Opening: The Triangle of Sugyot
The continuation of the discussion of the zman of Kriat Shema shel shacharit confronts a structural difficulty. Three sugyot in Shas appear to give different accounts of when Kriat Shema is to be recited: the sugya here in Berakhot Tet amud bet, the earlier sugya on Daf Chet amud bet regarding Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and a third sugya in Yoma describing the nivreshet zahav of Heleni Ha-malka. The Tosafot here, beginning with the dibbur ha-mat'chil li-Kriat Shema ke-vatikin, work through the contradictions, and Rabbeinu Tam introduces a sweeping reorganization of the entire topic.
Before turning to the sugya, an excursus on the spatial orientation of avodat Hashem is in order, as it bears directly on the meaning of saying Kriat Shema with sunrise.
Excursus: West, the Sun, and Avodah Zarah
The Shekhinah is in ma'arav. This is biblical — it is evident throughout the parshiyot of the Mishkan and in the structure of the Beit Ha-mikdash. The point is sharpened by the vision in Yechezkel of the elders of Yerushalayim turning their backs to the Heikhal and bowing to the sun in the east. To turn one's back to the rising sun and to declare Shema Yisrael is to declare that Hashem, not the sun, is the King of the world.
There is, however, a sugya in Bava Batra Daf Chaf Heh which states that one prays westward because the Shekhinah is in the west — read in isolation, this would mean that one always faces west wherever one is. Masekhet Berakhot, by contrast, holds that one orients himself toward the Beit Ha-mikdash. The Rishonim noted the contradiction and ruled that the operative source is Berakhot, but it is no accident that the Kodesh Ha-kodashim is in the west.
The deeper issue is the conception of avodah zarah. The Rambam habituated us to view avodah zarah as foolishness, but that depiction does not capture what made avodah zarah attractive in the world of Tanakh. The Ramban distinguishes types of avodah zarah, and the avodah zarah that drew our ancestors was the worship of natural powers — winds, seas, rivers, the sun, the rain. It was therefore geographic. In Egypt one worshipped the Nile, the source of water. In Eretz Yisrael one worshipped the Ba'al, the god of rain.
This is the framework within which the destiny of the Jew as ger is to be understood, echoing the Netziv. Avraham left Charan, his descendants left Eretz Yisrael for Mitzrayim and returned, in order to dislodge the geographic-natural conception of God. Shema Yisrael Hashem Echad declares that the Creator stands above the natural order and is not bound by territory. Yehoshua's final speech in Sefer Yehoshua is a sustained statement of this: Hashem defeated the gods of Egypt, the gods of the Emori, the gods of Kena'an. The temptation to worship the gods of Kena'an arises precisely because one lives in Kena'an. The lesson is that geography does not define our relationship to God.
The Rav, in a drasha delivered in June 1948 immediately after the establishment of the State, applied this analysis to the modern condition. Avodah zarah is not only a feature of antiquity. To live entirely by science, by natural order, by what man can produce through his own power — to say with Bar Kokhba lo tisa'ed ve-lo tikhsof, neither help nor hinder — is itself a form of avodah zarah. The role of religion in the era of science is to bring faith into a world that imagines itself self-sufficient. Hishtadlut is required, but hishtadlut presupposes bitachon — the recognition that success depends on Hakadosh Barukh Hu. This is the Lonely Man of Faith: the necessity of faith in a technological civilization that secularizes religion into one more tool for self-satisfaction.
This bears on contemporary Jewish identity. The Rav held that the American Jew can never be merely American — the first commitment is to being Jewish, and Jewish identity cannot dissolve into the territory in which one lives. The principle of brit bein ha-betarim — the destiny to be a ger — applies even in Eretz Yisrael. Israeli identity today carries genuine Jewish content — the mesirut nefesh of the younger generation, their commitment to defending fellow Jews, reflects values that are halakhically grounded; one whose Judaism does not include the protection of Jews under attack has something defective in his Judaism. Nevertheless, identity cannot be reduced to territory even here. We must remain gerim in the sense that we define ourselves by our values rather than by our place. With this framework in view, we return to the sugya.
