From what time in the evening may the Shema’ be recited? From the time when the priests enter [the Temple] to eat of the Heave-offering until the end of the first watch. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: Until midnight. . . . Why then have the sages said: Until midnight? To keep a man from transgression.
m. Berakoth 1:1
It is telling that the very first part of the first Tractate of the first Division of the Oral Law speaks of the narrowing of tradition in order to protect people from getting too close to the line or gray zone between obedience and disobedience. This was a fundamental concern of the Rabbis and many of the Pharisees, sages, or pious who came before them. The classic term for this is building a fence (or wall) around Torah
and comes from the beginning of Tractate Aboth. The men of the Great Synagogue headed by Ezra after the return from exile were said to have had three motivations, purposes, or intents:
Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Law.
m. Aboth 1:1
In the beginning of the Oral Law, we see how that fence was taking shape—by teaching disciples to do their evening recitation of the Shema’ before midnight, this was supposed to keep them from falling asleep and then not saying it before they woke up the next day, at which point it would be too late.
It reminds me of a rule that was imposed over me when I was a new Christian. I lived in a house with a bunch of other young Christian men that was part of a university ministry. The rule was no 1 and 1 after 1:00,
meaning there should not be one male and one female alone together at the house after 1:00 A.M. The purpose of this rule was two-fold. First, it meant to guard the house or those in it against an appearance of evil.
Second, it was meant to protect the guy and girl from the temptation to do something they shouldn’t (sexually). Likewise, there were several women who were part of that university ministry who lived in a house together and didn’t allow guys in the house after a certain time. When an attraction sprang up between me and one of the women in the other house, I was always getting in trouble either at my house or her’s for being alone with her past these dogmatic curfews. Eventually, there were planned meetings between me and my male housemates and between me and the women of the other house. It became clear during these sessions that both parties and all those involved in those parties were mainly concerned with me not heeding the rules because they were trying to protect me from doing something I shouldn’t (sexually). And while I freely admit that the temptation existed, I was adamant in my resolve to not commit fornication, which I tried very hard to communicate and convince them of.
The irony of this whole situation is that I alone of the young men was the one who was breaking this rule (in both houses), I alone of the young men stood up for myself (unfortunately, not often with love toward those who took me to task for one or both of those things), and I alone of the young men who didn’t immediately marry their girlfriend or who had a girlfriend to begin with didn’t do what they were so fearful I might. In that whole situation, transgression was created not because of the transgression people wanted us to avoid, but because of the rule meant to protect us from it. For this reason, I can’t help but wonder if maybe—just maybe—the fence around Torah meant to protect people from breaking it, sometimes further destroyed it.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.