Berakhot 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

lest he say

that righteous man —

Abraham our forefather, to whom the prophecy was stated at the Covenant between the Parts [Genesis 15:13],

“And they shall enslave them and oppress them,”

and that prophecy

He fulfilled for them

[the Children of Israel], whereas the continuation of the prophecy,

“And afterward they shall leave with great wealth,” He did not

fulfill for them.

However, when Moses conveyed God’s request to the Children of Israel,

they said to him: “Would that we could leave on our own!”

This is analogous to a person who was imprisoned, and people would say to him, “Tomorrow they will release you from prison, and they will even give you a great deal of money.”

Surely he would

say to them: “Please, release me today; I ask for nothing,”

and do not delay my freedom until they add a great deal of money for me .

It is also stated [there, 12:35]: “And God gave the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians,

and they lent them. Rabbi Ami said:”

The wording of the verse

teaches that they lent them against their will.

Some say

that the meaning is that they lent them

against

the will of the Egyptians.

And some say

that the meaning is that they lent them

against the will of Israel.

The Gemara explains the basis of their dispute:

The one who says, “against the will of the Egyptians,”

derives this from the verse [Psalms 68:13]:

“The women who remain at home divide the spoils,”

which implies that they took them as “spoils,” something taken from a person against his will.

But

the one who says, “against the will of Israel,”

holds that they did not wish to take them

because

they did not want to take with them on the journey

a burden

that was heavy.

It is also stated [there, verse 36]:

“And they emptied Egypt. Rabbi Ami said:”

The wording of the verse

teaches

that taking the Egyptians’ possessions caused damage to Egypt’s status and harmed its revenues, until

they made it like a snare

[spread for catching birds]

in which there is no grain,

and therefore the birds are not drawn to it.

And Reish Lakish said:

They took all the Egyptians’ wealth from them, until

they made it

empty,

like the depths

—the depths of the sea—

in which there are no fish,

for fish customarily rise to the surface, where food is found.

It is also stated [there, 3:14]:

“I shall be what I shall be,”

and the Gemara explains:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “Go and say to the Children of Israel: I shall be

‘I shall be’—

I was with you in this enslavement, and I

‘shall be’—

I shall be with you in the enslavement of the kingdoms.” Moses said before Him:”

Moses:

“Sufficient for the trouble is its own time,”

so why distress them now with a difficult message concerning the future? Therefore,

He said

to him, the Holy One, blessed be He,

that His intention was not to inform Israel of the future, but Moses alone; whereas to Israel,

“Go and say to them”

only

“I shall be has sent me to you,”

meaning, in the distress of the Egyptian enslavement in which they were then immersed.

And since the Gemara expounded the repetition in the verse, “I shall be what I shall be,” the Gemara expounds the repetition in Elijah’s prayer [I Kings 18:37]:

“Answer me, O Lord, answer me.” -

Rabbi Abbahu said: Why did Elijah say “answer me” twice? It teaches that Elijah said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Master of the Universe, answer me, so that fire may descend from heaven and consume everything on the altar; and answer me, so that You may divert their minds, so that they will not say: These are acts of sorcery,” as it is stated

[there]:

“And You have turned

their hearts backward.”

Mishna:

From when may one recite the Shema in the morning?,

From

the time when there is enough light

to recognize

[to distinguish]

between tekhelet and white.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

from when one can distinguish

between tekhelet and leek-green,

which resembles tekhelet somewhat, and therefore more light is needed to distinguish between them than to distinguish between tekhelet and white.

And

it is fitting to recite it at a time when one will

complete it

by sunrise,

the rising of the sun.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

One must complete it

by

three hours,

for it is the practice of kings to rise

from their beds

at three hours

of the day.

“One who recites it from this point onward,”

even though he does not fulfill his obligation to recite Shema,

has not lost

all reward for the mitzva, for he receives a reward

like a person reading Torah.

Gemara:

The Gemara inquires:

What is meant by “between tekhelet and white”? -

If you say it means between a bundle of white wool

[a bundle of white wool]

and a bundle of tekhelet wool

[a bundle of wool dyed tekhelet].

