Opening: The Question of the Mishna
The second Mishna of Masechet Berakhot turns to the question of the zman of Kriat Shema shel shacharit, paralleling the opening Mishna which addressed Kriat Shema shel arvit. The Mishna offers a series of markers for the onset of the zman — mishe-yakir bein tekhelet le-lavan, and in the view of Rabbi Eliezer bein tekhelet le-karti — and sets the end of the zman at hanetz ha-chama. Rabbi Yehoshua extends the latter zman until shalosh sha'ot, reasoning she-ken derekh melakhim la'amod be-shalosh sha'ot. One who reads later has not lost out entirely but is ke-adam ha-kore ba-Torah.
The central methodological question is how to read these markers. Is the Mishna fixing the zman by astronomical criteria — the objective transition from night to day — or by sociological criteria, namely be-kumekha, the hour at which people actually rise? Rabbi Yehoshua's reasoning, tied explicitly to the waking habits of bnei melakhim, makes it evident that at least on his view the operative consideration is be-kumekha. This dovetails with what emerged already in the first Mishna and in the Baraitot of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on Daf Chet amud bet, where the question of astronomical versus sociological time was raised.
The Machloket Between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua
Assuming be-kumekha as the operative principle, the machloket between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua can be framed in terms of whose waking time we follow. Rabbi Eliezer, who sets the sof zman at hanetz ha-chama, reflects the reality that in the time of Chazal most people were awake and at work by sunrise — lacking electricity and often candles, people matched their hours of wakefulness to the hours of natural light. Rabbi Eliezer thus follows the majority, the average person. Rabbi Yehoshua, by contrast, holds that it is sufficient that a particular group — the bnei melakhim — is still in bed until shalosh sha'ot to extend the zman for everyone.
This is connected to the earlier dispute between the Ramban and the Rashba regarding the parallel question for arvit. If be-kumekha is purely sociological, one might think one could extend the zman of Kriat Shema shel arvit so long as people are still sleeping. The Ramban rejects this: even the bnei melakhim are awake at hanetz ha-chama; they merely remain in bed. The Rashba is cholek and holds that the sociological stretching of zman works only where it still corresponds to an astronomical category — one cannot redefine day as night on the basis of sleeping habits. For the Rashba, once astronomy gives day unambiguously, the sociological argument no longer applies. We set this machloket aside here and focus on the onset of the zman of Kriat Shema shel shacharit.
The Markers of Light and the Relation to Amud Ha-shachar
The Mishna offers markers of a certain quantity of light — bein tekhelet le-lavan, bein tekhelet le-karti. This raises the question of the relation of these markers to amud ha-shachar. We already encountered the Mishna in the second perek of Megilla which distinguishes between two definitions of day: amud ha-shachar, based on light, and hanetz ha-chama, based on the sun. The first day of Bereshit defines day and night by light and darkness — va-yikra Elokim la-or yom ve-la-choshekh kara laila — while the fourth day defines them by the luminaries — ve-hayu le-otot u-le-mo'adim u-le-yamim ve-shanim. The Mishna in Megilla rules that mitzvot of yom are le-khatchila from hanetz ha-chama, be-di'avad from amud ha-shachar.
Rabbi Eliezer, who ends the zman at hanetz ha-chama, evidently does not treat Kriat Shema as a mitzvah of yom in the sense of the Mishna in Megilla; were it so, the endpoint would be later. Rather, Kriat Shema is governed by be-kumkha, and people rise with the first substantial light.
There is a further question whether the markers of the Mishna — bein tekhelet le-lavan — coincide with amud ha-shachar itself. If they do, then our Mishna parallels the first Mishna of the masekhet, where mi-sha'a she-ha-kohanim nikhnasim le-ekhol bi-terumatan was identified by the Baraita with tzet ha-kokhavim. On that reading, our Mishna is stating that Kriat Shema begins at amud ha-shachar, simply describing amud ha-shachar by its perceptible features. The Pri Chadash is cholek on this identification and holds that amud ha-shachar precedes the point of bein tekhelet le-lavan — there is less light at amud ha-shachar. The nafka mina will occupy us on another occasion.
