute="0" Hour="0" w:st="on">
midnight</st1:time>
right after the next section.

<o:p> </o:p>

These verses
in Tehillim also raise the idea that the middle of the night is actually
an optimal time for prayer. 
Previously, we noted that there is no place for prayer between sunset and dawn
in a model of prayer based on the Temple sacrifices, because the Temple did not
operate during that time.  The idea
of praying at night can be understood in two ways.  In an experiential model of prayer,
all times are good for prayer. 
Alternatively, prayer is particularly appropriate at night, when one may feel
vulnerable and endangered.

<o:p> </o:p>

Silence of
the Dead

<o:p> </o:p>

The next
small section is a digression from the Gemaras focus on nighttime.  Since the Gemara just quoted a
tradition transmitted by R. Zerika, in the name of R. Ami, in the name of R.
Yehoshua b. Levi, the Gemara now presents another tradition that was handed down
by the same line of scholars:

<o:p> </o:p>

R. Zerika
further said, in the name of R. Ami, in the name of R. Yehoshua b. Levi: One may
discuss in the presence of a dead body only things relating to the dead. 


R. Aba b.
Kahana says:


This refers
only to matters of Torah, 

but as for
worldly matters there is no harm.

Another
version is:


R. Aba b.
Kahana says:


This refers
even to matters of Torah.

How much more
so to worldly matters!


<o:p> </o:p>

This
discussion about appropriate speech in the presence of a dead body would appear
to be linked to the well known ruling found in the Mishna at the beginning of
the third chapter of Berakhot:

<o:p> </o:p>

ONE WHOSE
DEAD [RELATIVE] LIES BEFORE HIM

IS EXEMPT
FROM THE RECITAL OF THE SHEMA

AND FROM THE
TEFILLA AND FROM TEFILLIN

AND FROM ALL
THE PRECEPTS LAID DOWN IN THE TORAH.

<o:p> </o:p>

In both
cases, we have rules that exempt or prohibit a person from doing normal
activities in the presence of a dead body. 
Why should these rules apply? If we focus on R. Zerikas original
statement, he appears to prohibit all speech not directly connected to the needs
of the dead person.  In this case, we
could suggest that the presence of the dead body obligates those around him to
tend to his burial.  All other
activities not connected to the burial, including speaking, are prohibited.  Another possibility involves the
concept of loeg la-rash, taunting the poor man. Since the dead person
has lost his ability to engage in human activities, such as speaking, doing so
in his presence is disrespectful or even cruel.

<o:p> </o:p>

R. Aba b.
Kahana, in the first version of his statement, suggests that the prohibition
against speech in the presence of the dead may be limited only to words of
Torah.  All other speech would be
permitted.  This prohibition does not
seem to be motivated by an obligation to focus on burying the dead.  The second possibility we raised
above, loeg la-rash, seems much more likely here.  In this view, the greatest loss to a
dead person is the ability to do mitzvot. 
Therefore, only words of Torah may not be spoken before the dead.

<o:p> </o:p>

As we noted
earlier, this passage appears here primarily because it is transmitted by the
same chain of rabbis as the previous passage. 
Otherwise, it appears to be a digression or non-sequitur.  However, I wonder if there is a
thematic connection between this discussion of speaking before the dead and the
surrounding passages.  In many forms
of literature, death is linked with night. 
Perhaps most famously, we have the images of the shadow of death in 
Tehillim 23.  If so, a discussion
of prayer at night may be connected to a discussion of speech in the presence of
death, especially words of Torah.

<o:p> </o:p>

More Royal
Insomnia

<o:p> </o:p>

The Gemara
now returns to its discussion of Tehillim 105 and its implications for
King Davids nightly schedule:

<o:p> </o:p>

But did David
rise at <st1:time
Minute="0" Hour="0" w:st="on">midnight</st1:time>?


[Surely] he
rose with the evening dusk?


For it is
written:


I rose with
the neshef and cried, (Tehillim
119:147)


And how do
you know that this word neshef means the evening?


It is
written:


In the 
neshef, in the evening of the day,

in the
blackness of night and the darkness! (Mishlei 7:9)  


R. Oshaya, in
the name of R. Acha, replies:


David said: <st1:time Minute="0"
Hour="0" w:st="on">Midnight</st1:time> never passed me by in my sleep. 


R. Zeira
says:


Till <st1:time Minute="0" Hour="0"
w:st="on">midnight</st1:time> he used to doze like a horse, 


from thence
on he rose with the energy of a lion.

