Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 18, 2020 | כ״א בטבת תש״פ

Berakhot 15

What is the order of activities one should do in the morning? Does one need to search far for water to wash one’s hands before shema and shmone esreh? Is it more important for one than the other? Does one need to hear the words one says in shema? Can one just think it in one’s heart? What about other blessings? Is the requirement the same? What exactly are the different opinions? How many different opinions are there? What do we learn from the words “and one should write them” what parts should be written? How careful does one need to be with reciting the words carefully? With which words does one need to be particularly careful?

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

יפנה ויטול ידיו ויניח תפילין ויקרא קריאת שמע ויתפלל וזו היא מלכות שמים שלמה

should relieve himself, wash his hands, don phylacteries, recite Shema, and pray, and that is acceptance of the complete Kingdom of Heaven.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל הנפנה ונוטל ידיו ומניח תפילין וקורא קריאת שמע ומתפלל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו בנה מזבח והקריב עליו קרבן דכתיב ארחץ בנקיון כפי ואסובבה את מזבחך ה׳ אמר ליה רבא לא סבר לה מר כאילו טבל דכתיב ארחץ [בנקיון] ולא כתב ארחיץ [כפי]

On a similar note, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who relieves himself, washes his hands, dons phylacteries, recites Shema, and prays, the verse ascribes credit to him as if he built an altar and offered a sacrifice upon it, as it is written: “I will wash in purity my hands, and I will encircle the altar of the Lord” (Psalms 26:6). Rava said to him: Do you not maintain, Master, that one who does so, it is as if he immersed his entire body, as it is written: “I will wash in purity,” and it is not written: “I will wash my hands”?

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא חזי מר האי צורבא מרבנן דאתא ממערבא ואמר מי שאין לו מים לרחוץ ידיו מקנח ידיו בעפר ובצרור ובקסמית

Ravina said to Rava: My Master, look at this Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] who came from Eretz Yisrael and said something astonishing: One who has no water with which to wash his hands, it is sufficient that he wipes his hands with earth, a rock, or a sliver of wood.

אמר ליה שפיר קאמר מי כתיב ארחץ במים בנקיון כתיב כל מידי דמנקי דהא רב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא

Rava replied to Ravina: He spoke well, as, is it written: I will wash with water? In purity, is written referring to anything that cleans, as Rav Ḥisda would curse one who went out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.

והני מילי לקריאת שמע אבל לתפלה מהדר ועד כמה עד פרסה והני מילי לקמיה אבל לאחוריה אפילו מיל אינו חוזר [ומינה] מיל הוא דאינו חוזר הא פחות ממיל חוזר:

With regard to seeking water, the Gemara comments: This applies only to the recitation of Shema, as the time for its recitation is limited, and if one goes seeking water he may run out of time. However, for prayer, which may be recited all day, one must go out of his way to seek water. And how far must one go out of his way to seek water? As far as a parasang [parsa]. And this, one parsa, applies only before him but behind him, he need not return even one mil. From this one may infer that he need not return one mil, but one must return less than one mil.

מתני׳ הקורא את שמע ולא השמיע לאזנו יצא רבי יוסי אומר לא יצא

MISHNA: One who recites Shema and did not recite in a manner audible to his own ear, either because he read inaudibly or because he is deaf, fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

קרא ולא דקדק באותיותיה רבי יוסי אומר יצא רבי יהודה אומר לא יצא

One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

הקורא למפרע לא יצא קרא וטעה יחזור למקום שטעה:

One who recited Shema out of order, meaning he did not read the verses sequentially, he did not fulfill his obligation. One who recited and erred, should return to the place in Shema that he erred.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי משום דכתיב שמע השמע לאזנך מה שאתה מוציא מפיך ותנא קמא סבר שמע בכל לשון שאתה שומע

GEMARA: The discussion in our mishna dealt with the question of whether or not one who recites Shema without hearing it fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara clarifies the opinions cited in the mishna: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ear? Because it is written: Shema, hear, and Rabbi Yosei holds that this is to be understood literally, meaning: Make your ears hear what your mouth utters. The first tanna, who holds that one fulfills his obligation even if he does not hear his recitation of Shema, holds that Shema, hear, comes to teach something else; one may recite Shema in any language that one can hear and understand, and there is no requirement to recite Shema specifically in Hebrew.

ורבי יוסי תרתי שמע מינה

And Rabbi Yosei agrees with the principle derived by the first tanna from the word Shema; however Rabbi Yosei holds: Derive two halakhot from the word Shema; first, one may recite Shema in any language, and second, one must recite it in a manner audible to his own ears.

תנן התם חרש המדבר ואינו שומע לא יתרום ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה

We learned there in a mishna regarding the laws of separating tithes: A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may not separate teruma ab initio, because he must recite a blessing over the separation of teruma and he is unable to hear the blessing. But after the fact, if he did separate it, his teruma is valid teruma.

מאן תנא חרש המדבר ואינו שומע דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

The Gemara asks: Who is this tanna who holds that if a deaf person who can speak but cannot hear separates teruma, it is considered teruma after the fact, but ab initio he may not do so?

אמר רב חסדא רבי יוסי היא דתנן הקורא את שמע ולא השמיע לאזנו יצא דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר לא יצא

Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in our mishna: One who recites Shema and did not recite it so it was audible to his own ear, he fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי לא יצא אלא גבי קריאת שמע דאורייתא אבל תרומה משום ברכה הוא וברכה דרבנן ולא בברכה תליא מילתא

Rav Ḥisda elaborates: Rabbi Yosei only stated that a deaf person did not fulfill his obligation even after the fact with regard to the recitation of Shema, which is a biblical obligation. But with regard to teruma, the concern is due to the blessing recited over its separation. And the blessing is by rabbinic law, and the separation of teruma itself is not contingent upon the blessing. The separation of teruma takes effect regardless of whether or not a blessing is recited, so in the case of a deaf person, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact.

