Tractate Berakhot of the Talmud of Eret—-Israel: 0008

מאן פליג — who disagrees (with what has previously been said)
בעי — asked, indicated a problem
ומר — a corruption of וְאָמַר (another indication of how Hebrew was spoken at that time in Eretz-Israel)

1:
Our discussion concerning what defines the onset of night began with a specific teaching:

It gradually became clear that 'possible night' referred to what we call twilight.

After a long and convoluted discussion on some kind of delineation of the extent of twilight the Gemara now checks whether there is anyone who objects to the basic definition offered by Rabbi Abba bar-Pappa.

2:
A certain Rabbi Ḥanina, who is described as a colleague of the sages — probably to distinguish him from the more well-known Rabbi Ḥanina — poses an objection. The terms he uses for his objection are based on the astronomy of the time. According to Ptolemaic astronomy the sun makes its daily revolution around the earth in a kind of celestial tube which is of a material that is invisible to the human eye. When the sun disappears from view, after setting in the west, it is entering "the thickness of the firmament" and thus gradually becomes invisible until it emerges from "the thickness of the firmament" as it rise again in the east. If we translate these astronomical concepts into the phenomena known to modern astronomy we understand the sun's entering and leaving "the thickness of the firmament" as referring to when the sun is just below the horizon. At such a time some of its light can be seen even though the sun itself has set (in the evening)or has not yet risen (in the morning).

3:
Rabbi Ḥanina objects: how can we say that when the sun has dipped below the horizon that night has begin even though some of its light is still visible, even if three stars have appeared in the darkening sky? Would the same would apply in reverse to the morning: even though the sun's rays have become visible at dawn it is nevertheless still night!?

4:
Rabbi Abba offers a response which is tantamount to affirmation. Yes, night begins at sunset and day begins at sunrise! In other words, the period of twilight is considered to be part of the night and the period between dawn and sunrise is considered to be part of the night too. And Rabbi Abba supports his contention by quoting scripture. As far as the period before sunrise is concerned he quotes Genesis 19:23. After the angels have urged Lot to escape from the doomed city of Sodom he begged them to let him reach the town of Zo'ar. The Torah says that as the sun rose above the earth Lot reached Zo'ar. As far as night is concerned the Torah [Leviticus 22:7] says that a priest who had contracted ritual impurity was required to bathe in a mikveh and then wait for the sun to set, when he would be considered ritually pure again: "the sun sets and he is pure". This, argues Rabbi Abba, proves that for the Torah the day ends at sunset. He continues that we can now equate the end of the day with the beginning of the day: just as the priest becomes pure again at the end of the day with the setting of the sun so Lot arrived at Zo'ar at the beginning of the day with the rising of the sun.

This leaves no room for twilight as an halakhic consideration.

5:
Rabbi Ba now quotes a different verse from the Torah [Genesis 44:3] to prove that, contrary to Rabbi Abba's argument, daybreak is not synonymous with sunrise. The Torah says that Joseph dispatched his brothers with their provisions "at [first] light of the morning". So the Torah does equate light with morning, not sunrise. The day begins with first light, not with sunrise. If this is the case Rabbi Abba's reasoning falls apart.

6:
The Gemara now quotes a teaching of the Tanna, Rabbi Yishma'el in support of the contention of Rabbi Ba. (Or possibly Rabbi Ba himself quotes the Tanna.) The Torah [Exodus 16:21] describes how the Israelites gather the manna in their wanderings:

Rabbi Yishma'el is intrigued by the repetition of the word 'morning'. It would have been sufficient if the Torah had said that the Israelites collected the manna 'every morning'. Why the repetition 'morning by morning' (which in Hebrew is just a repetition of the same word). He says that what it means is like saying that they collected it "in the morning of the morning" — very early in the morning. Later in the morning, when the sun had risen the manna would melt in its heat. Thus 'morning' begins before sunrise.

7:
Rabbi Yosé now brings yet another argument against Rabbi Abba. If you say that twilight is part of the night and also dawn is part of the night — which also means that daytime is only from sunrise to sunset — you will be contradicting an explicit barayta! This barayta teaches that at the time of the equinoxes, both spring and autumn, daytime and nighttime are equal. That would not be possible if you include twilight and dawn as part of the night. Therefore Rabbi Abba must be wrong!

8:
Rabbi Huna brings an example from real life. People speak of the King's departure before he actually leaves on his journey, but they do not speak of his return until he has actually gone back into his palace. Similarly, people speak of the day beginning when the sun is going to rise above the horizon (but has not yet actually done so) but people do not speak of night beginning until it is completely dark.

9:
We shall see in our next shiur that the Gemara now leaves this discussion and departs on a different theme. But we shall return to this issue later on.

In 0004 we learned about people having to bring sin offerings and doubtful offerings. Tamar Dar writes:

Since the destruction of our Temples it is said that "we shall pay the bulls of our lips". In which case, what is the prayer that substitutes for the sin offering and what is the prayer that substitutes for the doubtful offering? When was this established?

I respond:

Tamar is referring to the words of the prophet [Hosea 14:2-3]

It was the sages [Bavli, Yoma 86b] who re-interpreted these latter words of the prophet to mean that we shall pay with our lips (our prayers) the animals that formerly we would have sacrificed. However, the reference is to prayer in general. Never were specific prayers instituted to correspond to specific sacrifices. (Study of the laws of these sacrifices was considered the equivalent of offering them.)