Daf 6b - Time, Place, Motion
Ein Yaakov
- The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr.
Moshe Simon-Shoshan
Lecture #22: Daf 6b
Time, Place, Motion
In recent weeks, we have seen the Gemara comment numerous times on the sanctity
of the synagogue, the importance of praying there, and appropriate prayer
practices in general. In this
sugya, the Gemara picks up on this theme, focusing on the need for
consistency and regularity in ones prayer and synagogue attendance. The Gemara presents the last in a
series of statements by Rabin son of R. Adda:
Rabin son of
R. Adda in the name of R. Yitzchak says:
If a man is
accustomed to attend synagogue [daily]
and one day
does not go,
the Holy One,
blessed be He, makes inquiry about him.
For it is
said:
Who is among
you that fears the Lord,
that obeys
the voice of His servant,
and now walks
in darkness and hath no light? (Yishayahu 50:10).
If he
absented himself on account of some religious purpose,
he shall have
light.
But if he
absented himself on account of a worldly purpose,
he shall have
no light.
Let him
trust in the name of the Lord.
Why?
Because he
ought to have trusted in the name of the Lord
and he did
not trust.
This passage
deals with the importance of daily synagogue attendance. The Gemara makes an interesting
claim. It suggests that when one
attends daily services in the synagogue, one risks a Divine investigation and
possible punishment if one misses an occasional service. The implication is that one who does
not attend services regularly is not subject to the same scrutiny.
Why should
this be? I would like to suggest that by attending synagogue daily, one gains a
special relationship with God, whose place, as we have said, is in the
synagogue. God pays special
attention to such people. While this
is generally beneficial, it also means that the person is held to a higher
standard and may be punished for it.
This passage
also teaches us something about regular prayer in the synagogue. One might have thought that if one
goes to synagogue most of the time, an occasional absence is not a big deal. In fact, however, the ideal of
synagogue attendance is that one comes each and every day, unless one has a
pressing moral or halakhic obligation that requires one to be away from the
synagogue. A model for this daily
service, come rain or shine, is the daily Tamid offerings in the Temple. If attending synagogue is like
offering a sacrifice, that offering only rises to the level of the Tamid
if it is offered each and every day.
Finally, I would to like to focus on the verse from Yishayahu quoted here
and the Gemaras interpretation of it.
Translated literally, the entire verse reads:
Who among you
fears the Lord
and obeys the
voice of his servant,
That walks
(or walked) in darkness
and has no
light,
trusts in the
name of the Lord
and relies
upon his God?
This verse is
most incongruous. Why would those
people who fear God obey His servant and trust in the name of the Lord,
also walk in darkness? Translators
and commentators have offered various solutions to this problem. Our Gemara presents its own midrashic
approach. As I reconstruct it, it
goes as follows: First, the Gemara understands the phrase mi bakhem,
translated here as meaning something like who among you, as meaning something
like where are you. Next, it
parses the verse so that it reads, Where are you the servants of God
that left
(lit. walked). Who are these absent
God-fearers that God seeks out? The Gemara understands that they are those who
usually attend synagogue daily, but are suddenly absent. The punishment for such people is
that they will dwell in darkness, without light. Finally, the Gemara interprets the
final clause of the verse, trusts in the name of the Lord
as
being an admonition to those who missed synagogue. They should have had faith in God,
that no matter how urgent the business was that seemed to justify missing
minyan, God would provide and make sure that everything would work out
alright for those who steadfastly attend minyan. In sum, the Gemara reads the verse as
follows: Those of you who fear God and obey the voice of his servant (i.e.
those of you who attend synagogue regularly,) who go away (i.e. fail to come to
synagogue on a given day), they will find themselves in darkness without light. [They should have] trusted in the
name of the Lord
The attentive
reader will notice that my interpretation of the Gemaras reading of this verse
glosses over a key aspect of the reading.
The Gemara states, If he absented
himself on account of some religious purpose, he shall have light. But if he absented himself on account
of a worldly purpose, he shall have no light. The Gemara appears to read this
verse as referring to two different cases, one in which the person is absent
from synagogue with a worthy alibi, and one in which he has no good excuse for
not showing up. How can the verse
refer to both cases? I would argue that the rabbis did not view the verse as
directly referring to two different cases, with different outcomes. The verse, in their eyes, refers
simply to a synagogue regular who misses services on a given day. However, such a reading is
problematic for the Gemara.
This reading
accords extreme significance to daily synagogue attendance, making it akin, as
we have said, to the need for daily sacrifices in the Temple. The implication is that missing
minyan is not acceptable under any circumstances. This position does not sit well with
the Gemaras overall understanding of the place of prayer within the halakhic
system. As we discussed in our
analysis of the story of the heavenly voice in the ruins, the Gemara ultimately
champions a halakhic approach over a charismatic, mystical approach to prayer. Prayer is not a direct encounter with
the Divine, which supersedes all other values and requirements. Rather, it is a halakhic requirement
among many halakhic requirements that obligate a Jew. In some situations, other halakhic
requirements have greater priority than attendance at the synagogue. In such cases, not only is it
permitted; it is required to miss synagogue to attend to other needs. Hence, the Gemara tells us that this
verse refers only to those who miss services without a good excuse. They shall suffer from darkness. The Gemara, however, informs us that
implicit in this condemnation is an assurance that those who miss services in
order to perform a more pressing mitzvah shall be rewarded.
