Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 18, 2020 | 讻状讗 讘讟讘转 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讬驻谞讛 讜讬讟讜诇 讬讚讬讜 讜讬谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讬拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讬转驻诇诇 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪诇讻讜转 砖诪讬诐 砖诇诪讛

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

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛谞驻谞讛 讜谞讜讟诇 讬讚讬讜 讜诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诪转驻诇诇 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗诇讜 讘谞讛 诪讝讘讞 讜讛拽专讬讘 注诇讬讜 拽专讘谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗专讞抓 讘谞拽讬讜谉 讻驻讬 讜讗住讜讘讘讛 讗转 诪讝讘讞讱 讛壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 讻讗讬诇讜 讟讘诇 讚讻转讬讘 讗专讞抓 [讘谞拽讬讜谉] 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讗专讞讬抓 [讻驻讬]

On a similar note, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淚 will wash in purity my hands, and I will encircle the altar of the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淚 will wash in purity,鈥 and it is not written: 鈥淚 will wash my hands鈥?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讗诪专 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讬诐 诇专讞讜抓 讬讚讬讜 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讬讜 讘注驻专 讜讘爪专讜专 讜讘拽住诪讬转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗专讞抓 讘诪讬诐 讘谞拽讬讜谉 讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诪谞拽讬 讚讛讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讬讬讟 讗诪讗谉 讚诪讛讚专 讗诪讬讗 讘注讬讚谉 爪诇讜转讗

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 岣sda would curse one who went out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗讘诇 诇转驻诇讛 诪讛讚专 讜注讚 讻诪讛 注讚 驻专住讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 [讜诪讬谞讛] 诪讬诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讬诇 讞讜讝专:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讛砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

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.

拽专讗 讜诇讗 讚拽讚拽 讘讗讜转讬讜转讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

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.

讛拽讜专讗 诇诪驻专注 诇讗 讬爪讗 拽专讗 讜讟注讛 讬讞讝讜专 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讟注讛:

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪注 讛砖诪注 诇讗讝谞讱 诪讛 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诪驻讬讱 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 砖诪注 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 砖讗转讛 砖讜诪注

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鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 诇讗 讬转专讜诐 讜讗诐 转专诐 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讛砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 讬爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

Rav 岣sda 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.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 诪砖讜诐 讘专讻讛 讛讜讗 讜讘专讻讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讘讘专讻讛 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rav 岣sda 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.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诪专 讙讘讬 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 谞诪讬 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 转讚注 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽讜专讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

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.

讗诪专讬 讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽讜专讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讬爪讗

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.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讘专讱 讗讚诐 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讘诇讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讬专讱 讬爪讗

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?

诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讬爪讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 转讜专诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪谞讬

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?

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 讗诪专 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 爪专讬讱 砖讬砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 讛壮 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讗谞讻讬 诪爪讜讱 讛讬讜诐 注诇 诇讘讘讱 讗讞专 讻讜谞转 讛诇讘 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淗ear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.鈥 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: 鈥淲hich I command you this day, upon your heart;鈥 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.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬诐 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉

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 person, an imbecile, and a minor. And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讞专砖 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讛砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 讬爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who holds that even after the fact, the reading of a deaf person 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.

诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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?

讚讬诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

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?

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 讞专砖 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 诪讛 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗祝 讞专砖 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诇讗讜拽诪讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

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?

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 拽讟谉 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讟谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讞谞讜讱 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞谞讜讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讻砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉

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.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 转讜专诐 诇讻转讞诇讛

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.

诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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鈥檚 opinion, didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 opinion, didn鈥檛 he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讘专讱 讗讚诐 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讘诇讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讬专讱 讬爪讗 诪谞讬

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?

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 爪专讬讱 砖讬砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讗谞讻讬 诪爪讜讱 讛讬讜诐 注诇 诇讘讘讱 讗讞专 讻讜谞转 讛诇讘 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淗ear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.鈥 The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: But it says: 鈥淲hich I command you this day, upon your heart鈥; 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.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav 岣sda 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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛

The Gemara explains: And although that may seem redundant, both statements are necessary, as had Rav 岣sda 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.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 爪专讬讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And had Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛住讻转 讜砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇

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: 鈥淧ay attention, and hear, Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:9); meaning that one is required to listen and hear.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬讘专讱 讗讚诐 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讘诇讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讬专讱 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬爪讗

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淗ear, Israel.鈥 But regarding the rest of the mitzvot, all agree that a deaf-mute fulfills his obligation.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讛住讻转 讜砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淧ay attention, and hear, Israel鈥?