A supporting consideration for reading the Mishna as sociological comes from a Mishna in the third perek: one who was a ba'al keri and had gone down to tovel — im yakhol la'alot ule-hitkasot ve-likro ad she-lo tanetz ha-chama, he should do so; otherwise, he should cover himself in the water and recite, provided the water is not foul. This stam mishna evidently sides with Rabbi Eliezer in setting the end of the zman at hanetz ha-chama, and is readily explained on the sociological approach — that is the hour by which the average person is up and about. The same logic fits the story of Rabban Gamliel and his sons in the first Mishna: the average population retires at ashmura rishona or chatzot, but so long as his sons were awake — having been at the beit ha-mishteh — they could still recite. Rabban Gamliel's logic closely parallels Rabbi Yehoshua's here: what matters is that you are still in the time of be-shokhbekha or be-kumkha.
The Gemara on Bein Tekhelet Le-lavan
The Gemara asks what precisely is meant by bein tekhelet le-lavan. If it refers to two separate piles of wool, one dyed tekhelet and one white, be-laila nami yadi'a mida yad'i — the difference is perceptible even in the dark. The Gemara therefore concludes bein tekhelet she-ba le-lavan she-ba — within the same piece of wool.
Rashi explains this as a fleece dyed tekhelet where the dye did not take uniformly, so that white patches remain within the same piece. There one requires genuine light to distinguish.
Tosafot reject Rashi's reading. They object that the Gemara in Menachot invokes our Mishna in the context of u-re'item oto — ra'eh mitzvah zo ve-zakhor mitzvah acheret, namely Kriat Shema — which indicates that the reference is specifically to tzitzit, not to any ordinary piece of wool. Tosafot therefore explain — as appears already in the Yerushalmi — that the Mishna refers to the tzitzit themselves: the strings of tekhelet and the strings of lavan on one's garment. A person rises in the morning, dresses, sees his tzitzit, and must be able to distinguish the tekhelet strings from the lavan strings in order to fulfill u-re'item oto.
An Excursus on Tzitzit and Kabbalat Ol Malkhut Shamayim
This leads to a broader point about the structure of the mitzvah of tzitzit and its connection to Kriat Shema. The mitzvah has two stages: ve-asu lahem tzitzit — placing the tzitzit on the garment; and u-re'item oto u-zekhartem et kol mitzvot Hashem — seeing them and remembering. Clothing defines identity. To affix tzitzit to one's garment is to declare one's identity as one committed to taryag mitzvot. The color of tekhelet, as Chazal say, tekhelet domeh la-yam ve-yam domeh la-raki'a ve-raki'a domeh le-kisei ha-kavod — the lavan sets a person in this world, while the tekhelet reminds him that he has a divine soul engaged in avodat Hashem.
Donning tzitzit is thus an act of kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim. In a world in which the emperor was regarded as divine and the street belonged to pagan rule, the Jew rising in the morning, donning tzitzit, and reciting Kriat Shema was declaring his allegiance to the King of the world. This fits the Netziv's idea, which I addressed in the Shabbat Ha-gadol drasha, that brit bein ha-betarim establishes Jewish identity as ger — standing apart.
On the structure of the tzitzit strings, Tosafot here conform to their shita: two strings of lavan and two of tekhelet, yielding four that become eight when doubled, with alternating chulyot of lavan and tekhelet. The Rambam holds one string of tekhelet and seven of lavan — ve-natnu al tzitzit ha-kanaf petil tekhelet, a single petil wrapped around. The Ra'avad takes a middle position, three and one.
Tosafot's coupling of tzitzit and Kriat Shema also illuminates the inclusion of Parshat Va-yomer in Kriat Shema. The methodology of Chazal in selecting parshiyot is that a parsha which commands a given action is recited as part of the performance of that action. Tefillin has four parshiyot because it is commanded in four; mezuzah has two because only Shema and Ve-haya Im Shamoa contain u-khetavtam al mezuzot beitekha. Parshat Shema contains u-ve-shokhbekha u-ve-kumekha; Ve-haya Im Shamoa contains ve-dibarta bam. Parshat Va-yomer contains no such formula — but when the tzitzit are seen, u-re'item oto u-zekhartem et kol mitzvot Hashem, this becomes the textual basis for attaching Parshat Tzitzit to the daily Kriat Shema.
Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Akiva, and Acherim
The Baraita offers further markers: Rabbi Meir — mi-she-yakir bein ze'ev le-kelev; Rabbi Akiva — bein chamor la-arod; Acherim — mi-she-yireh et chaveiro rachok arba amot ve-yakirenu. The shift in the markers is striking: from colors in cloth to similar animals to the recognition of a fellow human being. It is worth noting that the phrase ad yakir ish et re'ehu comes from the scene of Rut at the threshing floor of Boaz — va-takom be-terem yakir ish et re'ehu — the moment before recognition. Megillat Rut centers on the capacity to truly see one's fellow: Boaz's lads see a na'arah Moaviyah, a foreigner; Boaz sees one who has come la-chasot tachat kanfei ha-Shekhinah. The contrast echoes Avraham and Bilam — the ayin tovah that looks upon Sedom and seeks good, and the ayin ra'ah that looks upon Machaneh Yisrael and seeks evil.
If Acherim is indeed drawing on Rut, they may be conveying not only a measure of light but a substantive idea: the prerequisite for kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim is the capacity to recognize one's fellow as a subject with his own needs. This is the contrast with Mitzrayim, where the other is only an instrument of one's power. The Gemara in Bava Batra cites Rav Yosef: ani be-tzedek echezeh fanekha — before approaching the Ribbono Shel Olam, one gives tzedakah, which is itself yakir ish et re'ehu.
The Halakhic Ruling and the Zman of Tefillin
Rav Huna rules halakha ke-Acherim — mi-she-yakir et chaveiro. Abaye says le-tefillin ke-Acherim — the zman for donning tefillin is mi-she-yakir et chaveiro. The zman of tefillin, like that of Kriat Shema, is tied to behavior and light rather than purely to astronomical day. Regarding tefillin at night, the sugya in Menachot — as read by Rashi and the Rambam — holds that tefillin would ideally be a constant mitzvah, since the obligation is really the attitude of bearing the parshiyot of ol malkhut shamayim. At night, however, one cannot guard them — u-shemarta et ha-chukah ha-zot le-mo'adah — and so they are removed. The Gemara's marker of ad she-tikhleh regel min ha-shuk for the end of the zman of tefillin also reflects behavioral rather than astronomical time.
Kriat Shema Ke-vatikin
The Gemara continues: u-mitzvah ke-vatikin, de-amar Rabbi Yochanan vatikin hayu gomerin otah im hanetz ha-chama. Rashi describes vatikin as anashim anavim me-chabvei mitzvah. The point requires clarification: if the zman of Kriat Shema runs over a span, why is the last possible moment preferred, when the Gemara on Daf Daled preferred the earliest moment for the evening Kriat Shema?
The Baraita supplies the reason: kedei she-yismokh ge'ulah le-tefilla ve-nimtza mitpallel ba-yom. The operative principle touches a fundamental question: when does zman tefilla begin? The Mishna in the fourth perek states only tefillat ha-shachar ad arba sha'ot — it does not specify the onset. Logically, following tefillot ke-neged korbanot, the zman ought to begin with the tamid shel shachar, which was offered before hanetz ha-chama. This is the view of the Pri Chadash. However, the Rach and many Rishonim held that zman tefilla follows zman yom va-laila, and, per the Mishna in Megilla, le-khatchila begins at hanetz ha-chama.
Given this, and given the stam mishna in the third perek which ends zman Kriat Shema at hanetz ha-chama, the only way to achieve semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla is to recite Kriat Shema at the last possible moment and begin tefilla at the first possible moment — precisely at hanetz ha-chama. The malyuta of vatikin is not that they davened at netz as such, but that they achieved semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla. Most people rose earlier, recited Kriat Shema upon waking, and went off to work; they did not achieve semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla, as is clear from the Mishna in the second perek about one who is on a tree — he may recite Kriat Shema there but must descend for tefilla.
Rav Zeira brings the pasuk yira'ukha im shemesh ve-lifnei yare'ach dor dorim. Rashi explains that yira'ukha refers to Kriat Shema, the moment of kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim, and it is to be paired im shemesh — precisely at netz.
