Berakhot 008

21:
Opposed to Rabbi Eli'ezer's view of the meaning of b^eshokhb^ekha is the view of Rabban Gamli'el. [The title Rabban indicates that its holder was President of the Sanhedrin. Rabban Gamli'el was President of the Sanhedrin during the last quarter of the first century CE and in the first decade or so of the second century. Rabbi Eli'ezer is his contemporary (and brother-in-law).] Rabban Gamli'el interprets b^eshokhb^ekha as indicating the whole span of time that people may be expected to be found "lying down". This time extends from the onset of dusk until the first break of light the following morning.

To be continued.

In response to a question, last week I wrote that the whole of the Shema and its blessings with the addition of the Ten Command-ments was recited daily in the Bet Mikdash.

Rick Dinitz writes:

The mention of Emet Veyatziv would seem to indicate that the mishnah from Tamid is describing the morning liturgy. Was Aseret Hadibrot [the Ten Commandments] also part of the evening liturgy? When was Aseret Hadibrot dropped from the liturgy of Kriat Shma, and why? Why is it not mentioned in Mishnah Brachot?

I respond:

As I have already mentioned, there was no evening ritual in the Bet Mikdash, the ritual day beginning at dawn and ending at dusk (though we shall revisit this question during our discussion of the seifa [last section] of our mishnah. Therefore, the Ten Commandments were read liturgically only in the morning. They were dropped from the daily liturgy of the Bet Mikdash sometime during the first half of the first century CE (I'm sorry that I can't be more accurate than that). The decision to do so was taken as part of the battle that Judaism had to wage against the new and emergent Christianity. (This battle was continued with increased vigour by the Rabban Gamli'el of our mishnah during the second half of that century.) In the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Berakhot 3c] the following is recorded:

Concerning Maimonides and Monotheism, Ya'akov Adler writes:

I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but I believe that Rambam's statement [that anything but a non-physical conceptual-ization of the Deity was idolatrous] was controversial at its time and later. There were eminent rabbis – not at all suspected of Avodah Zarah [idolatry] – who believed that G-d has a physical form, in accordance with the descriptions found in Torah ("hand of G-d," "finger of G-d," etc.)

I think that what Ya'akov is referring to is the fact that Rambam wrote in his great halakhic work, Mishneh Torah, [Teshuvah 3:7] that

On this Rambam's great opponent, Rabbi Abraham ben-David [Southern Europe, 12th century CE] wrote:

I think that we can note the following: subsequent millions have heard the name Maimonides who have never heard the name of Rabbi Abraham ben-David, and Rambam's preeminence is now beyond the reach of the jealousy of his petty contemporaries. Note that even Ra'aved [Rabbi Abraham ben-David] does not justify the thought, he only denigrates it being termed heretical. It is now accepted that all expressions such as "hand of God", "finger of God" are metaphors, and are not to be understood literally. In his "Guide for the Perplexed" Rambam goes even further: even expressions such as "and God said" are metaphoric and not to be understood literally. All this is now accepted basic Jewish theology, and even extreme Kaplanism is not nearly so far from the Maimonidean norm as many latter-day Ra'aveds would like to think! I invite all those who think otherwise, to re-read fGenesis chapter 18, and consider the consequences of giving a literal interpretation to verses such as 21 and 33!

Next Shiur