Berakhot 3b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara explains: This reason is needed to prohibit entering

a new one,

a ruin of a new building, in which a wall was destroyed or fell because it was not built properly , but the other walls are not weak, and there is no concern that they will fall; the prohibition against entering it is only because of suspicion.

The Gemara still asks: Why is the reason of suspicion needed

and let it derive from

concern for

harmful beings

that are also found in a “new” ruin?

The Gemara explains: The reason of “suspicion” is needed in order to prohibit also

two,

when two people enter the ruin together, for in such a case they need not fear harmful beings, and only the reason of suspicion remains.

The Gemara rejects:

If

it is speaking

of two,

then

there is also no suspicion,

for being secluded with a woman is permitted for two men together .

Therefore, the Gemara establishes that the beraita is dealing

with two licentious men,

for seclusion was permitted only with two proper men, but with licentious men it is prohibited, and therefore there is suspicion concerning them, and it emerges that although the case is of a “new” ruin, in which there is no concern of collapse, and of “two,” in which there is no concern of harm from harmful beings, nevertheless they are prohibited from entering the ruin because of suspicion.

The Gemara asks about the second reason:

“Because of the collapse”

for what purpose is it needed,

and let it derive

that it is prohibited to enter

because of “suspicion” and

also because of

“harmful beings”?

The Gemara explains: The concern of “collapse” is needed

with two proper men,

when two proper people enter a ruin, because since they are two they need not fear harmful beings, and since they are two proper men there is no suspicion concerning them; nevertheless, they are prohibited from entering because of concern of collapse.

The Gemara asks about the third reason:

“Because of harmful beings”

for what purpose is it needed,

and let it derive because of suspicion and

because of concern for

collapse?

The Gemara explains:

In a new ruin, and with two proper men,

in a new ruin in which there is no concern of collapse of the walls that remain, and the people entering are two proper men concerning whom there is no suspicion; nevertheless, they are prohibited from entering because of harmful beings.

The Gemara wonders:

If

it is speaking

of two, there are also no harmful beings,

so why should they be prohibited from entering?

The Gemara answers:

In their place we are concerned,

in a place where they are always found, we fear that they will cause harm even to two people, and in such a place, although there is no concern of collapse or suspicion, it is prohibited to enter because of harmful beings.

And if you wish, say: Actually,

the reason “because of harmful beings” is needed even

with one,

for one person who comes to enter a ruin, and it is speaking

of a new ruin that stands in the open field

[in the field], and since it is new there is no concern of collapse, and there is even

no suspicion,

there is no concern,

for a woman is not commonly found in the open field, and

however, there is concern

because of harmful beings,

since he is one person.

The Gemara brings the disagreement mentioned above regarding the number of watches:

The Sages taught: The night consists of four watches,

and each watch is three hours,

the words of Rabbi. Rabbi

Natan says: Three

watches make up the night, and each one is four hours .

The Gemara analyzes:

What is the reason of Rabbi Natan?

The Gemara explains:

As it is written

[Judges 7:19]:

“And Gideon and the hundred men who were with him came to the edge of the camp at the beginning of the middle watch.”

And

the tanna

Rabbi Natan taught in a beraita,

a

watch is not called

middle

[central]

unless

there is

one before it and one after it.

That is, since we find “a middle watch,” there must necessarily be one before it and one after it; from here, the night consists of three watches.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi,

who holds that the night consists of four watches, how will he explain the expression “the middle”? The Gemara explains: Rabbi will interpret it:

What is “middle”?

One of the middle ones among the middle ones.

That is, the two middle watches are called “middle,” since there are watches before them and after them; and “the beginning of the middle watch” means the beginning of one of the middle watches.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Natan

what will he answer to Rabbi's rejection?

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Natan will answer:

Is “the middle one among the middle ones” written,

which would imply that there is an additional middle watch?

“The middle” is written,

which implies one middle watch, with one before it and one after it; thus there are only three watches!

The Gemara analyzes:

What is Rabbi's reason,

what compelled him to say that there are four watches in the night?