Recapitulation of the Mishna and the Sugya in Berakhot
The Mishna offers markers for the onset of the zman — bein tekhelet le-lavan, bein tekhelet le-karti — that may reflect either sociological time (when people rise) or astronomical time (the threshold of amud ha-shachar). The end of the zman is disputed: Rabbi Eliezer says hanetz ha-chama, since the average person is up by then; Rabbi Yehoshua says shalosh sha'ot, since the bnei melakhim sleep until that hour. Abaye in our sugya rules Kriat Shema ke-vatikin — Kriat Shema is to be recited at sunrise, paired with the start of tefilla so as to achieve semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla.
As established earlier, this Baraita assumes the time of tefilla begins at netz and the zman of Kriat Shema ends at netz (per Rabbi Eliezer); the only point at which semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla is structurally possible is therefore precisely at netz. Once we pasken like Rabbi Yehoshua and the zman of Kriat Shema extends to shalosh sha'ot, the linkage between vatikin and semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla is severed — every minyan, even the late one, can achieve semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla. What remains distinctive about vatikin in our world is the alignment of the moment with sunrise itself. To this we may add the further idea drawn from the Tosefta — that reciting Kriat Shema at sunrise constitutes a declaration against the worship of the sun.
The Tosafot in Berakhot: The Three-Way Contradiction
Tosafot here, li-Kriat Shema ke-vatikin, raise a teima from the prior sugya: above (Daf Chet) we paskened like the one who permits Kriat Shema miyad le-achar amud ha-shachar, while later (Daf Yud) we will pasken like Rabbi Yehoshua, ad shalosh sha'ot. Yet here the Gemara appears to follow Abaye, who is batra, ruling ke-vatikin.
Tosafot's resolution: the zman of Kriat Shema in fact begins after amud ha-shachar and runs until shalosh sha'ot. Within this span, the mitzvah min ha-muvchar is ke-vatikin, samukh le-hanetz ha-chama, in order to achieve semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla. Even the vatikin themselves concede to Rabbi Yehoshua that one who failed to recite before netz may still recite until shalosh sha'ot. The structure is therefore a time-span with a recommended optimal point — vatikin is a hiddur available to those few capable of it, not the definition of the zman.
Tosafot adduce support from the sugya of mi she-meto, which deals with the ba'al keri who descended to tovel and may not be able to emerge before netz. The Gemara there entertains the possibility that the requirement of pre-netz recitation reflects vatikin's conduct — even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, vatikin would have aimed for hanetz.
The Difficulty from Yoma
Tosafot then present the third leg of the triangle — the sugya in Yoma describing the nivreshet zahav donated by Heleni Ha-malka. The Mishna in Yoma describes objects donated to the Mikdash by Heleni and her son Munbaz, the rulers of the kingdom of Chadyav that converted to Judaism — the same kingdom that inspired Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Levi's Sefer Ha-kuzari. Among these gifts was a golden chandelier placed at the entrance of the Heikhal. When the rays of the sun struck this chandelier and sparkled forth, hayu yod'in she-higi'a zman hanetz ha-chama u-va zman Kriat Shema shel shacharit. The Gemara there establishes that this functioned as a public time-marker for the population of Yerushalayim.
The geographic and technological background must be kept in view. They had no clocks. The chandelier functioned as a kind of public timepiece — analogous to Big Ben — for a city that lay topographically low, surrounded by mountains, deliberately so. The lowness of Yerushalayim and of Shilo before it expresses the principle that the Mikdash draws its power not from its natural elevation but from the Shekhinah. From low ground, one cannot see the sun rise above the horizon directly; the chandelier solves this by reflecting the first rays.
The implication of the Yoma sugya is decisive: the population recited Kriat Shema after hanetz ha-chama, when the sun had unmistakably risen and reflected on the chandelier. Yet our Gemara, on Tosafot's reading, has vatikin reciting Kriat Shema before netz. This is a direct contradiction.