וממאי דרבי יוסי היא דילמא רבי יהודה היא ואמר גבי קריאת שמע נמי דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא תדע דקתני הקורא דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

The Gemara challenges the assertion that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: And from where do you infer that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he said that with regard to the recitation of Shema as well, if one did not recite it in a manner audible to his own ears, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact, but ab initio he may not do so. This opinion is identical to that of the tanna in the case of teruma. Know that this is true because it was taught in the mishna: One who recites Shema without it being audible to his own ear. The tanna formulated the dispute in a case which was after the fact. If one already recited Shema in this manner, yes, he fulfilled his obligation. The tanna did not formulate the case in the mishna using ab initio language, i.e., one may recite Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears because, ab initio, he may not do so according to Rabbi Yehuda.

אמרי האי דקתני הקורא להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי דאמר דיעבד נמי לא דאי רבי יהודה אפילו לכתחלה נמי יצא

The Gemara rejects this proof. In explanation, they say: The fact that the mishna taught the halakha utilizing the after the fact language: One who recited, does not prove that Rabbi Yehuda also holds that one may not ab initio recite Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears. Rather, the mishna formulated the halakha in that manner is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that if one does so, even after the fact, he did not fulfill his obligation to recite Shema. As, if it sought to convey the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation without hearing the recitation.

במאי אוקימתא כרבי יוסי ואלא הא דתניא לא יברך אדם ברכת המזון בלבו ואם בירך יצא

The Gemara challenges this conclusion: How did you establish the reasoning of the mishna dealing with the laws of terumot? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that one who does not hear his recitation does not fulfill his obligation even after the fact. But what about that which was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals, which like Shema and unlike the blessing on separating teruma is a Torah commandment, in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation?

מני לא רבי יוסי ולא רבי יהודה דאי רבי יהודה הא אמר לכתחלה נמי יצא אי רבי יוסי דיעבד נמי לא

In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say according to the way the Gemara explained his position that even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation in that manner, and he need not recite it audibly. In that case, why should one refrain from reciting the blessing in his heart? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; he holds that even after the fact, he did not fulfill his obligation.

אלא מאי רבי יהודה ודיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

Rather, what must we say? We must revert to the explanation that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but ab initio, no, one may not recite it in a manner inaudible to his own ears. Therefore the baraita concerning Grace after Meals is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אלא הא דתני רבי יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי חרש המדבר ואינו שומע תורם לכתחלה מני

The Gemara questions this: But what about that baraita which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who speaks but does not hear may, ab initio, separate teruma. In accordance with whose opinion is that baraita?

לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי יוסי אי רבי יהודה הא אמר דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא אי רבי יוסי הא אמר דיעבד נמי לא

According to what we have said, it is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, although it was inaudible to his own ears, but ab initio, no, he may not fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, didn’t he say that if he does not hear himself, even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation? If so, whose opinion is reflected in this baraita?

אלא לעולם רבי יהודה ואפילו לכתחלה נמי ולא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה דתנן רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הקורא את שמע צריך שישמיע לאזנו שנאמר שמע ישראל ה׳ אלהינו ה׳ אחד אמר ליה רבי מאיר הרי הוא אומר אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך אחר כונת הלב הן הן הדברים

Rather, we must revert to the previous explanation but with a slight revision, and say that actually it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and even ab initio, a deaf person may also separate teruma. And this is not difficult and there is no contradiction between the mishna and the baraita, as this is his own opinion and that is his teacher’s opinion. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” This means that he must do so, but after the fact, if he failed to do so, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: It says: “Which I command you this day, upon your heart;” which Rabbi Meir explains to mean that the significance of the words follows the intention of the heart and even ab initio one need not recite Shema audibly.

השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כרביה סבירא ליה ולא קשיא הא רבי מאיר הא רבי יהודה

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this point and the entire baraita has been cited, even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, that only after the fact, does a deaf person fulfill his obligation, it is, nevertheless, not difficult and the different baraitot are not contradictory. As this baraita permitting a deaf person to separate teruma ab initio is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while this baraita that holds that he may not recite Grace after Meals ab initio but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

תנן התם הכל כשרים לקרות את המגילה חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן ורבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן

The Gemara cites a similar discussion with regard to the reading of the Megilla: We learned in a mishna there in tractate Megilla: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit.

מאן תנא חרש דיעבד נמי לא אמר רב מתנה רבי יוסי היא דתנן הקורא את שמע ולא השמיע לאזנו יצא דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר לא יצא

The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who holds that even after the fact, the reading of a deaf-mute is not valid? Rav Mattana said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in our mishna: One who recites Shema and did not recite it so it was audible to his own ear, fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

ממאי דרבי יוסי היא ודיעבד נמי לא

The Gemara asks: From where do you conclude that the mishna cited from tractate Megilla is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that after the fact his reading is also not valid?

דילמא רבי יהודה היא ולכתחלה הוא דלא הא דיעבד שפיר דמי

Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and although ab initio a deaf-mute may not read, after the fact his reading is valid?

לא סלקא דעתך דקתני חרש דומיא דשוטה וקטן מה שוטה וקטן דיעבד נמי לא אף חרש דיעבד נמי לא

The Gemara responds: This could not enter your mind, as it was taught: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, in one phrase in our mishna; to teach that a deaf-mute is similar to an imbecile and a minor. Just as in the case of an imbecile and a minor, even after the fact, their reading is not valid, so too the reading of a deaf-mute, even after the fact, is not valid.

