Berakhot 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara explains: This reason is needed to prohibit entering

a new one,

a ruin in a newly constructed building in which one wall was demolished or fell because it was not properly built, while the other walls are not unstable and there is no concern that they will fall; the prohibition against entering it is only due to suspicion.

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

—let it be inferred from

the concern of

harmful spirits

that are also present in a “new” ruin?

The Gemara explains: The reason of “suspicion” is necessary to prohibit entering even

as two,

when two people enter a ruin together, since in such a case they need not fear harmful spirits; only the reason of suspicion remains.

The Gemara rejects this:

If

the case is

two,

then

there is no suspicion either,

since seclusion with a woman is permitted for two men together.

Therefore, the Gemara establishes that the beraita is dealing with

two immoral men,

since seclusion was permitted only with two fit men, whereas with immoral men it is prohibited, and therefore there is suspicion concerning them. It follows that although the case involves a “new” ruin, where there is no concern of collapse, and “two” men, where there is no concern of harm from harmful spirits, they are nevertheless prohibited from entering the ruin because of suspicion.

The Gemara challenges the second reason:

“Because of collapse”

—why is this needed?

Let it be inferred

that it is prohibited to enter

because of “suspicion” and

also because of

“harmful spirits”?

The Gemara explains: The concern of “collapse” is needed in a case of

two fit men,

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

The Gemara challenges the third reason:

“Because of harmful spirits”

—why is this needed?

Let it be inferred from suspicion and

from concern of

collapse?

The Gemara explains:

In a new ruin, and with two fit men,

meaning a new ruin in which there is no concern that the remaining walls will collapse, and the people entering are two fit men, so there is no suspicion concerning them; nevertheless, they are prohibited from entering because of harmful spirits.

The Gemara wonders:

If

the case involves

two, there are no harmful spirits either;

why should entering be prohibited?

The Gemara answers:

In their place we are concerned,

meaning in a place where they are constantly found, one fears that they will cause harm even to two people. In such a place, although there is no concern of collapse or suspicion, entering is prohibited because of harmful spirits.

And if you wish, say:

The reason “because of harmful spirits” is needed even

for one,

for a single person who comes to enter a ruin. The case is

a new ruin standing in an open field

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

no suspicion,

no concern,

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

nevertheless there is concern

because of harmful spirits,

since he is alone.

The Gemara brings the dispute mentioned above concerning the number of watches:

The Sages taught: The night consists of four watches,

and each watch is three hours long,

the words of Rabbi. Rabbi

Natan says: Three

watches constitute the night, and each is four hours long.

The Gemara discusses:

What is Rabbi Natan’s reason?

The Gemara explains:

As it is written

[Judges 7:19]:

“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

[or intermediate]

unless

it has

there are watches before it and after it.

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

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi,

who holds that the night consists of four watches, how does he interpret the term “middle”? The Gemara explains that Rabbi interprets it as follows:

What is meant by “middle”?

—

One of the middle watches.

That is, the two middle watches are called “middle,” since each has watches before and after it; 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 reply to Rabbi’s rejection?

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Natan will answer:

Is “the middle of the middle watches” written?

That wording would imply that there is another middle watch.

“Middle” is written,

implying one middle watch, with one before it and one after it. It follows that there are only three watches!

The Gemara discusses:

What is Rabbi’s reason,

what compelled him to say that the night consists of four watches?

The Gemara explains:

Rav Zerika said that Rav Ami said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

In

one verse

[Psalms 119:62]

King David says:

David the king:

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

Thus, he would rise at midnight, meaning six hours before the end of the night.

And

if

another verse

elsewhere

says

[ibid. 148]:

“My eyes preceded the watches

to meditate on Your word,” meaning that he rose two watches before dawn,

how is this possible?

How could he rise at midnight and still have two watches remaining until the end of the night? Necessarily,

the night consists of four watches!

Since each watch is three hours, there are two more watches from midnight until dawn.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Natan,

what will he reply to Rabbi’s proof?

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Natan

agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned:

Concerning the latest time for reciting the morning Shema below [9b],

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Until three hours

of the day have passed,

for this is the practice of kings

to rise [to awaken from their sleep]

at three hours,

at the beginning of the third hour of the day. Therefore, King David said, “My eyes preceded the watches,” because he rose two watches before the other kings, since

six of the night

—the six hours from midnight until dawn—

and two of the day,

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

amount to

a total of eight hours, which are

two watches,

each four hours long, 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 constitute only one and a half watches. Nevertheless, David called them “watches,” because

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

And

another halakha:

Rav Zerika said that Rav Ami said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One may say in the presence of the deceased only matters concerning the deceased,

namely, matters required for the honor of the deceased.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: We said this only with regard to Torah matters,

meaning that this prohibition was stated only concerning Torah matters that are not among the needs of the deceased. Since everyone is obligated to engage in Torah, while the deceased is silent, this falls under “mocking the poor”

; but ordinary matters are permitted,

and there is no prohibition against speaking ordinary words before him, because it is not demeaning to remain silent about them, and the deceased is not dishonored by one’s silence.