Tosafot's answer: oto zman hukba la-tzibbur lefi she-lo hayu yekholim le-hakdim u-le-maher ke-vatikin ke-rov bnei adam einam yod'in le-khaven otah sha'a. The true zman le-khatchila is before netz; the practice described in Yoma reflects the practical situation that most people could not gauge the precise moment of netz in advance. The chandelier provided a public marker that gave certainty, even at the price of being slightly late.
A Word on the Tosafist Movement and Manuscript Versions
The Tosafist movement was a sustained Beit Midrash project of nearly two centuries — not the work of single authors. The great rabbanim cited in the Tosafot — Rabbeinu Tam, the Ri (his nephew) — generally did not write their own works; their talmidim recorded their shiurim, producing multiple versions which were later edited and consolidated. What appears on the daf is one version selected from many. For Berakhot we possess an additional Tosafot, Tosafot Rabbeinu Yehuda Sir Leon — Sir Leon being a translation of Yehuda (Aryeh, the lion: gur aryeh Yehuda) — a pupil of the Ri who lived in the 13th century. The misattribution to Rabbeinu Yehuda Ha-chasid is incorrect.
Our Tosafot here on Berakhot does not preserve the full discussion. The Tosafot in Yoma — also from the school of the Ri — preserves substantially more material, including the line: u-mara ani kore lakhem mi-Yoma — vatikin nami modu de-zmanah ad gimel sha'ot. Vatikin themselves did not dispute that the zman extends to shalosh sha'ot; they simply sought to recite earlier. Likewise, Abaye's li-Kriat Shema ke-vatikin does not fix the zman at vatikin's moment — it merely indicates that vatikin's practice is the mitzvah min ha-muvchar.
Rabbeinu Tam: Reversing the Primary Source
The Tosafot in Yoma cites Rabbeinu Tam, who proposes a fundamental reorganization. Rabbeinu Tam holds that zman Kriat Shema havei achar hanetz ha-chama — the zman begins only after netz, as the Yoma sugya plainly indicates.
This is a revealing instance of Tosafist dialectical methodology. The pre-Tosafist instinct — visible already in the Ri's resolution above — was to fix on the sugya di-shma'atta, the primary source where a topic is principally discussed, and to harmonize secondary sources to it. On the topic of zman Kriat Shema, the natural primary source is the sugya in Berakhot; the Yoma reference to Heleni's chandelier is incidental. The Rambam typically paskens with the primary source.
Rabbeinu Tam's chiddush is that once a contradiction exists in Shas, no source has automatic priority. Either source can serve as the Archimedean point and the other be reread in its light. Once yesh lomar… ve-od yesh lomar is permitted in either direction, fundamentally new readings of the central sugya become available. This is the dialectical method in its full sense — not merely the identification and resolution of contradictions, but the freedom to invert primary and secondary.
Rabbeinu Tam applies this here: he takes Yoma — a single Mishna mentioning Heleni's chandelier — as fixing the zman, and rereads the entire sugya in Berakhot accordingly. Vatikin on his reading were hayu memaharin she-lo ka-din kodem hanetz ha-chama bishvil chovat ha-tefilla, kedei li-smokh ge'ulah li-tefilla she-tehei im ha-shemesh. They acted she-lo ka-din — they were tzaddikim, but tzaddikim do not always learn correctly. They wished to recite Kriat Shema before netz so that tefilla would coincide with the sun, since they took the principle yira'ukha im shemesh (Berakhot Daf Lamed) to refer to tefilla. But the truth is that the zman of Kriat Shema does not begin until after netz, as Yoma indicates, and they were therefore wrong to recite before.
Tosafot object: de-mitzvatah im hanetz ha-chama mashma de-zeh ikkar mitzvat Kriat Shema. The Gemara cannot be read as describing vatikin doing the wrong thing.