ודילמא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

The Gemara rejects this assertion based on their appearance in a common list: And perhaps this case is as it is and that case is as it is; although listed together, the circumstances of each case may be different, and no definite proof can be drawn from their juxtaposition.

ומי מצית לאוקמה כרבי יהודה והא מדקתני סיפא רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן מכלל דרישא לאו רבי יהודה היא

The Gemara objects from a different perspective: And can you really establish that the first clause in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But from what was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit to read the Megilla, this proves by inference that the beginning of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

ודילמא כולה רבי יהודה היא ותרי גווני קטן וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני הכל כשרין לקרות את המגילה חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן במה דברים אמורים בקטן שלא הגיע לחנוך אבל קטן שהגיע לחנוך אפילו לכתחלה כשר דברי רבי יהודה שרבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן

The Gemara rejects this challenge as well: And perhaps the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there are two types of minors, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches as follows: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. In what case is this said? With regard to a minor who has not yet reached the age of training to fulfill the mitzvot. However in the case of a minor who has reached the age of training, even ab initio he is fit to read the Megilla. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, and his statement here comes to elucidate and not to dispute.

במאי אוקימתא כרבי יהודה ודיעבד אין לכתחלה לא אלא הא דתני רבי יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי חרש המדבר ואינו שומע תורם לכתחלה

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did you establish the mishna? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that after the fact, yes, his reading is valid, but ab initio, no, he may not read? However, that baraita which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who speaks but does not hear may, ab initio, separate teruma.

מני לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי יוסי אי רבי יהודה דיעבד אין לכתחילה לא אי רבי יוסי דיעבד נמי לא

In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As, if you say that it is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, didn’t he say that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but ab initio, no, he may not fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, didn’t he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

אלא מאי רבי יהודה ואפילו לכתחלה נמי אלא הא דתניא לא יברך אדם ברכת המזון בלבו ואם בירך יצא מני

This Gemara rejects this objection: But rather, what, will you explain the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a deaf-mute is also fit to fulfill his obligation even ab initio? However, that which was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation, in accordance with whose opinion is that baraita?

לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי יוסי אי רבי יהודה הא אמר אפילו לכתחלה נמי ואי רבי יוסי הא אמר אפילו דיעבד נמי לא

It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, didn’t he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

לעולם רבי יהודה היא ואפילו לכתחלה נמי ולא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה דתניא אמר רבי יהודה משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הקורא את שמע צריך שישמיע לאזנו שנאמר שמע ישראל אמר לו רבי מאיר הרי הוא אומר אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך אחר כונת הלב הן הן הדברים

The Gemara responds: Actually, we can explain that the baraita: A deaf person may, ab initio, separate teruma, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, according to whom a deaf-mute is also permitted to do so even ab initio. With regard to the opinion expressed that he is prohibited to recite Shema and Grace after Meals ab initio, there is no difficulty, as this is his own opinion and that is his teacher’s opinion. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: But it says: “Which I command you this day, upon your heart”; meaning that the significance of the words follows the intention of the heart and even ab initio one need not recite Shema audibly. The opinion that after the fact, a deaf person fulfilled his obligation to recite Shema is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כרביה סבירא ליה ולא קשיא הא רבי יהודה הא רבי מאיר

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this point and the entire baraita has been cited, even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, it is, nevertheless, not difficult. As this baraita that holds that he may not recite Grace after Meals ab initio but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while this baraita permitting a deaf person to separate teruma ab initio is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אמר רב חסדא אמר רב שילא הלכה כרבי יהודה שאמר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה והלכה כרבי יהודה

Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Sheila said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as cited in our mishna.

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הלכה כרבי יהודה הוה אמינא אפילו לכתחלה קמשמע לן הלכה כרבי יהודה שאמר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה

The Gemara explains: And although that may seem redundant, both statements are necessary, as had Rav Ḥisda only taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said, as was suggested in the Gemara above, that Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so even ab initio. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of his teacher, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya; ab initio one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ears.

ואי אשמעינן הלכה כרבי יהודה שאמר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הוה אמינא צריך ואין לו תקנה קמשמע לן הלכה כרבי יהודה

And had Rav Ḥisda only taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, I would have said that the phrase: Must make it audible, means not only must he recite it that way ab initio, but also after the fact he has no remedy if he failed to do so. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; ab initio one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ears, but if he failed to do so, after the fact his recitation is valid.

אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת בקריאת שמע אבל בשאר מצות דברי הכל לא יצא דכתיב הסכת ושמע ישראל

Rav Yosef said: The dispute as to whether or not a deaf person fulfills his obligation is only in the case of the recitation of Shema, but with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, everyone agrees that he does not fulfill his obligation if he does not hear his recitation, as it is written: “Pay attention, and hear, Israel” (Deuteronomy 27:9); meaning that one is required to listen and hear.

מיתיבי לא יברך אדם ברכת המזון בלבו ואם בירך יצא אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת בקריאת שמע דכתיב שמע ישראל אבל בשאר מצות דברי הכל יצא

The Gemara objects based on what was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation. In this example of the rest of the mitzvot, the obligation to hear the recitation of the blessing is only ab initio. Rather, Rav Yosef’s statement must be emended. If this was said, it was said as follows; Rav Yosef said: The dispute as to whether or not a deaf person fulfills his obligation is only in the case of the recitation of Shema, as it is written: “Hear, Israel.” But regarding the rest of the mitzvot, all agree that a deaf-mute fulfills his obligation.

והכתיב הסכת ושמע ישראל

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “Pay attention, and hear, Israel”?

ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב:

The Gemara responds: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah; one must pay close attention to what is written in the Torah.

קרא ולא דקדק באותיותיה:

We learned in the mishna: One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, there is a dispute whether or not one who recites Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears fulfilled his obligation; the anonymous first tanna says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

אמר רבי טבי אמר רבי יאשיה הלכה כדברי שניהם להקל:

Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: The halakha is in accordance with the statements in both disputes that rule leniently.

ואמר רבי טבי אמר רבי יאשיה מאי דכתיב שלש הנה לא תשבענה שאול ועצר רחם וכי מה ענין שאול אצל רחם אלא לומר לך מה רחם מכניס ומוציא אף שאול מכניס ומוציא

Incidental to citing one statement by this combination of Sages, the Gemara cites another statement in their name: And Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: What is meant by that which is written: “There are three that are never satisfied…the grave and the barren womb” (Proverbs 30:15–16)? We have to ask: What does a grave have to do with a womb? Rather, this juxtaposition comes to tell you: Just as a womb takes in and gives forth, so too a grave takes in and gives forth with the resurrection of the dead.

והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה רחם שמכניסין בו בחשאי מוציאין ממנו בקולי קולות שאול שמכניסין בו בקולי קולות אינו דין שמוציאין ממנו בקולי קולות מכאן תשובה לאומרים אין תחיית המתים מן התורה:

And is this not an a fortiori inference: Just as the fetus is placed into the womb in private, and the baby is removed from it with loud cries at childbirth; the grave into which the deceased is placed with loud cries of mourning at burial, is it not right that the body should be removed with loud cries? From this verse there is a refutation to those who say that there is no Torah source for the resurrection of the dead.

תני רבי אושעיא קמיה דרבא וכתבתם הכל בכתב אפילו צואות

Rabbi Oshaya taught the following baraita before Rava: The verse, “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam] on the door posts of your house and your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9), should be understood as though it were written: “And you shall write them completely [ukhtav tam],” i.e., in their entirety. Everything must be in writing in the mezuza or phylacteries, even the commands to write mezuzot and phylacteries.

אמר ליה דאמר לך מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר גבי סוטה אלות כותב צואות אינו כותב והתם הוא דכתיב וכתב את האלות האלה אבל הכא דכתיב וכתבתם אפילו צואות נמי

Rava said to him: Who said this baraita to you? It was Rabbi Yehuda, who said with regard to the scroll of the sota that one writes curses, but one does not write commands and instructions how to administer the potion to the sota. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of mezuzot and phylacteries the Torah taught that even the commands must be written in order to distinguish it from sota. There, in the case of the sota, it is written: “And the priest shall write [vekhatav] these curses in a scroll” (Numbers 5:23); only the curses are recorded in the scroll, and nothing more. But here in the case of mezuza, where it is written: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam],” even the commands must also be written.

אטו טעמיה דרבי יהודה משום דכתיב וכתב טעמיה דרבי יהודה משום דכתיב אלות אלות אין צואות לא

The Gemara questions this: Is that to say Rabbi Yehuda’s reason for writing only the curses in the sota scroll is because the verse in the portion of sota says: “And the priest shall write [vekhatav],” as opposed to: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]”? Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is because it is written in the portion of the sota: These curses, meaning curses, yes, they must be recorded; commands, no. If that is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning, there is no reason to derive the requirement to write the commands from the phrase: And you shall write them, in the case of the mitzva of mezuza. Derive it simply from the fact that the Torah did not distinguish between the various components of the portion.

אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא נילף כתיבה כתיבה מהתם מה התם אלות אין צואות לא אף הכא נמי צואות לא כתב רחמנא וכתבתם אפילו צואות:

The Gemara responds: “And you shall write them” was necessary, as otherwise it might have entered your mind to say: Let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy, writing mentioned here from writing mentioned there, that just as there curses, yes, commands, no; so too here, commands, no. Therefore, the Torah wrote: And you shall write them in their entirety, even the commands.

תני רב עובדיה קמיה דרבא ולמדתם שיהא למודך תם שיתן ריוח בין הדבקים

On a similar note: Rav Ovadya taught a baraita before Rava: That which was stated: “And you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your children” (Deuteronomy 11:19) teaches that your teaching must be complete [tam] that one should leave space between adjacent words, where the last letter of the first and the first letter of the second are identical. One must distinguish between the words and enunciate each one clearly.

עני רבא בתריה כגון על לבבך על לבבכם בכל לבבך בכל לבבכם עשב בשדך ואבדתם מהרה הכנף פתיל אתכם מארץ

Rava responded after him by way of explanation: For example, one must enunciate al levavekha and not read them as one word. So too, al levavkhem, bekhol levavekha, bekhol levavkhem, esev besadkha, va’avadtem mehera, hakanaf petil, and etkhem me’eretz. Because the last letter of the first word and the first letter of the second are identical, the words are liable to be enunciated together and the correct meaning is liable to be obscured.

אמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא כל הקורא קריאת שמע ומדקדק באותיותיה מצננין לו גיהנם שנאמר בפרש שדי מלכים בה תשלג בצלמון אל תקרי בפרש אלא בפרש אל תקרי בצלמון אלא בצלמות:

On this same topic, Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Anyone who recites Shema and is punctilious in enunciating its letters, Gehenna is cooled for him, as it is stated: “When the Almighty scatters [befares] kings over it, it will snow in Tzalmon” (Psalms 68:15). Do not read befares, When He scatters, but befaresh, When he enunciates. When one enunciates the name of God with precision, God will fulfill the verse: It will snow in Tzalmon, on his behalf. Do not read beTzalmon, in Tzalmon, but betzalmavet, in the shadow of death, a reference to Gehenna. As reward for enunciating God’s name precisely, God will cool Gehenna for him.

ואמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא למה נסמכו

Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, also said: Why were

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Berakhot (chapters 1-3)

Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Berakhot (chapters 1-3)

PEREK ALEPH: (2a) When may we say Shma at night? From the time the priests take their first bite ‘Til...

Berakhot 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 15

יפנה ויטול ידיו ויניח תפילין ויקרא קריאת שמע ויתפלל וזו היא מלכות שמים שלמה

should relieve himself, wash his hands, don phylacteries, recite Shema, and pray, and that is acceptance of the complete Kingdom of Heaven.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל הנפנה ונוטל ידיו ומניח תפילין וקורא קריאת שמע ומתפלל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו בנה מזבח והקריב עליו קרבן דכתיב ארחץ בנקיון כפי ואסובבה את מזבחך ה׳ אמר ליה רבא לא סבר לה מר כאילו טבל דכתיב ארחץ [בנקיון] ולא כתב ארחיץ [כפי]

On a similar note, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who relieves himself, washes his hands, dons phylacteries, recites Shema, and prays, the verse ascribes credit to him as if he built an altar and offered a sacrifice upon it, as it is written: “I will wash in purity my hands, and I will encircle the altar of the Lord” (Psalms 26:6). Rava said to him: Do you not maintain, Master, that one who does so, it is as if he immersed his entire body, as it is written: “I will wash in purity,” and it is not written: “I will wash my hands”?

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא חזי מר האי צורבא מרבנן דאתא ממערבא ואמר מי שאין לו מים לרחוץ ידיו מקנח ידיו בעפר ובצרור ובקסמית

Ravina said to Rava: My Master, look at this Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] who came from Eretz Yisrael and said something astonishing: One who has no water with which to wash his hands, it is sufficient that he wipes his hands with earth, a rock, or a sliver of wood.

אמר ליה שפיר קאמר מי כתיב ארחץ במים בנקיון כתיב כל מידי דמנקי דהא רב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא

Rava replied to Ravina: He spoke well, as, is it written: I will wash with water? In purity, is written referring to anything that cleans, as Rav Ḥisda would curse one who went out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.

והני מילי לקריאת שמע אבל לתפלה מהדר ועד כמה עד פרסה והני מילי לקמיה אבל לאחוריה אפילו מיל אינו חוזר [ומינה] מיל הוא דאינו חוזר הא פחות ממיל חוזר:

With regard to seeking water, the Gemara comments: This applies only to the recitation of Shema, as the time for its recitation is limited, and if one goes seeking water he may run out of time. However, for prayer, which may be recited all day, one must go out of his way to seek water. And how far must one go out of his way to seek water? As far as a parasang [parsa]. And this, one parsa, applies only before him but behind him, he need not return even one mil. From this one may infer that he need not return one mil, but one must return less than one mil.

מתני׳ הקורא את שמע ולא השמיע לאזנו יצא רבי יוסי אומר לא יצא

MISHNA: One who recites Shema and did not recite in a manner audible to his own ear, either because he read inaudibly or because he is deaf, fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

קרא ולא דקדק באותיותיה רבי יוסי אומר יצא רבי יהודה אומר לא יצא

One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

הקורא למפרע לא יצא קרא וטעה יחזור למקום שטעה:

One who recited Shema out of order, meaning he did not read the verses sequentially, he did not fulfill his obligation. One who recited and erred, should return to the place in Shema that he erred.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי משום דכתיב שמע השמע לאזנך מה שאתה מוציא מפיך ותנא קמא סבר שמע בכל לשון שאתה שומע

GEMARA: The discussion in our mishna dealt with the question of whether or not one who recites Shema without hearing it fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara clarifies the opinions cited in the mishna: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ear? Because it is written: Shema, hear, and Rabbi Yosei holds that this is to be understood literally, meaning: Make your ears hear what your mouth utters. The first tanna, who holds that one fulfills his obligation even if he does not hear his recitation of Shema, holds that Shema, hear, comes to teach something else; one may recite Shema in any language that one can hear and understand, and there is no requirement to recite Shema specifically in Hebrew.

ורבי יוסי תרתי שמע מינה

And Rabbi Yosei agrees with the principle derived by the first tanna from the word Shema; however Rabbi Yosei holds: Derive two halakhot from the word Shema; first, one may recite Shema in any language, and second, one must recite it in a manner audible to his own ears.

תנן התם חרש המדבר ואינו שומע לא יתרום ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה

We learned there in a mishna regarding the laws of separating tithes: A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may not separate teruma ab initio, because he must recite a blessing over the separation of teruma and he is unable to hear the blessing. But after the fact, if he did separate it, his teruma is valid teruma.

מאן תנא חרש המדבר ואינו שומע דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

The Gemara asks: Who is this tanna who holds that if a deaf person who can speak but cannot hear separates teruma, it is considered teruma after the fact, but ab initio he may not do so?

אמר רב חסדא רבי יוסי היא דתנן הקורא את שמע ולא השמיע לאזנו יצא דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר לא יצא

Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in our mishna: One who recites Shema and did not recite it so it was audible to his own ear, he fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי לא יצא אלא גבי קריאת שמע דאורייתא אבל תרומה משום ברכה הוא וברכה דרבנן ולא בברכה תליא מילתא

Rav Ḥisda elaborates: Rabbi Yosei only stated that a deaf person did not fulfill his obligation even after the fact with regard to the recitation of Shema, which is a biblical obligation. But with regard to teruma, the concern is due to the blessing recited over its separation. And the blessing is by rabbinic law, and the separation of teruma itself is not contingent upon the blessing. The separation of teruma takes effect regardless of whether or not a blessing is recited, so in the case of a deaf person, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact.