The Gemara explains:

Rav Zerika said, Rav Ami said, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In

a

single verse

[Psalms 119:62]

King David says:

David the king:

“At midnight I rise to thank You for Your righteous judgments,”

so he would rise at midnight, that is, six hours before the end of the night,

and

if

a single verse

else

says

David the king [ibid. 148]:

“My eyes preceded the watches

to speak of Your word,” then he rose two watches before dawn.

How is this possible,

how is it possible that he rose at midnight and there were still two watches until the end of the night? Necessarily,

the night consists of four watches!

And each watch is three hours, so from midnight until dawn there are still two watches.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Natan,

what will he answer concerning Rabbi's proof?

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Natan

holds like Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned:

below [9b], until when is the time for reciting the morning Shema:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Until three hours

of the first part of the day,

for such is the way of kings

to rise [to awaken from their sleep]

at three hours

at the beginning of the third hour of the day, and therefore King David said, “My eyes preceded the watches,” because he rose before the other kings, for

six of the night,

the six hours from midnight until morning,

and two of the day,

in addition to the two hours during the day in which the kings were still sleeping,

amount to

together eight hours, which are

two watches,

each one being four hours, like one-third of the night.

Rav Ashi said

to explain the verse according to Rabbi Natan in another way: Indeed, from midnight until dawn there are only six hours, which are only one and a half watches, and nevertheless David called them “watches,” because

one and a half watches are also called “watches.”

And

another halakhic ruling:

Rav Zerika said, Rav Ami said, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One may say before the deceased only the deceased's matters,

things required for the honor of the deceased.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: We said this only regarding words of Torah,

this prohibition was stated only concerning words of Torah that are not among the needs of the deceased, because everyone is obligated to engage in words of Torah, and since the deceased is silent, this falls under “mocking the poor,”

but ordinary matters are not a concern,

there is no prohibition against speaking ordinary things before him, because it is not disgraceful to be silent about them, and it is not an insult to the deceased that one is silent.

And some say

that this is how

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: We said this only

that it is prohibited to speak before the deceased

but

[even ]

with words of Torah, and all the more so ordinary matters,

which are certainly prohibited to say before the deceased.

The Gemara returns to discuss David’s words, “At midnight I arise to give thanks to You,” and raises the question:

and

because

David

only

stood at half of the night [arose from his sleep]? But already

from the evening [from the beginning of the evening]

from the evening

[from the beginning of the evening]

he was standing,

as we find

for it is written [Psalms 119:147]:

[Psalms 119:147]:

“I preceded the dusk and cried out,”

which implies that he preceded the cry already in the evening.

And from where [do we know] that this “dusk” is the evening

[the beginning of the evening]

? —

For it is written [Proverbs 7:9]:

[Proverbs 7:9]:

“In the dusk

[which is]

in the evening of the day, in the pupil of the night and darkness.”

It follows that “dusk” is in the “evening of the day,” that is, at the beginning of the night.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Oshaya said that Rabbi Aḥa said:

When David said, “At midnight I arise,”

this is what he said: Midnight never passed over me in sleep.

Since he had already arisen beforehand, namely, from the beginning of the night.

Rabbi Zeira said

another answer: Indeed, he had already arisen at the beginning of the evening, but

until midnight he was

engaged in Torah

while dozing like a horse,

like a horse, which never falls fully asleep, but dozes and is always awake, and concerning this he said, “I preceded the dusk and cried out”;

from here

from midnight

and onward he would strengthen himself like a lion

and engage in Torah, and concerning this he said, “At midnight I arise to give thanks to You.”

Rav Ashi said

another answer: Indeed, David would arise at the beginning of the night, as he said, “I preceded the dusk,” except that

until midnight he was engaged in words of Torah ,

from here

from midnight

and onward

he was engaged

in songs and praises ,

and concerning this David said, “At midnight I arise to give thanks to You.”

The Gemara challenges the assumption that “dusk” means “evening”:

and

because

is dusk the evening? But dusk is the morning

morning

is,

as we find

for it is written [I Samuel 30:17]:

[I Samuel 30:17]:

“And David struck them from the dusk until the evening of the next day.”

What, is it not

the meaning of the verse that he struck them

from morning until night,

so “dusk” is morning!

