Some verses in the bible are hard for us to relate because of the content. I always cringe when I read that people with disabilities are not allowed to serve as the Kohen Gadol or the end of Psalm 137. These verses are difficult because we interpret them to hold values that we now abhor. One verse is difficult to understand because the words don’t seem to make sense. I originally thought this was a problem of translation, but it turns out to be just as difficult in Hebrew as it is in English. Today the Talmud tries to tackle the meaning of this verse.

When God tells Moses to go to the Jews enslaved in Egypt, Moses asks God what he should tell the Jews the name of God is. God answers in Exodus 3:14, “And God said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM (Ehyeh-Ahser-Ehyeh in Hebrew)” and He said: “Thus shalt you say unto the children of Israel: I AM (Ehyeh in Hebrew) hath sent me unto you.” What does that mean? The name appears to be a statement of God’s existence above our capacity for understanding.

Our Daf today offers an explanation. The explanation builds on the first instance of the name (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh) compared with the second instance (Ehyeh) in the verse. The Gemara posits that the first instance of the name means the God was with the Jews while they were enslaved in Egypt and God will be with them in the future when the Jews are subjugated by other kingdoms. Moses tells God (this is not in the written bible) that reminding the Jews of future calamities may not be the best strategy right now. Therefore, God shortens the name to just indicate that God has been with the Jews while they were enslaved.

This analysis illustrates the Talmud’s concern with every word and every letter in the bible. Meanings can be discerned by closely examine the language as written (in Hebrew). In this case, meaning has to be interpolated from changes in the first statement of the name (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh) to the second statement of the name (Ehyeh). To prove the point, the Talmud turns to 1 Kings 18:37 (“Answer me, o Lord, answer me . . . .”) and asks why is a double statement needed here.

Today’s Daf in another place tries to discern exact meaning of a verse through a type of Talmudic hermeneutics called a “gezeira shavah” which means “similar laws, similar verdicts”. The Talmud looks at the same expression in two different verses to decide the proper interpretation. Additionally, today’s Daf looks at the addition of the Hebrew letter bet to the Hebrew word for night (lilah) which means “this night” and asks why was the bet added.

Today’s Daf picks up in the middle of the debate about the period between dawn and sunrise. Can we say the evening Shema at this time? Can we say the morning Shema at this time? If we say the Shema at this time once does it count for both. Ultimately, the Halachah is that we can fulfill either obligation between dawn and sunrise, but not both in the same dawn to sunrise period. There is a caveat, however, you can only use the period if you previously failed to recite the evening Shema due to an unavoidable circumstance, not merely due to negligence or forgetfulness.

The Talmud goes back to the Mishnah story about Rabbi Gamliel’s sons staying out late and partying in the first Daf. In that case, Rabbi Gamliel took the position that the Shema could be said until dawn, but the sages said until midnight. In most disputes of Halachah, the majority rules. In this case, Rabbi Gamilel’s sons have the opinion of their father against the opinion of “the sages”. Therefore, Rabbi Gamliel appears to be in the minority. However, Rabbi Gamliel notes that the sages opinion is merely a stricter rule than the actual rule to keep people from sin.

The Talmud turns to other obligations at night that the Rabbis conclude must be done by midnight, but which the Halachah allows to be performed until Dawn. This leads to a long discussion about whether the eating of the Passover sacrifice can be done after midnight. In this long discussion we are introduced to the Gezeirah Shavah by comparing the use of “on this night” in Exodus 12:8 and in Exodus 12:12. This is where we analyze the addition of “this” to “night”.

The discussion about when we can eat the Passover sacrifice turns on when were the Jews redeemed from Egypt. There are some verses which indicate it was at night and some which indicate that it happened in the morning. The Talmud resolves this dispute by distinguishing between when God tells Moses to tell the Jews to borrow the gold and silver of the Egyptians at night and when the Jews actually leave Egypt in the morning. Because the Torah does not contain punctuation, this passage may be God saying “please” to Moses when God tells Moses to talk to the Jews or Moses saying “please” when he tells the Jews to take the Egyptians gold and silver.

With that, the Talmud ends our discussion of our first Mishnah about when at night we can say the Shema. Immediately, we are introduced to our second Mishnah concerning when we can fulfill our obligation to say the morning Shema. Three opinions are offered in the Mishanah:

• From when it is light enough to distinguish blue wool from white wool;
• From when it is light enough to distinguish blue wool from wool the color of leaks; and
• Sometime in the first three hours of the day.

The Gemara questions these rulings. First, the Gemara notes that we can easily distinguish between blue and white bundles of wool even in the dark. Therefore the Mishnah must be referring to a single bundle of wool with some blue and some white strands. The Gemara ultimately concludes that we can begin reciting the morning Shema at dawn, but it is best to wait until sunrise so that we can join the Shema to other morning prayers that can’t be said until sunrise.

One last note on today’s Daf. The following statement appears towards the end, “For Rabbi Yochanan said: A person must always endeavor to run to greet the kings of Israel. And not only the kings of Israel, but even to greet the kings of the idolators, so that if one merits to behold the Messiah in the World to Come, one will have a standard by which to distinguish between the far greater honor that will then be bestowed upon the kings of Israel, and the far lesser honor enjoyed nowadays by the kings of idolators.” I think this attitude helps explain why some of the greatest medieval commentators also served as high government officials to the Islamic and Christian societies in which they lived. Maimonides, for instance was physician to the great Saladin.