וממאי דרבי יוסי היא דילמא רבי יהודה היא ואמר גבי קריאת שמע נמי דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא תדע דקתני הקורא דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

The Gemara challenges the assertion that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: And from where do you infer that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he said that with regard to the recitation of Shema as well, if one did not recite it in a manner audible to his own ears, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact, but ab initio he may not do so. This opinion is identical to that of the tanna in the case of teruma. Know that this is true because it was taught in the mishna: One who recites Shema without it being audible to his own ear. The tanna formulated the dispute in a case which was after the fact. If one already recited Shema in this manner, yes, he fulfilled his obligation. The tanna did not formulate the case in the mishna using ab initio language, i.e., one may recite Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears because, ab initio, he may not do so according to Rabbi Yehuda.

אמרי האי דקתני הקורא להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי דאמר דיעבד נמי לא דאי רבי יהודה אפילו לכתחלה נמי יצא

The Gemara rejects this proof. In explanation, they say: The fact that the mishna taught the halakha utilizing the after the fact language: One who recited, does not prove that Rabbi Yehuda also holds that one may not ab initio recite Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears. Rather, the mishna formulated the halakha in that manner is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that if one does so, even after the fact, he did not fulfill his obligation to recite Shema. As, if it sought to convey the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation without hearing the recitation.

במאי אוקימתא כרבי יוסי ואלא הא דתניא לא יברך אדם ברכת המזון בלבו ואם בירך יצא

The Gemara challenges this conclusion: How did you establish the reasoning of the mishna dealing with the laws of terumot? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that one who does not hear his recitation does not fulfill his obligation even after the fact. But what about that which was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals, which like Shema and unlike the blessing on separating teruma is a Torah commandment, in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation?

מני לא רבי יוסי ולא רבי יהודה דאי רבי יהודה הא אמר לכתחלה נמי יצא אי רבי יוסי דיעבד נמי לא

In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say according to the way the Gemara explained his position that even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation in that manner, and he need not recite it audibly. In that case, why should one refrain from reciting the blessing in his heart? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; he holds that even after the fact, he did not fulfill his obligation.

אלא מאי רבי יהודה ודיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

Rather, what must we say? We must revert to the explanation that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but ab initio, no, one may not recite it in a manner inaudible to his own ears. Therefore the baraita concerning Grace after Meals is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אלא הא דתני רבי יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי חרש המדבר ואינו שומע תורם לכתחלה מני

The Gemara questions this: But what about that baraita which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who speaks but does not hear may, ab initio, separate teruma. In accordance with whose opinion is that baraita?

לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי יוסי אי רבי יהודה הא אמר דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא אי רבי יוסי הא אמר דיעבד נמי לא

According to what we have said, it is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, although it was inaudible to his own ears, but ab initio, no, he may not fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, didn’t he say that if he does not hear himself, even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation? If so, whose opinion is reflected in this baraita?

אלא לעולם רבי יהודה ואפילו לכתחלה נמי ולא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה דתנן רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הקורא את שמע צריך שישמיע לאזנו שנאמר שמע ישראל ה׳ אלהינו ה׳ אחד אמר ליה רבי מאיר הרי הוא אומר אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך אחר כונת הלב הן הן הדברים

Rather, we must revert to the previous explanation but with a slight revision, and say that actually it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and even ab initio, a deaf person may also separate teruma. And this is not difficult and there is no contradiction between the mishna and the baraita, as this is his own opinion and that is his teacher’s opinion. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” This means that he must do so, but after the fact, if he failed to do so, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: It says: “Which I command you this day, upon your heart;” which Rabbi Meir explains to mean that the significance of the words follows the intention of the heart and even ab initio one need not recite Shema audibly.

השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כרביה סבירא ליה ולא קשיא הא רבי מאיר הא רבי יהודה

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this point and the entire baraita has been cited, even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, that only after the fact, does a deaf person fulfill his obligation, it is, nevertheless, not difficult and the different baraitot are not contradictory. As this baraita permitting a deaf person to separate teruma ab initio is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while this baraita that holds that he may not recite Grace after Meals ab initio but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

תנן התם הכל כשרים לקרות את המגילה חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן ורבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן

The Gemara cites a similar discussion with regard to the reading of the Megilla: We learned in a mishna there in tractate Megilla: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit.

מאן תנא חרש דיעבד נמי לא אמר רב מתנה רבי יוסי היא דתנן הקורא את שמע ולא השמיע לאזנו יצא דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר לא יצא

The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who holds that even after the fact, the reading of a deaf-mute is not valid? Rav Mattana said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in our mishna: One who recites Shema and did not recite it so it was audible to his own ear, fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

ממאי דרבי יוסי היא ודיעבד נמי לא

The Gemara asks: From where do you conclude that the mishna cited from tractate Megilla is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that after the fact his reading is also not valid?

דילמא רבי יהודה היא ולכתחלה הוא דלא הא דיעבד שפיר דמי

Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and although ab initio a deaf-mute may not read, after the fact his reading is valid?

לא סלקא דעתך דקתני חרש דומיא דשוטה וקטן מה שוטה וקטן דיעבד נמי לא אף חרש דיעבד נמי לא

The Gemara responds: This could not enter your mind, as it was taught: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, in one phrase in our mishna; to teach that a deaf-mute is similar to an imbecile and a minor. Just as in the case of an imbecile and a minor, even after the fact, their reading is not valid, so too the reading of a deaf-mute, even after the fact, is not valid.