The Gemara answers:

No.

“Dusk” does not mean morning but evening, and the meaning of the verse is that David struck them

from evening until evening,

from that evening until the following evening.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

that he struck them from evening until evening,

let it write, “from dusk until dusk,”

or

“from evening until evening,”

and from the change in the language of the verse, which began with “dusk” and ended with “evening,” it implies that dusk is morning.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, Rava said: “Dusk” means that it leaped and passed, that is, the time of the transition of the seasons,

and

and there are two dusks,

there are two times called dusk: a.

the dusk of the night —

at dawn, when the night has passed

and

afterward

the day comes,

at sunrise, and the intervening time is called “dusk.” b.

the dusk of the day,

at sunset, when the day has passed

and

afterward

the night comes,

at the appearance of the stars, and the intervening time is called “dusk” . And when David said, “I preceded the dusk,” his intention was the beginning of the evening. Whereas the explanation of the verse, “And David struck them from the dusk until the evening,” is from the morning dusk until the evening.

The Gemara asks:

And David,

who said, “At midnight I arise” ,

did he know when half of the night was

exactly?

Now, Moses our teacher did not know

when precisely the hour of midnight was,

for

it is

written that Moses said to Pharaoh [Exodus 11:5]:

“At approximately midnight I shall go out in the midst of Egypt.”

“At approximately midnight I shall go out in the midst of Egypt,”

and it is seemingly difficult:

what

is the meaning of the expression

“at approximately midnight”

that Moses used, which is an expression of uncertainty, as though saying, around the time of midnight?

If you say

that is, if you say,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “at approximately midnight,”

and he quoted it thus before Pharaoh — this cannot be said,

for is there uncertainty before Heaven

as to when the point of midnight occurs?

Rather,

necessarily

that He said to him

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses:

“(Tomorrow) ‘at midnight

(as at this time)

I shall go out from the midst of Egypt,” and

he came and said

to Pharaoh

“at approximately midnight,”

for he did not know how to determine precisely the point of midnight, and he did not wish to tell them something that he himself would not have been able to prove at the time of the event.

It follows that it was uncertain to him

when precisely midnight occurred,

and

how

did David know

when midnight was?!

The Gemara answers:

David had a sign

by which to determine precisely the hour of midnight.

For Rav Aḥa bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: A lyre was suspended above David’s bed, and when midnight arrived, the northern wind came and blew upon it, and it played by itself.

Immediately he would stand and engage in Torah until the pillar of

dawn rose.

When the pillar of dawn rose, the sages of Israel entered to him

to engage in the needs of the public,

they said to him

Our lord the king, your people Israel require a livelihood!

He said to them

David:

Go and support yourselves from one another,

the wealthy should support the poor.

They said to him: A handful does not satisfy a lion,

a full handful of hay cannot satisfy a lion,

and

a pit is not filled from its own excavated earth.

It is a parable: One who uproots a clod of earth from the bottom of a pit and throws it back into it does not thereby fill the pit, but only if he brings additional earth from another place. So too here, we cannot fill the deficiency of the poor among us except if they bring it from another place.

He said to them

David:

Go and spread forth your hands

to fight

against the troop

and bring spoils for the needs of the people.

Immediately they consulted Ahithophel,

they went to consult Ahithophel, that he should advise them of the route by which they should go in battle, and likewise of the tactics of the battle,

and

afterward they took

permission from the Sanhedrin

to go out to war, so that they would pray for them,

and they asked by means of the Urim and Tumim

whether they would succeed in the war.

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse?

Where do we find in the Writings that this was the order: first they consulted Ahithophel, afterward the Sanhedrin, and afterward the Urim and Tumim?

As it is written

(For it is written) [I Chronicles 27:34]:

“And after Ahithophel, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and Abiathar, and the commander of the army for the king, Joab.”

Ahithophel —

this is the counselor,

from whom they took counsel as to how to fight.

And so it says [II Samuel 16:23]:

[II Samuel 16:23]:

“And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was as when one asks

(a man) concerning the word of God.”

It follows that Ahithophel was a counselor.