The Gemara
now continues with the theme of the importance of communal prayer in the
synagogue:
R. Yochanan
says:
Whenever the
Holy One, blessed be He,
comes into a
synagogue
and does not
find ten persons there,
He becomes
angry at once.
For it is
said:
Wherefore,
when I came, was there no man?
When I
called, was there no answer? (Yishayahu 50:2)
When people
do not show up to synagogue with quotidian regularity, at times there will be no
minyan. In this case, not
just the individual misses communal prayer, but the entire community. This passage picks up on the earlier
statement that God dwells in the synagogue among ten or more men who assemble
for worship. In the Gemaras
understanding, God as if appears at the synagogue at the appointed time for
prayers. If a minyan is not
gathered there, it is a direct affront to God.
It is like a king who comes to visit a town, and no one comes out to
greet him. This situation,
understandably, makes God angry.
These two
passages are linked not only because they both emphasize the importance of
regular communal prayer, but also because they both cite verses from
Yishayahu chapter 50. By
comparing the original context of these verses with the way in which the rabbis
interpret them, we can gain a sense of the difference between the prophetic
sensibility of the Bible and the halakhic sensibility of the rabbis.
This chapter
in Yishayahu deals with the coming of the redemption following the exile
to Babylonia. God calls out to the
faithful to follow Him and rebukes those who ignore His call. This chapter deals in
national-historical terms. It
discusses service of God in terms of an overall commitment to follow His ways. In contrast, the Gemara reads these
verses in terms of a halakhic requirement for individuals and the community to
pray with a quorum in the synagogue.
The rabbis focus on the individual and local community, using terms of day to
day practice and not one time opportunities for national redemption.
The rabbinic
worldview is generally more oriented towards the individual and the local
community, and focuses on technical legal obligations. The prophetic worldview is more
oriented toward the nation as a whole and its historical relationship with God. The Gemara is not seeking to replace
the prophetic worldview with their own, but, rather, to create a dialogue
between these two approaches.
Ultimately, we must embrace both of these worldviews and, between the two of
them, chart a course in the world.
The Gemara
continues its discussion of the proper location for prayer by presenting a brief
discussion of the importance of always praying in the same fixed place:
R. Chelbo, in
the name of R. Huna, says:
Whosoever has
a fixed place for his prayer
has the God
of Avraham as his helper.
And when he
dies, people will say of him:
Where is the
pious man?!
where is the
humble man?!
one of the
disciples of our father Avraham!
How do we
know that our father Avraham
had a fixed
place [for his prayer]?
For it is
written:
And Avraham
got up early in the morning
to the place
where he had stood. (Bereishit 19:27)
And
'standing' means nothing else but prayer.
For it is
said:
Then stood
up Pinchas and prayed. (Tehillim 106:30)
It is not
exactly clear what R. Helbo means by a fixed place for prayer. Some commentaries say that he means
that not only must one pray in the synagogue, one must also play in a fixed
place within the synagogue. In this
reading, R. Chelbo comes to further reinforce the importance of regular prayer
in the synagogue. Other commentaries
say that this refers to a fixed place outside of the synagogue, such as in ones
home. According to this reading, R.
Chelbo may be legitimizing a different form of prayer, based not in the communal
synagogue but in a private place of meditation.
This would reflect a more charismatic approach to prayer as opposed to
what we have called a halakhic approach.
Most of this
passage is quite clear. It states
that a person who prays regularly in the same location will merit aid from the
God of Avraham, because Avraham too prayed in the same location all the time. The Gemara proves this claim by
citing a verse from Bereishit which is understood to mean, when
interpreted in light of a verse from Tehillim, that Avraham had a regular
place of prayer. The only puzzling
part is the line which declares that such a person will be eulogized as a pious
and humble man, a follower of Avraham.
Why should this be so? Just because a person followed one trait of
Avraham, does that mean that he was righteous and humble like Avraham? This line
can be better understood in light of a passage from Masekhet Semachot,
one of the minor tractates, which deals with laws of mourning. It states:
When Hillel
the elder died they said of him:
Where is the
pious man?!
where is the
humble man?!
one of the
disciples of Ezra!
When Shmuel
Ha-katan died they said of him:
Where is the
pious man?!
where is the
humble man?!
one of the
disciples of our Hillel.
This passage
repeats twice the exact same words we saw in the Gemara. The only difference is
that each time a different great Jew is substituted for our father Avraham. This suggests that we are dealing
with a standard formula for eulogy.
The only variance to this formula is that in each case, the person is compared
to a different historical figure. By
citing this formula the Gemara seems to be saying that one who prays in the same
place all the time will merit a eulogy formula worthy of great men, and that he
will be compared to Avraham, since he has one of his important traits.
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!