ודילמא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

The Gemara rejects this assertion based on their appearance in a common list: And perhaps this case is as it is and that case is as it is; although listed together, the circumstances of each case may be different, and no definite proof can be drawn from their juxtaposition.

ומי מצית לאוקמה כרבי יהודה והא מדקתני סיפא רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן מכלל דרישא לאו רבי יהודה היא

The Gemara objects from a different perspective: And can you really establish that the first clause in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But from what was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit to read the Megilla, this proves by inference that the beginning of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

ודילמא כולה רבי יהודה היא ותרי גווני קטן וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני הכל כשרין לקרות את המגילה חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן במה דברים אמורים בקטן שלא הגיע לחנוך אבל קטן שהגיע לחנוך אפילו לכתחלה כשר דברי רבי יהודה שרבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן

The Gemara rejects this challenge as well: And perhaps the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there are two types of minors, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches as follows: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. In what case is this said? With regard to a minor who has not yet reached the age of training to fulfill the mitzvot. However in the case of a minor who has reached the age of training, even ab initio he is fit to read the Megilla. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, and his statement here comes to elucidate and not to dispute.

במאי אוקימתא כרבי יהודה ודיעבד אין לכתחלה לא אלא הא דתני רבי יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי חרש המדבר ואינו שומע תורם לכתחלה

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did you establish the mishna? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that after the fact, yes, his reading is valid, but ab initio, no, he may not read? However, that baraita which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who speaks but does not hear may, ab initio, separate teruma.

מני לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי יוסי אי רבי יהודה דיעבד אין לכתחילה לא אי רבי יוסי דיעבד נמי לא

In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As, if you say that it is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, didn’t he say that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but ab initio, no, he may not fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, didn’t he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

אלא מאי רבי יהודה ואפילו לכתחלה נמי אלא הא דתניא לא יברך אדם ברכת המזון בלבו ואם בירך יצא מני

This Gemara rejects this objection: But rather, what, will you explain the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a deaf-mute is also fit to fulfill his obligation even ab initio? However, that which was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation, in accordance with whose opinion is that baraita?

לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי יוסי אי רבי יהודה הא אמר אפילו לכתחלה נמי ואי רבי יוסי הא אמר אפילו דיעבד נמי לא

It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, didn’t he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

לעולם רבי יהודה היא ואפילו לכתחלה נמי ולא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה דתניא אמר רבי יהודה משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הקורא את שמע צריך שישמיע לאזנו שנאמר שמע ישראל אמר לו רבי מאיר הרי הוא אומר אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך אחר כונת הלב הן הן הדברים

The Gemara responds: Actually, we can explain that the baraita: A deaf person may, ab initio, separate teruma, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, according to whom a deaf-mute is also permitted to do so even ab initio. With regard to the opinion expressed that he is prohibited to recite Shema and Grace after Meals ab initio, there is no difficulty, as this is his own opinion and that is his teacher’s opinion. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: But it says: “Which I command you this day, upon your heart”; meaning that the significance of the words follows the intention of the heart and even ab initio one need not recite Shema audibly. The opinion that after the fact, a deaf person fulfilled his obligation to recite Shema is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כרביה סבירא ליה ולא קשיא הא רבי יהודה הא רבי מאיר

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this point and the entire baraita has been cited, even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, it is, nevertheless, not difficult. As this baraita that holds that he may not recite Grace after Meals ab initio but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while this baraita permitting a deaf person to separate teruma ab initio is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אמר רב חסדא אמר רב שילא הלכה כרבי יהודה שאמר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה והלכה כרבי יהודה

Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Sheila said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as cited in our mishna.

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הלכה כרבי יהודה הוה אמינא אפילו לכתחלה קמשמע לן הלכה כרבי יהודה שאמר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה

The Gemara explains: And although that may seem redundant, both statements are necessary, as had Rav Ḥisda only taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said, as was suggested in the Gemara above, that Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so even ab initio. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of his teacher, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya; ab initio one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ears.

ואי אשמעינן הלכה כרבי יהודה שאמר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הוה אמינא צריך ואין לו תקנה קמשמע לן הלכה כרבי יהודה

And had Rav Ḥisda only taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, I would have said that the phrase: Must make it audible, means not only must he recite it that way ab initio, but also after the fact he has no remedy if he failed to do so. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; ab initio one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ears, but if he failed to do so, after the fact his recitation is valid.

אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת בקריאת שמע אבל בשאר מצות דברי הכל לא יצא דכתיב הסכת ושמע ישראל

Rav Yosef said: The dispute as to whether or not a deaf person fulfills his obligation is only in the case of the recitation of Shema, but with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, everyone agrees that he does not fulfill his obligation if he does not hear his recitation, as it is written: “Pay attention, and hear, Israel” (Deuteronomy 27:9); meaning that one is required to listen and hear.

מיתיבי לא יברך אדם ברכת המזון בלבו ואם בירך יצא אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת בקריאת שמע דכתיב שמע ישראל אבל בשאר מצות דברי הכל יצא

The Gemara objects based on what was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation. In this example of the rest of the mitzvot, the obligation to hear the recitation of the blessing is only ab initio. Rather, Rav Yosef’s statement must be emended. If this was said, it was said as follows; Rav Yosef said: The dispute as to whether or not a deaf person fulfills his obligation is only in the case of the recitation of Shema, as it is written: “Hear, Israel.” But regarding the rest of the mitzvot, all agree that a deaf-mute fulfills his obligation.

והכתיב הסכת ושמע ישראל

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “Pay attention, and hear, Israel”?

ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב:

The Gemara responds: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah; one must pay close attention to what is written in the Torah.