And some say

that this is what

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: We said

that it is prohibited to speak in the presence of the deceased

only

[even]

with regard to Torah matters, and all the more so with regard to ordinary matters,

which are certainly prohibited to say before the deceased.

The Gemara returns to discuss David’s statement, “At midnight I rise to give thanks to You,” and raises the following difficulty:

But

if

David

only

stood at midnight

[rose from his sleep], surely he was already

standing from the evening

[from the beginning of the evening]

already,

as we find

as it is written

[Psalms 119:147]:

“I preceded the dawn and cried out,”

which indicates that he cried out already in the evening.

And from where is it established that this “dawn” is the evening

[the beginning of the evening]

?

As it is written

[Proverbs 7:9]:

“At the dusk

[which is]

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

It is therefore evident that “dusk” refers to the “evening of the day,” that is, the beginning of the night.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Oshaya said that Rabbi Aḥa said:

When David said, “At midnight I rise,”

this is what he meant: Midnight has never passed over me while I was asleep.

Since he had already risen before then, namely, from the beginning of the night.

Rabbi Zeira said

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

until midnight he was

occupied with Torah while

dozing like a horse,

like a horse, which never falls completely asleep but only dozes and is always waking. And concerning this he said, “I preceded the dawn and cried out”;

from

midnight

onward he would strengthen himself like a lion

and occupy himself with Torah, and concerning this he said, “At midnight I rise to give thanks to You.”

Rav Ashi said

another answer: Indeed, David rose at the beginning of the night, as he said, “I preceded the dawn,” but

until midnight he occupied himself with words of Torah ;

from

midnight

onward

he occupied himself

with songs and praises ,

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

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

But

if

dawn means evening, is dawn not morning

morning

?

As we find

as it is written

[I Samuel 30:17]:

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

Does this not mean

that the verse means that he struck them

from morning until night,

thus indicating that “dawn” means morning?

The Gemara answers:

No.

“Dawn” does not mean morning but evening, and the verse means that David struck them

from one evening until the next evening,

from that evening until the following evening.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

that he struck them from evening until evening,

let the verse write, “from dawn until dawn,”

or

“from evening until evening”;

the change in wording, which begins with “dawn” and ends with “evening,” indicates that “dawn” means morning.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, Rava said: “Dawn” means that something leaps and passes, that is, a time of transition between periods,

and

there are two dawns:

There are two times called “dawn”: a.

the dawn of the night

at daybreak, when the night has passed,

and

afterward

the day comes,

at sunrise; the intervening period is called “dawn.” b.

the dawn of the day,

at sunset, when the day has passed,

and

afterward

the night comes,

at the emergence of the stars; the intervening period is called “dawn.” When David said, “I preceded the dawn,” he meant the beginning of the evening. Whereas the meaning of the verse, “David struck them from dawn until evening,” is from the morning dawn until evening.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And David,

who said, “At midnight I rise” ,

did he know when exactly midnight was

that it occurred precisely then?!

Now, Moses our teacher did not know

the exact time of midnight,

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,”

The wording is seemingly difficult:

What

is the meaning of the expression

“approximately midnight”

used by Moses, which is an expression of uncertainty, as though he were saying “around midnight”?

If you say

that

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

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

for is there uncertainty before Heaven

as to when the midpoint of the night occurs?

Rather,

necessarily,

He said to him

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

“At midnight (tomorrow)

(as it is now)

I shall go out in the midst of Egypt,”

and he came and said

to Pharaoh

“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 be unable to prove at the time of the event.

It follows that it was uncertain to him

when precisely midnight would occur;

and

how

did David know

when midnight was?!

The Gemara answers:

David had a sign

by which he could determine precisely the time of midnight.

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

Immediately he would rise and occupy himself with Torah until the pillar of

dawn rose.

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

to attend to the needs of the public.

They said to him

Our master, the king, the people of Israel need 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 handful of hay cannot satisfy a lion,

and

a pit is not filled from its own excavated earth.

The parable is of one who removes a layer of earth from the bottom of a pit and throws it back into the pit: the pit is not thereby filled, unless he brings additional earth from elsewhere. So too here, we cannot fill the deficiency of the poor among us unless it is brought from elsewhere.

He said to them,

David:

Go and stretch out your hands

to wage war

against the troop

and bring spoils for the needs of the people.

Immediately they consulted Ahithophel,

they went to consult Ahithophel so that he would advise them regarding the route they should take in battle, as well as the tactics of war.

And

afterward they took

permission from the Sanhedrin

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

and they asked the Urim and Thummim

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 of events: first they consulted Ahithophel, afterward the Sanhedrin, and then the Urim and Thummim?

As it is written

[I Chronicles 27:34]:

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

Ahithophel—

this is the counselor,

from whom they sought advice about how to wage war.

And so it says

[II Samuel 16:23]:

“The counsel of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was as though one asked

(a man) concerning the word of God.”

It is therefore evident that Ahithophel was a counselor.