my_torah: (Default)
 We have been discussing in our Talmud study, the time when the evening Shema is said and I wondered about when the calendar-day commenced for different ancient cultures. 
By Googling I have found the following:
 

Ancient cultures had a variety of ways they defined the beginning of a day:

  • Evening-to-evening: The Babylonians, Jews, and (most) ancient Greeks used this system. 
  • In ancient times in Egypt, Israel, Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome the night was divided into 3 or 4 “watches”. 
  • Dawn-based: Egyptians, Hindus and early Romans counted the day from sunrise.
  • Midnight: In ancient China the day began at midnight. Maybe it’s something to do with running a big empire, because the later Romans were the forerunners of our current midnight-to-midnight system which evolved in the Roman Empire some time after 27BCE. References to night watches ("vigiliae") dividing the night into three or four parts appear in Roman writings from the Republic period (before 27 BCE). After that, references to the Roman day starting at midnight become more frequent. 
 
The Zoroastrian day (attested to in the 9th century) began at dawn. The Zoroastrian calendar adopted Egyptian, Babylonian and Roman practices. They also had “watches” as divisions of the night. 

Islam adopted the Jewish system of evening-to-evening days. 

The Western Christian Church has a mix. They retain the Jewish evening-to-evening day for religious festivals like Christmas Eve, but for the liturgical calendar and canon law the midnight-to-midnight definition is used.
In the Orthodox Church the liturgical day starts in the evening.  
 
Conclusion:
 
At the times when our Mishnah and Gemarah were written down there would have been a variety of competing ideas about when a day began, from evening-to-evening, dawn-to-dawn,  or midnight-to-midnight. 
 
The night would have been measured as divided into 3 or 4 equal watches or into 12 equal hours. 
my_torah: (Default)
This was my contribution to the shul newsletter celebrate the Bar Mitzvah of my younger son who read maftir of Ki Tetze:

How can we relate to those of whatever persuasion who breach the peaceful sanctity of a House of G-d through acts of violence?

Today’s Sedrah concludes with the command: ‘Blot out the memory of Amalek’ (Devarim 25:19). On Purim 1994, a Jewish man, Baruch Goldstein, entered a mosque in Hebron and started shooting people, equating Arabs with Amalek. If we identify enemies of Israel today with Amalek, it is a short step to believing that we are commanded to ‘wipe them out’.

It is therefore important to teach our own children that Amalek is not to be identified with anyone today. We learn in the Talmud (Berachot 28a) that Sennacherib, King of Assyria, ‘mixed up the nations’ long ago. According to this teaching, since Amalekites cannot be identified today it follows that it is impossible nowadays to fulfil ‘Blot out the memory’ by killing Amalekites.

Nevertheless, historically Jews have identified Amalek with various nations such as Rome and Germany. We need a ‘fence around the Torah’ when we feel driven to ‘religious’ violence: the inner ear of conscience. HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein zt’l (d. 2015) wrote (in ‘Halacha VaHalachim’): ‘Of course, a Jew must be ready to answer the call “I am here” if the command “to offer him up as an offering” is thrust upon him [a reference to the Akedah – Binding of Isaac]. However, prior to unsheathing his sword, he is permitted, even obligated, to clarify if indeed this is what has actually been commanded. ...To the extent that there is a need and room for Halachic exegesis – and this must be clarified – a sensitive and insightful conscience is one of the factors that help to shape the decision-making process.’


--
I had to cut a lot out, as there was a word limit of 300 words.

I would have liked to reference the fine essay
by Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgott in Mikra and Meaning,
“Amalek: Ethics,Values, and Halachic development”

Also worth a read for those troubled by the Amalek mitzvah are Gil Student's blog posts:
http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/03/amalek-and-morality/
and
http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/02/contemporary-amalek/
my_torah: (Default)
My son recently reached the age of Bar Mitzvah.

I had some qualms about saying the blessing "Shepatarani" “Blessed be ...who has exempted me of responsibility of this child)” - since I am not sure exactly when a father becomes free of responsibility for his son.

I noticed when the Rabbi instructed me to say the relevant blessing in Synagogue after his call-up and reading from the Torah that it is said b’li shem u’malchut (without the words "HaShem our God, King of the Universe") – so that it is not really a “berachah” – so I felt fairly OK to conform to convention and say it and I assume from this wording that the Rabbis had similar doubts about the blessing.