This cannot be said, because

this

—the difference between these colors—

can also be recognized at night

[it is visible to the eye].

Rather,

the intention is that one can recognize

between the tekhelet in it

—in one part of the bundle—

and the white in it,

and this is a later time, because more light is required for this distinction.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir says:

The time for reciting Shema begins

from

the time

when one can recognize

between a wolf and a dog.

Tosafot a collection of the commentaries of the Tosafot, a collection of the commentaries of the Tosafists, [ brought a Jerusalem Talmud stating that this refers to a companion who is somewhat familiar to him, because if he is not familiar with him at all, the time would be much later. See also Ramban in his Mil amot Hashem who established Ramban in his Milḥamot Hashem [ , who established this time as the beginning of the time for reciting the Shema, because most people sleep until a time when it is possible to walk and recognize one’s fellow, and this is therefore the beginning of the time when people rise. The Ramban citing the Jerusalem Talmud stated that The Ramban [ , citing the Jerusalem Talmud, stated that the time of “between blue and white” is identical to the time of “when he can see his companion at a distance of four cubits.” It follows that the opinion of Others is the same as that of the first anonymous tanna in the Mishna. However, from the words of Rabbeinu Yona it is evident that he understood them to be two different times [see the end of the passage beginning “He said”]; see note 51.

He wrote, Rabbeinu Yona, that they established this time as the beginning of the time for putting on phylacteries, out of concern that one might fall asleep and emit wind while wearing them. [They did not delay the time further, because one must put them on before reciting the Shema.] This has no connection to the times of day and night, because nighttime is a time for phylacteries [as explained in Menahot 36b], although this is not taught as the practical ruling. Abaye’s intention is that if someone comes to ask when the time for putting them on is, he should be instructed that it begins at this time, even though the actual time extends throughout the day. [He added that this sign—“when he can see his companion”—was chosen for phylacteries because it is stated concerning phylacteries: “And all the peoples of the land shall see,” implying that their law depends on seeing.] The Rosh wrote that Abaye stated the end of the time, but he agrees that the beginning of the time is when one can distinguish between blue and white. The Bach wrote that one cannot prove from The Bach [ wrote that one cannot prove from this that Abaye disagreed with Rav Huna, who ruled in accordance with Others, because he may have held like the Ramban, that the time stated by Others is identical to “when he can distinguish between blue and white”. Rashi explained humble people who cherish a mitzva Rashi explained: “humble people who cherish a mitzva.” Rabbeinu Yona explained it to mean “sharp and incisive,” from the expression “one who breaks mountains,” which is translated as “one who loosens mountains” [although this wording is not found in our text]. See also the Arukh [ , who explains that they were refined people. For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The vatikin would finish reciting it with sunrise, and they necessarily began reciting it a short time before sunrise; this is a later time than “when he can recognize his companion”.. It was taught likewise in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: The vatikin would finish reciting it with sunrise, so that they could juxtapose the blessing of redemption to the prayer, and would consequently pray during the day. The Rif wrote that the halakhic ruling follows the vatikin, but not everyone can time it precisely in this way. Nevertheless, it is a mitzva to recite it shortly before sunrise, so that one will pray during the day, after sunrise. Rabbeinu Yona wondered about this since this was Rabbeinu Yona wondered about this since this was Rabbeinu Yona wondered about this since this was Rabbeinu Yona wondered about this since this was

The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether The Maharsha explains that the issue is whether

that he sees in this world.

The Tziyun le-Nefesh ayya explained that at the The Tziyun le-Nefesh ayya explained that at the The Tziyun le-Nefesh ayya explained that at the The Tziyun le-Nefesh Ḥayya explained that at the time they drowned, their measure of sin had not yet been filled, and therefore there was no place for song. But when a wicked person’s measure of sin is full, it is appropriate to rejoice over his downfall. At first glance, this is difficult: Is it really the case that these are one hundred and three sections? But one hundred and four sections there are?!

should be acceptable. If so,

The Gemara answers The Gemara answers The Gemara answers The Gemara answers The Gemara answers