Translation:Talmud/Seder Zeraim/Tractate Berakhot/2b

It means perhaps: And when the sun [of the next morning] appears, and we-taher means the man becomes clean?^[1] — Rabbah son of R. Shila explains: In that case, the text would have to read we-yithar.^[2] What is the meaning of we-taher?^[3] The day clears away, conformably to the common expression, The sun has set and the day has cleared away. This explanation of Rabbah son of R. Shila was unknown in the West^[4], and they raised the question: This ‘and the sun sets’, does it mean the real setting of the sun, and ‘we-taher’ means the day clears away? Or does it perhaps mean the appearance of the sun, and we-taher means the man becomes clean? They solved it from a Baraitha, it being stated in a Baraitha: The sign of the thing is the appearance of the stars. Hence you learn that it is the setting of the sun [which makes him clean] and the meaning of we-taher is the clearing away of the day.

The Master said: Since the time when the kohanim enter to eat their terumah. They pointed to a contradiction [from the following]: From what time may one recite the Shema in the evening? From the time that the poor man.^[5] comes [home] to eat his bread with salt till he rises from his meal. The last clause certainly contradicts the Mishnah. Does the first clause also contradict the Mishnah? — No. The poor man and the priest have one and the same time.

They pointed to a contradiction [from the following]: From what time may one begin to recite the Shema’ in the evening? From the time that the people come [home] to eat their meal on a Sabbath eve. These are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: From the time that the priests are entitled to eat their terumah. A sign for the matter is the appearance of the stars. And though there is no real proof of it^[6], there is a hint for it. For it is written: So we wrought in the work: and half of them held the spears from the rise of the dawn till the appearance of the stars. And it says further: That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labour in the day. (Why this second citation?^[7] — If you object and say that the night really begins with the setting of the sun, but that they left late and came early, [I shall reply]: Come and hear [the other verse]: ‘That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labour in the day’). Now it is assumed that the ‘poor man’ and ‘the people’ have the same time [for their evening meal.]^[8] And if you say that the poor man and the priest also have the same time, then the Sages would be saying the same thing as R. Meir? Hence you must conclude that the poor man has one time and the priest has another time? — No; the ‘poor man’ and the priest have the same time, but the ‘poor man’ and the ‘people’ have not the same time.

But have the ‘poor man’ and the priest really the same time? They pointed to a contradiction [from the following]: From what time may one begin to recite the Shema’ in the evening? From the time that the [Sabbath] day becomes hallowed on the Sabbath eve. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua says: From the time that the priests are ritually clean to eat their terumah. R. Meir says: From the time that the priests take their ritual bath in order to eat their terumah. (Said R. Judah to him: When the priests take their ritual bath it is still day-time!)^[9] R. Hanina says: From the time that the poor man comes [home] to eat his bread with salt. R. Ahai (some say: R. Aha). says: From the time that most people come home to sit down to their meal. Now, if you say that the poor man and the priest have the same time, then R. Hanina and R. Joshua would be saying the same thing? From this you must conclude, must you not, that the poor man has one time and the priest has another time. — Draw indeed that conclusion!

Which of them is later? — It is reasonable to conclude that the ‘poor man’ is later. For if you say that the ‘poor man’ is earlier, R. Hanina would be saying the same thing as R. Eliezer.^[10] Hence you must conclude that the poor man is later, must you not? — Draw indeed that conclusion.

The Master said:^[11] ‘R. Judah said to him: When the priests take their ritual bath it is still daytime!’ The objection of R. Judah to R. Meir seems well founded? — R. Meir may reply as follows: Do you think that I am referring to the twilight [as defined] by you?^[12] I am referring to the twilight [as defined] by R. Jose. For R. Jose says: The twilight is like the twinkling of an eye. This^[13] enters and that^[14] departs — and one cannot exactly fix it.^[15]

Notes

1. Through his sin-offering.
2. The verb being in the future.
3. Which may be taken as a past tense, the waw not being conversive.
4. The palestinian schools
5. Who cannot afford an artificial light
6. That the day ends with the appearance of the stars.
7. The first verse seems to afford ample proof.
8. I.e., the time the ‘poor man’ mentioned in the first Baraitha comes home to take his evening meal is identical with that at which people generally come to eat their meals on Sabbath eve.
9. And not even twilight.
10. Tosef. points out that the ground for this statement is not clear.
11. In the Baraitha just quoted.
12. According to which definition it lasts as long as it takes to walk half a mil,
13. The evening.
14. The day.
15. And consequently the priests may bathe at twilight as defined by R. Jose since it is still day, and one may also read at that time the Shema’ since it is practically night.