Rabbeinu Tam therefore refines: Abaye himself indeed holds that zman Kriat Shema is after netz, and Abaye's ke-vatikin is ke-simana be-alma — meaning samukh le-hanetz, similar to but not identical with vatikin. The actual vatikin recited before netz; Abaye recommends the analogous practice but after netz, samukh le-netz. Vatikin themselves were mistaken; Abaye's recommendation, properly understood, places Kriat Shema just after sunrise.
Rabbeinu Tam adduces a strong proof from the Mishna in the second perek of Megilla: ve-khulan she-asu mi-she-ala amud ha-shachar kasher — be-di'avad — alma davar she-zmano ba-yom mitzvato achar hanetz. Mitzvot of yom are le-khatchila from netz. Rabbeinu Tam thus aligns Kriat Shema with the broader category of zmanei yom va-laila: it is a mitzvah of day in the full astronomical sense, and its zman le-khatchila begins at netz.
This represents a fundamental shift in the conceptualization of the zman. Where the natural reading of the Mishna in our perek pointed toward be-kumkha and sociological time — even Rabbi Eliezer's endpoint of netz reflected when the average person is awake — Rabbeinu Tam moves the entire framework onto astronomical footing. One might ask whether his social reality made this possible: in 12th-century France, perhaps people did not rise as early as the Mishna assumed.
Ba'al Ha-ma'or
The Ba'al Ha-ma'or, a 12th-century rabbi of Provence, is often grouped with Rabbeinu Tam but holds a distinct position. He distinguishes three moments: before netz, during netz, and after netz. Vatikin, on his view, recited Kriat Shema during netz — neither before nor after; what is described in Yoma reflects the population reciting slightly after netz. Ba'al Ha-ma'or shares with Rabbeinu Tam the principle that one is not to recite Kriat Shema before netz.
It is worth registering how Talmudic thought has reversed direction here. Rabbi Eliezer's endpoint of netz was explained by the fact that everyone except the bnei melakhim is awake by then — and per the Ramban, even the bnei melakhim are awake, merely in bed. Rabbeinu Tam now arrives at the conclusion that the zman begins only at netz — a complete inversion of the sociological framework into an astronomical one.
A Personal Note on Practice
My father's yahrzeit fell on Shabbat. He did not regularly daven vatikin — the Briskers were not makpidim on chumrot relating to early rising — but he did daven vatikin twice a year: on the morning of Shavuot, and at the conclusion of the zman in yeshiva, after a mishmar of learning all night. On those occasions, since he was choshesh for Rabbeinu Tam, he would recite Kriat Shema a second time after davening, lest his pre-netz recitation be invalid.
My own practice is to daven vatikin as a regular matter and to recite Kriat Shema before netz, in accordance with the peshat of the sugya here in Berakhot, without being choshesh for Rabbeinu Tam. Before adopting this practice — as also with respect to wearing tekhelet — I went to my father for reshut, so as not to be moreh halakha bi-fnei rabbo, and he granted it.
Conclusions and What Remains
Three sugyot, three configurations of the same material. The Ri preserves the priority of Berakhot: zman Kriat Shema runs from amud ha-shachar (or mi-she-yakir) until shalosh sha'ot, vatikin is the optimal point within that span, and the Yoma description reflects a practical accommodation for those who could not anticipate netz. Rabbeinu Tam inverts the priority: Yoma fixes the zman at after-netz, Berakhot is reread accordingly, vatikin themselves erred, and Abaye's ke-vatikin means samukh le-netz but after netz. Ba'al Ha-ma'or splits the moment: vatikin recited during netz, the population just after, and pre-netz recitation is invalid in either case.
The methodological lesson is the dialectical principle itself: once a contradiction is admitted within Shas, there is no fixed primary source. The same data can be reorganized around either pole, generating fundamentally different shitot. The substantive lesson is the shift in the conceptualization of the zman — from be-kumkha and sociological time toward zmanei yom va-laila and astronomical time, with corresponding consequences for semikhat ge'ulah li-tefilla and the meaning of vatikin.
What remains for the next session is the question of sof zman Kriat Shema — Rabbi Yehoshua's shalosh sha'ot and the discussion that emerges on Daf Yud.