The Testimony of Rabbi Yossi ben Elyakim and the Story of Rav Zeira
Ha-somekh ge'ulah li-tefilla eino nizok kol ha-yom kulo. Rav Zeira relates that he once achieved semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla yet suffered a nezek — he was required to bring hadas to the palace of the king. He was told that this was not a nezek at all: one ordinarily must pay to gain audience with a king; he was admitted without charge. Rabbi Yochanan teaches that one should strive to run to see kings, even non-Jewish kings, so that if one merits olam ha-ba, yavhin bein malkhei Yisrael le-malkhei ovdei kokhavim. To understand divine kingship one must grasp the category of earthly kingship — the Gemara at the end of Berakhot states malkhuta di-ar'a ke-ein malkhuta di-rki'a. Political categories illuminate theological ones.
A further story: Rabbi Ila instructs Ulla, when he goes up to Eretz Yisrael, to greet Rav Bruna in the presence of the full havurah, for he is an adam gadol and same'ach be-mitzvot. The instance cited: zimna chada samakh ge'ulah li-tefilla ve-lo pasik chukha me-pumeih kuleih yoma.
Tosafot's Difficulty and the Resolution
Tosafot raise an obvious difficulty: ha-lo kol ha-olam somkhim ge'ulah li-tefilla — why is Rav Bruna distinguished? Tosafot answer that somekh ge'ulah li-tefilla in this context means ke-vatikin — reciting Kriat Shema before netz and davening after netz. In the world of Tosafot, who pasken like Rabbi Yehoshua that the zman of Kriat Shema extends until shalosh sha'ot, there is no structural difficulty in achieving semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla without vatikin, since Kriat Shema can be recited well after netz. Hence semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla in itself loses its distinctiveness; what remains exceptional is vatikin, which requires rising very early.
The malyuta thus shifts across the generations. In the world of Chazal — paskening like Rabbi Eliezer that the zman ends at netz, and that zman tefilla begins at netz — the exceptional act is semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla, which requires the precise dovetailing at netz, and vatikin is defined by this. In the world of the Ba'alei Tosafot, and in our own world, where halakha follows Rabbi Yehoshua, what remains exceptional is vatikin itself.
A Further Consideration: Saying Kriat Shema With the Sun
A Tosefta adds a further dimension. Rabbi Yehuda relates that he walked behind Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah; zman Kriat Shema arrived — meaning netz approached — and he assumed his Rabbanim were engaged in tzorkhei tzibbur and thus osek be-mitzvah patur min ha-mitzvah. He recited Kriat Shema himself, karisi ve-shanisi. Only afterwards did they begin, u-khevar nir'eit chama al rashei he-harim — once the sun had visibly risen upon the mountaintops. Rabbi Yehuda, following our Mishna, understood netz as the latest moment; his Rabbanim, it appears, deliberately waited to recite with the sun, not before it.
Why recite Kriat Shema precisely with the sun? In antiquity the sun was worshipped as the head of the pantheon — in Egypt above all. The Jew who rises, dons tzitzit, and before emerging into a world that will soon bow to the sun, declares Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad at the very moment of sunrise, is making a declaration of the unity of God against the theology of the street. This is a third consideration alongside zman kima and zman yom va-laila. We lose the immediacy of this today because we orient ourselves to the watch rather than to the sun.
Conclusions and What Remains
To summarize what the Mishna and its sugya yield. The zman of Kriat Shema shel shacharit is governed by be-kumkha, though the Mishna also incorporates markers of light that may or may not coincide with amud ha-shachar. The machloket between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua turns on whether we follow the majority or an identifiable minority. The halakha is ke-Acherim for the minimal threshold, mi-she-yakir et chaveiro. The zman of tefillin tracks the same threshold. Vatikin recited Kriat Shema at the latest possible moment and tefilla at the earliest, achieving semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla, which in the world of Chazal was the principal malyuta, and in the world of Tosafot gave way to vatikin itself as the distinctive practice. The association of Kriat Shema with hanetz ha-chama carries the further weight of declaring malkhut shamayim at the very moment the pagan world turned to the sun.
What remains for next time is the Rishonim's sustained treatment of our sugya in relation to the Gemara on Daf Chet regarding Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and the parallel sugya in Yoma — the Tosafot and the Rishonim who labor to reconcile the various zmanim of Kriat Shema shel shacharit.