R. Ashi says:

Till <st1:time Minute="0" Hour="0"
w:st="on">midnight</st1:time> he studied the Torah,


from thence
on he recited songs and praises.

But does 
neshef mean the evening?


Surely 
neshef means the morning?


For it is
written:


And David
slew them from the 'neshef' to the evening erev of the next day,

and does not
this mean, from the 'morning dawn' to the evening?


No.  [It means:] from the [one] eventide
to the [next] eventide.

If so, let
him write: From neshef to neshef, or from erev to erev?

Rather, said
Raba:


There are two
kinds of neshef:


[the morning
neshef], when the evening disappears and the morning arrives,

[and the
evening neshef], when the day disappears and the evening arrives.

<o:p> </o:p>

Previously,
the Gemara sought to reconcile two verses from Tehillim 119 concerning
Davids nighttime activities: At midnight do I rise to give thanks unto Thee
because of Thy righteous ordinances (62) and Mine eyes forestall the watches
(148).  Now the Gemara seeks to
reconcile this with yet another verse from the psalm, I rose with the neshef
and cried (149).  The critical
question remains, when is neshef? In biblical Hebrew, the word can refer
to both dusk and dawn, much like the rabbinic term, bein ha-shemashot.  To which does it refer in this
verse? Generally speaking, one speaks of rising before dawn, not before dusk.  Furthermore, as we have already seen,
the very next verse says, Mine eyes forestall the watches."  If, as Amos Chakham says, this refers
to arising in the final watch of the night, then there is perfect parallelism
between the two verses.  According to
those who argue that this verse refers to staying up all night (see Radak), the
interpretation of morning is still preferable. 
We have then a classic example of intensification in biblical poetry.  The psalm first cites a more moderate
image, I arise very early! and then a more extreme one, I never really go to
sleep!

<o:p> </o:p>

Interestingly, in attempting to clarify the meaning of neshef in this
verse, the Gemara does not seek to read the verse in the context of the previous
one, even though it has just discussed that same verse.  This illustrates how context is often
irrelevant in midrashic interpretation. 
In order to prove its point, the Gemara leaves Tehillim altogether
to find a verse in Mishlei in which neshef refers to the evening.  Interestingly, in Mishlei,
nighttime takes on a very different coloring than it did just previously in the
verses from Tehillim.  Whereas
in Tehillim, the night is a time for study and prayer, in Mishlei,
the cover of night is used for an illicit sexual encounter.

<o:p> </o:p>

The Gemara
now cites three possible resolutions for the contradiction between the two
verses one says that David wakes up at dusk (i.e., he never went to sleep),
and the other says that he wakes up at midnight. 
R. Oshaya favors the verse which says that David stayed awake all night.  Therefore, he understands the verse
about awakening at midnight in a slightly non-literal sense.  The Psalmist does not say I arise
at midnight, but rather, I am awake at midnight, never having gone to sleep. 


<o:p> </o:p>

R. Zeira
takes a more diplomatic approach. 
The two verses give conflicting accounts about whether David was awake or asleep
from dusk until midnight.  He
therefore suggests that David was somewhere between sleep and wakefulness at
this time.  He dozed he drifted
on the periphery of sleep.  Hence,
the descriptions of both verses are accurate.

<o:p> </o:p>

Finally, R.
Ashi suggests yet another solution. 
Like R. Oshaya, he agrees that David never sleeps at all.  However, he envisions a greater
significance to David being awake at midnight. 
The various verses cited from Tehillim 119 do not clearly specify
what David does when he is up in the middle of the night.  Does he pray, or does he study Torah?
The relationship between prayer and Torah study appears throughout the first
chapter of Berakhot.  Here, R.
Ashi divides the night between the two. 
David devotes the first half of the night to Torah, as we see from verse
147.  We understand this verse as
referring to David being up all night, and its last words are, I hope for Your
word, which is interpreted as Torah study. 
Here, the context of the verse seems to be relevant to its
interpretation. The previous verse, Mine eyes forestall the watches
concludes, to dwell on Your utterances," which unambiguously refers to Torah
study.

<o:p> </o:p>

An image of
King David emerges from this discussion who does not, or barely, sleeps, but,
rather, devotes his nighttime to study and prayer.  David appears as a paradigm of
commitment to spiritual life.

<o:p> </o:p>

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!