קרא ולא דקדק באותיותיה:

We learned in the mishna: One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, there is a dispute whether or not one who recites Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears fulfilled his obligation; the anonymous first tanna says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

אמר רבי טבי אמר רבי יאשיה הלכה כדברי שניהם להקל:

Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: The halakha is in accordance with the statements in both disputes that rule leniently.

ואמר רבי טבי אמר רבי יאשיה מאי דכתיב שלש הנה לא תשבענה שאול ועצר רחם וכי מה ענין שאול אצל רחם אלא לומר לך מה רחם מכניס ומוציא אף שאול מכניס ומוציא

Incidental to citing one statement by this combination of Sages, the Gemara cites another statement in their name: And Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: What is meant by that which is written: “There are three that are never satisfied…the grave and the barren womb” (Proverbs 30:15–16)? We have to ask: What does a grave have to do with a womb? Rather, this juxtaposition comes to tell you: Just as a womb takes in and gives forth, so too a grave takes in and gives forth with the resurrection of the dead.

והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה רחם שמכניסין בו בחשאי מוציאין ממנו בקולי קולות שאול שמכניסין בו בקולי קולות אינו דין שמוציאין ממנו בקולי קולות מכאן תשובה לאומרים אין תחיית המתים מן התורה:

And is this not an a fortiori inference: Just as the fetus is placed into the womb in private, and the baby is removed from it with loud cries at childbirth; the grave into which the deceased is placed with loud cries of mourning at burial, is it not right that the body should be removed with loud cries? From this verse there is a refutation to those who say that there is no Torah source for the resurrection of the dead.

תני רבי אושעיא קמיה דרבא וכתבתם הכל בכתב אפילו צואות

Rabbi Oshaya taught the following baraita before Rava: The verse, “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam] on the door posts of your house and your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9), should be understood as though it were written: “And you shall write them completely [ukhtav tam],” i.e., in their entirety. Everything must be in writing in the mezuza or phylacteries, even the commands to write mezuzot and phylacteries.

אמר ליה דאמר לך מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר גבי סוטה אלות כותב צואות אינו כותב והתם הוא דכתיב וכתב את האלות האלה אבל הכא דכתיב וכתבתם אפילו צואות נמי

Rava said to him: Who said this baraita to you? It was Rabbi Yehuda, who said with regard to the scroll of the sota that one writes curses, but one does not write commands and instructions how to administer the potion to the sota. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of mezuzot and phylacteries the Torah taught that even the commands must be written in order to distinguish it from sota. There, in the case of the sota, it is written: “And the priest shall write [vekhatav] these curses in a scroll” (Numbers 5:23); only the curses are recorded in the scroll, and nothing more. But here in the case of mezuza, where it is written: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam],” even the commands must also be written.

אטו טעמיה דרבי יהודה משום דכתיב וכתב טעמיה דרבי יהודה משום דכתיב אלות אלות אין צואות לא

The Gemara questions this: Is that to say Rabbi Yehuda’s reason for writing only the curses in the sota scroll is because the verse in the portion of sota says: “And the priest shall write [vekhatav],” as opposed to: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]”? Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is because it is written in the portion of the sota: These curses, meaning curses, yes, they must be recorded; commands, no. If that is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning, there is no reason to derive the requirement to write the commands from the phrase: And you shall write them, in the case of the mitzva of mezuza. Derive it simply from the fact that the Torah did not distinguish between the various components of the portion.

אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא נילף כתיבה כתיבה מהתם מה התם אלות אין צואות לא אף הכא נמי צואות לא כתב רחמנא וכתבתם אפילו צואות:

The Gemara responds: “And you shall write them” was necessary, as otherwise it might have entered your mind to say: Let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy, writing mentioned here from writing mentioned there, that just as there curses, yes, commands, no; so too here, commands, no. Therefore, the Torah wrote: And you shall write them in their entirety, even the commands.

תני רב עובדיה קמיה דרבא ולמדתם שיהא למודך תם שיתן ריוח בין הדבקים

On a similar note: Rav Ovadya taught a baraita before Rava: That which was stated: “And you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your children” (Deuteronomy 11:19) teaches that your teaching must be complete [tam] that one should leave space between adjacent words, where the last letter of the first and the first letter of the second are identical. One must distinguish between the words and enunciate each one clearly.

עני רבא בתריה כגון על לבבך על לבבכם בכל לבבך בכל לבבכם עשב בשדך ואבדתם מהרה הכנף פתיל אתכם מארץ

Rava responded after him by way of explanation: For example, one must enunciate al levavekha and not read them as one word. So too, al levavkhem, bekhol levavekha, bekhol levavkhem, esev besadkha, va’avadtem mehera, hakanaf petil, and etkhem me’eretz. Because the last letter of the first word and the first letter of the second are identical, the words are liable to be enunciated together and the correct meaning is liable to be obscured.

אמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא כל הקורא קריאת שמע ומדקדק באותיותיה מצננין לו גיהנם שנאמר בפרש שדי מלכים בה תשלג בצלמון אל תקרי בפרש אלא בפרש אל תקרי בצלמון אלא בצלמות:

On this same topic, Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Anyone who recites Shema and is punctilious in enunciating its letters, Gehenna is cooled for him, as it is stated: “When the Almighty scatters [befares] kings over it, it will snow in Tzalmon” (Psalms 68:15). Do not read befares, When He scatters, but befaresh, When he enunciates. When one enunciates the name of God with precision, God will fulfill the verse: It will snow in Tzalmon, on his behalf. Do not read beTzalmon, in Tzalmon, but betzalmavet, in the shadow of death, a reference to Gehenna. As reward for enunciating God’s name precisely, God will cool Gehenna for him.

ואמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא למה נסמכו

Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, also said: Why were

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top