Q&A: Keriat Shema
Keriat Shema
Question
Honorable Rabbi, hello,
Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 2b
The Master said: from the time that the priests enter to eat their terumah. But this raises a contradiction: From when does one recite the Shema in the evening? From when the poor person enters to eat his bread with salt, until the time when he stands up to leave his meal. The latter clause certainly disagrees with our Mishnah. As for the first clause, shall we say that it too disagrees with our Mishnah? No; the poor person and the priest are one and the same measure of time.
“From when the poor person” – one who has no lamp to light for his meal.
[Quoted in the Masoret HaShas on Rashi:] In Yoma 76a: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi — one said: one who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket; and one said: one who sees and eats is not comparable to one who does not see and eats. Rav Yosef said: from here there is a hint regarding the blind, who eat and are not satisfied. Abaye said: therefore, one who has a meal should eat it only by day. Rabbi Zeira said: what is the verse? “Better the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the soul” (Ecclesiastes 6:9).
And therefore Rashi wrote that a poor person has no lamp and does not eat at night, not because it is impossible to eat, but because one is not satisfied.
And I found this difficult: here, in the Talmud’s initial assumption, the priest and the poor person are one and the same measure of time, even though the priest’s time is nightfall, and that is not daytime. This contradicts Rashi, for the poor person’s time is in the daytime, since he does not eat at night, while nightfall is nighttime. And furthermore, even according to the Talmud’s conclusion, the poor person is after the priest, meaning after nightfall, and that is certainly nighttime.
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. You’re simply asking about a contradiction in Rashi: how can the poor person and the priest be the same measure of time if the poor person eats before dark? Why do we need all the details you brought?
I think you’re mixing together different stages in the passage. When they say that the poor person and the priest are the same measure of time, then both are at nightfall. When they say that the poor person eats while it is still day, that is according to the view that his time is not the same as the priest’s. The parallel passage fits the stage of the discussion in which the poor person eats before the priest.
Discussion on Answer
The rule changes over the course of our passage, so I don’t see any obstacle to the Yoma passage holding that the poor person’s time is X, even though in our passage there is a stage where they hold that it is Y.
But if they were aware of the rule in Yoma, there should not have been such an initial assumption.
And also, the Talmud’s conclusion too contradicts the rule in Yoma.
But if there is a general rule in Yoma that one does not eat at night, then the poor person does not eat because he has no lamp, so what is the initial assumption that the priest and the poor person are the same measure of time? That is nightfall. The rule does not change because of our passage.