讛讛讜讗 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讻转讬讘:

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.

拽专讗 讜诇讗 讚拽讚拽 讘讗讜转讬讜转讬讛:

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 诇讛拽诇:

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

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖诇砖 讛谞讛 诇讗 转砖讘注谞讛 砖讗讜诇 讜注爪专 专讞诐 讜讻讬 诪讛 注谞讬谉 砖讗讜诇 讗爪诇 专讞诐 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 专讞诐 诪讻谞讬住 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 砖讗讜诇 诪讻谞讬住 讜诪讜爪讬讗

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: 鈥淭here are three that are never satisfied鈥he grave and the barren womb鈥 (Proverbs 30:15鈥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.

讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 专讞诐 砖诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讜 讘讞砖讗讬 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘拽讜诇讬 拽讜诇讜转 砖讗讜诇 砖诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讜 讘拽讜诇讬 拽讜诇讜转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘拽讜诇讬 拽讜诇讜转 诪讻讗谉 转砖讜讘讛 诇讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 转讞讬讬转 讛诪转讬诐 诪谉 讛转讜专讛:

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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讻转讘转诐 讛讻诇 讘讻转讘 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜讗讜转

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讱 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讙讘讬 住讜讟讛 讗诇讜转 讻讜转讘 爪讜讗讜转 讗讬谞讜 讻讜转讘 讜讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讘 讗转 讛讗诇讜转 讛讗诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讘转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜讗讜转 谞诪讬

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall write [vekhatav] these curses in a scroll鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you shall write them [ukhtavtam],鈥 even the commands must also be written.

讗讟讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讘 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讜转 讗诇讜转 讗讬谉 爪讜讗讜转 诇讗

The Gemara questions this: Is that to say Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 reason for writing only the curses in the sota scroll is because the verse in the portion of sota says: 鈥淎nd the priest shall write [vekhatav],鈥 as opposed to: 鈥淎nd you shall write them [ukhtavtam]鈥? Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 讻转讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讛 诪讛转诐 诪讛 讛转诐 讗诇讜转 讗讬谉 爪讜讗讜转 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 爪讜讗讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讻转讘转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜讗讜转:

The Gemara responds: 鈥淎nd you shall write them鈥 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.

转谞讬 专讘 注讜讘讚讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜诇诪讚转诐 砖讬讛讗 诇诪讜讚讱 转诐 砖讬转谉 专讬讜讞 讘讬谉 讛讚讘拽讬诐

On a similar note: Rav Ovadya taught a baraita before Rava: That which was stated: 鈥淎nd you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your children鈥 (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.

注谞讬 专讘讗 讘转专讬讛 讻讙讜谉 注诇 诇讘讘讱 注诇 诇讘讘讻诐 讘讻诇 诇讘讘讱 讘讻诇 诇讘讘讻诐 注砖讘 讘砖讚讱 讜讗讘讚转诐 诪讛专讛 讛讻谞祝 驻转讬诇 讗转讻诐 诪讗专抓

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鈥檃vadtem mehera, hakanaf petil, and etkhem me鈥檈retz. 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诪讚拽讚拽 讘讗讜转讬讜转讬讛 诪爪谞谞讬谉 诇讜 讙讬讛谞诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘驻专砖 砖讚讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讘讛 转砖诇讙 讘爪诇诪讜谉 讗诇 转拽专讬 讘驻专砖 讗诇讗 讘驻专砖 讗诇 转拽专讬 讘爪诇诪讜谉 讗诇讗 讘爪诇诪讜转:

On this same topic, Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: Anyone who recites Shema and is punctilious in enunciating its letters, Gehenna is cooled for him, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen the Almighty scatters [befares] kings over it, it will snow in Tzalmon鈥 (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鈥檚 name precisely, God will cool Gehenna for him.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 谞住诪讻讜

Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, also said: Why were

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

daf_icon

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 鈥楾il...