I found online this goes back to Moshe Isserles (the Gra) who is the Ashkenasi commentator on the Shulchan Aruch:

https://ccarnet.org/responsa/curr-88-90/
“There is, of course, a fairly simple way out of the objection against the violation involved in beracha l'vatala (wasted blessing). This is illustrated by the decision of Moses Isserles (the Rama) to Orah Hayyim 225:2 (in the Shulchan Aruch), where there is some doubt as to the validity of the blessing to be recited by the father at the son's Bar Mitzvah. Here, there is danger of a beracha l'vatala if, after all, the blessing is really not required. Therefore Isserles solves the problem by having the blessing recited, leaving out the words, "O Lord, our God, King of the universe." This is the method that the rabbis often follow when they are uncertain as to whether the blessing is required or not. They have the blessing recited without using the Name of God, or as they say, "b'li Shem u-malchus, " because the real objection to the "wasted" blessing is using the name of God in vain. When you leave out the name of God, the objection to reciting the blessing virtually vanishes.”

I read some more interesting further discussion on Judaism.stackexchange where it emerges that the use of “b’li shem u’malchut” for a blessing said in a case of a doubtful commandment or action or change of status is only used in certain restricted cases where it is not possible to say Amen to someone who is definitely obligated. The preferred solution to a case of doubt is for the person to say "Amen" to another who has a more definite obligation:
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/28650/why-dont-we-count-sefirah-without-shem-umalkhut
gives some examples:
“@joshwaxman I know of only 5 such instances in Shulchan Aruch: birkot hashachar if you didn't do that action, hagomel (the blessing said on surviving a danger), miracle location (blessing on a place where a miracle occurred), chalitza (the levirate marriage ceremony), and shepterani (blessing by a father on his child reaching Bar/Bat Mitzvah. (Orach Chayim 46:8 218:9 219:3 225:2 Even HaEzer Chalitza 57). “
In each case the person is in a situation where there is doubt about whether the blessing is required and they cannot say Amen to someone who is definitely obligated (which would be the preference).

There are other cases where people say blessings “without Name of Kingship” – there is the “Baruch dayan emet” one says on hearing of a death, and there is “Baruch HaMavdil” that people say before switching on the lights on Shabbat evening when they have not made Havdallah.

IN the case of “Baruch dayan emet” I imagine the doubt is about how sincere we are able to be when we say this. The saying "Blessed is the true Judge" on hearing of a person's death is a theological statement which rides in the face of our emotional response - there may be a recognition in say the blessing in short form that we are actually a bit conflicted when we say it.

As for Baruch HaMavdil - I do not understand this practice.

--
There is an interesting case discussed in Talmud Berachot of Benjamin the Shepherd and his Aramaic blessing after bread.

Benjamin's blessing is recorded as being (in Aramaic) "Brich malka d’alma marei d’hai pita. . The Rabbis ask "Was this a valid blessing?"

See my friend Alexander's blog http://alexandermassey.com/brich-rachamana/ and also Talmud, Berachot 40b.

I think the issue in Berachot 40b is that blessing after bread is considered to be a positive mitzvah d’orayta (from the Torah). The question the Talmud is discussing is whether Benjamin with his wording in Aramaic fulfilled his Torah commandment to bless after eating bread. (“And thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless the LORD thy God for the good land which He hath given thee. Deut 8:10).

They conclude that without the Name of God in the wording (and according to one opinion without the Name and Kingship of God) mentioned, he had not.

Blessing on bread is an unusual case, since most blessings are d’rabannan (ie instituted by the Rabbis) – though I am not sure that this makes much difference to the halacha, except in cases where there is a doubt about whether one should say the blessing. Perhaps also it makes any doubt about whether one had said the blessing “properly” more significant.

A shepherd might also be an interesting case because he would be someone who would be eating alone with his sheep, perhaps, so could not say Amen to the blessing of someone more educated with whom he was eating.

I like that Rav validates the blessing of this ignorant but pious 3rd century Jewish shepherd.

The Talmudic passage also establishes the idea that one can fulfill a blessing in translation in the vernacular – which when I come to think about it makes it possibly slightly problematic saying a blessing in both Hebrew and in English translation, as the second of these would be a wasted blessing.

On the other hand many things may be done for "chinuch" (for the sake of education of children).

Profile

my_torah: (Default)
my_torah

April 2024

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 11th, 2025 05:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios