I started doing Daf Yomi this morning and was struck by something the mishna said. It said that the reason the chachamim said that the latest time for Kriat Shma is midnight is to keep people from sinning. But really, the latest time to recite Kriat Shma is Alot Hashachar. It's implied from the story that precedes it that Rabban Gamliel had to explain that it was only a chumra, but they could in fact recite Kriat Shma even though it was after chatzot.

I probably just don't understand the mishna, but this sounds very sketchy. Don't the chachamim have a responsibility to explain that it is only a chumra? This is exactly where Adam and Chava went wrong; Adam told Chava not to touch the tree, so when Chava touched the tree and nothing happened, she went ahead and also ate from it.

What's going on here?

The pashut pshat: Because they made it bdieved to say it after chatzos, in other words it's not just a chumra, but one is in transgression of a Mitzvah Dirabbanan if one misses chatzos. Yes, he can still get his dioraysa.

Another Pshat: According to Rabbeinu Yona the chachamim actually took away one's ability to do the mitzvah after chatzos. (Obviously we would then have to say that R' Gamliel was arguing, not explaining, shver from gemmorah later.) The Gaon explains that the reason for taking away the mitzvah acc. to R"Y is that people go to sleep around chatzos, so one will not say I have all night and then forget about it completely. (RE R"Y: see tosafos succah 3a on the bottom(forgot the dibbur hamaschil - sorry), Ran psachim (25b in the rif pages) on the mishna ammar r' Gamliel kol shelo ammar. Also (really interesting) compare rashi here who says hekter chalovim is not found to the pirush hamishnayos liharambam in zevachim perek 9 on the mishna of vekulam shepaku where he says this is what the mishnah means in berachos, which would put him on R"Y's side even though as far as kriyas shema he does not agree. The basic disagreement is whether the chachamim can take away a kiyum mitzvah for the purpose of protecting that mitzvah.

What?!! Now that's a new one. I usually say Shma after chatzos. What's the problem with it, if there is one?

Very basically, if you don't say it by chatzot, there is a high chance that you'll forget to recite the shma. Therefore the chachamim said that one should say it by chatzot to make sure that one will say it.

Lamdan, thanks for your answers, although they don't sit well with me. I'm not sure why yet, I'll have to think it over some more.

Are you talking about Al Hamitah?

Shel Arvis.

Oh, ok then. So there's nothing wrong with saying Krias Shemah at say 1AM instead of 12PM - right?

Well, firstly I'm sure you knowthat Chatzos is not always at 12pm. And yes, if you have already recited KS before Chatzos (in Ma'ariv or something), it's not a problem to say KS She'al Ha'mitah after Chatzos.

That's a good way of putting it, but what I meant was more that even though the reason for this din is to protect the dioraysa, after they made the gzairah it is also a din.
The difference between Chava saying G-d commanded us not to touch the tree and the first mishna in brachos is that in chava's case the end issur should have been defined as a chumra, while in the case of a gzairah dirabbanan the end result is that one MUST say shema before chatzos. If he does not, he is oiver a very real issur dirabannan*!! It therefore makes sense to say in the mishnah that you must say shema before chatzos.

*According to R"Y, one actually LOSES his mitzvah dioraysah if he misses chatzos. The Gaon is only explaining what they accomplished by moving the deadline back.

Hatzlachah on your wonderful endeavor! You should be zoche to finish shas and know kol hatorah kulah!!!

Amen!

But we don't hold like the chachamim. We can, in fact, say shema the entire night?

We can still be mekayem the dioraysa, and actually that's because the way the gemarrah explains later (9a), R' Gamliel was explaining the Chachamim's shittah (seems to be a kasha on R' Yonah?), but one who passes chatzos was oiver an issur dirabbanan.

After seeing this thread I thought it would be good if we have a Daf Yomi thread for those of us who are learning or starting to learn Daf Yomi.
Any thoughts anyone?

I totally agree! Have a forum to discuss ha'aros on the sugyos learned in the daf!
We should have Silent J make a new category for it!

I third that motion.

yeah!

Your question is broader. You are asking how we harmonize the idea of not going overboard with chumros that are destructive with the rabbinic mandate of asei syag le-torah. Good question. Its a difficult subject. But perhaps the key point is that Adam was an individual implementing a fence, and thats improper.

But why do the chachamim, who as a whole made this 'fence,' not have to tell anyone that it's only a fence? I guess that's what Lamdan answered above. That it's not a chumra that you must recite shema before chatzot, rather, it became the halacha.

Then how could the sons violate halakha in this case?

Because we don't hold like the chachamim.

They can't, but they already did, and they had to deal with the bidieved.

In any event this thread should be in Divrei Torah and essays and not in Jewish Fundamentals.
At least that's my opinion.

So do we or do we not hold like the chachamim?

look at the artscroll mishnah

It also should be in MS's SIG for the blatant illegal apostrophe in the title.

"L'hagdil Torah Ul'ha'adirah"

I fourth the notion.

Then how could you say it became the halacha like the chachamim?

That's why I asked if it was indeed hold like the chachamim.

But it was a unanimous decision!
The question arises before Rabban Gamliel. What did the Rabbanan want you to do b'dieved? I think the obvious answer is, you are over a d'rabbanan for missing chatzos, but you can still be yotzeh d'oraysoh.

I think there might be grammatical grounds to permit the apostrophe is this case. It's pluralizing a foreign word; it's not a possessive. That being said, I would have opted for, "chumrot".

Grammar never was my strong point. But you're right, chumrot would have been correct.

I did not know that rule. Thank you.

I made it up.
I actually have to look it up in one my style books. I vaguely recall something about that but to be honest, please don't take my word for it. Bluelaptop? Politico?

Yes, you are yotseh deoraisa bdiavad. But if the rabannan wanted you to say shema anyway, how can you say that you are over a drabbanan?

1.There is no difference in the torah between L'chatchila and B'dieved.
2.If someone marries an erva d'rabbanan, do the Rabbanan want him to give a get? They still want you to do what the torah says.

1. Of course, I used the term "bdiavad" in the literal sense of "if he did it", not in the common "second best" useage. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

2. Of course they want you to fulfill what the Torah says. But one can think of many examples where the chachamim placed conditions that were oker the performance of a deoraisa, such as shofar on shabbos. I don't know that you can say that the chachamim want you to say shema before chatzos but they also want you to say it after chatzos if you missed it.

I hear ya.

There is a shittah in the Rabbenu Yona that says that after chatzos one cannot recite K"Sh --Yesh Koach B'yad Chachamim La'akor Davar Min Hatorah B'shev V'al Taaseh.

Thanks Gabbe.

Of course that begs the question why then did R. Gamliel instruct his sons to say shema.

Well, I would say that this shittah held that the machlokes was not whether l'chatchila one should say shema before chatzos, but rather should I say it afterwards.

A few points in response to some posts on this thread:

It was mentioned that R. Yonah holds that Chazal uprooted the d'orayta obligation of reciting KS after Chatzot. However, one interpretation of R. Yonah is that does not apply when KS was inadvertantly missed. R. Gamliel's sons missed saying KS before Chatzot inadvertantly - they were at a wedding. Even according to R. Yonah's interpretation of Chazal, Chazal may still obligate recitation of KS after Chatzot in such a case.

With regard to the comment about there being any problem reciting KS after Chatzot, keep in mind that regardless of the latest time to recite KS even le-katchilah, there may still be an inyan to recite KS as soon as possible once the earliest opportunity arrives, namely as soon as possible after tzeit.

On a related issue, regarding the issue of saying KS al ha-mitah after Chatzot, keep in mind that according to some poskim (eg. R. Ovadyah Yoseph) it's problematical to recite Ha-mapil after Chatzot.