Berakhot 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 15

讬驻谞讛 讜讬讟讜诇 讬讚讬讜 讜讬谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讬拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讬转驻诇诇 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪诇讻讜转 砖诪讬诐 砖诇诪讛

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

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛谞驻谞讛 讜谞讜讟诇 讬讚讬讜 讜诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诪转驻诇诇 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗诇讜 讘谞讛 诪讝讘讞 讜讛拽专讬讘 注诇讬讜 拽专讘谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗专讞抓 讘谞拽讬讜谉 讻驻讬 讜讗住讜讘讘讛 讗转 诪讝讘讞讱 讛壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 讻讗讬诇讜 讟讘诇 讚讻转讬讘 讗专讞抓 [讘谞拽讬讜谉] 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讗专讞讬抓 [讻驻讬]

On a similar note, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淚 will wash in purity my hands, and I will encircle the altar of the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淚 will wash in purity,鈥 and it is not written: 鈥淚 will wash my hands鈥?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讗诪专 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讬诐 诇专讞讜抓 讬讚讬讜 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讬讜 讘注驻专 讜讘爪专讜专 讜讘拽住诪讬转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗专讞抓 讘诪讬诐 讘谞拽讬讜谉 讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诪谞拽讬 讚讛讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讬讬讟 讗诪讗谉 讚诪讛讚专 讗诪讬讗 讘注讬讚谉 爪诇讜转讗

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 岣sda would curse one who went out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗讘诇 诇转驻诇讛 诪讛讚专 讜注讚 讻诪讛 注讚 驻专住讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 [讜诪讬谞讛] 诪讬诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讬诇 讞讜讝专:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讛砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

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.

拽专讗 讜诇讗 讚拽讚拽 讘讗讜转讬讜转讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

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.

讛拽讜专讗 诇诪驻专注 诇讗 讬爪讗 拽专讗 讜讟注讛 讬讞讝讜专 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讟注讛:

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪注 讛砖诪注 诇讗讝谞讱 诪讛 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诪驻讬讱 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 砖诪注 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 砖讗转讛 砖讜诪注

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鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 诇讗 讬转专讜诐 讜讗诐 转专诐 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讛砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 讬爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

Rav 岣sda 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.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 诪砖讜诐 讘专讻讛 讛讜讗 讜讘专讻讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讘讘专讻讛 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rav 岣sda 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.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诪专 讙讘讬 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 谞诪讬 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 转讚注 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽讜专讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

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.

讗诪专讬 讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽讜专讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讬爪讗

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.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讘专讱 讗讚诐 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讘诇讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讬专讱 讬爪讗

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?

诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讬爪讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 转讜专诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪谞讬

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?

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 讗诪专 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 爪专讬讱 砖讬砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 讛壮 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讗谞讻讬 诪爪讜讱 讛讬讜诐 注诇 诇讘讘讱 讗讞专 讻讜谞转 讛诇讘 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淗ear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.鈥 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: 鈥淲hich I command you this day, upon your heart;鈥 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.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬诐 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉

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 person, an imbecile, and a minor. And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讞专砖 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讛砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 讬爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who holds that even after the fact, the reading of a deaf person 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.

诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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?

讚讬诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

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?

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 讞专砖 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 诪讛 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗祝 讞专砖 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诇讗讜拽诪讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

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?

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 拽讟谉 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讟谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讞谞讜讱 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞谞讜讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讻砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉

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.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 转讜专诐 诇讻转讞诇讛

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.

诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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鈥檚 opinion, didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 opinion, didn鈥檛 he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讘专讱 讗讚诐 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讘诇讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讬专讱 讬爪讗 诪谞讬

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?

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 爪专讬讱 砖讬砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讗谞讻讬 诪爪讜讱 讛讬讜诐 注诇 诇讘讘讱 讗讞专 讻讜谞转 讛诇讘 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淗ear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.鈥 The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: But it says: 鈥淲hich I command you this day, upon your heart鈥; 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.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav 岣sda 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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛

The Gemara explains: And although that may seem redundant, both statements are necessary, as had Rav 岣sda 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.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 爪专讬讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And had Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛住讻转 讜砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇

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: 鈥淧ay attention, and hear, Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:9); meaning that one is required to listen and hear.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬讘专讱 讗讚诐 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讘诇讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讬专讱 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬爪讗

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淗ear, Israel.鈥 But regarding the rest of the mitzvot, all agree that a deaf-mute fulfills his obligation.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讛住讻转 讜砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淧ay attention, and hear, Israel鈥?

讛讛讜讗 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讻转讬讘:

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.

拽专讗 讜诇讗 讚拽讚拽 讘讗讜转讬讜转讬讛:

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 诇讛拽诇:

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

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖诇砖 讛谞讛 诇讗 转砖讘注谞讛 砖讗讜诇 讜注爪专 专讞诐 讜讻讬 诪讛 注谞讬谉 砖讗讜诇 讗爪诇 专讞诐 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 专讞诐 诪讻谞讬住 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 砖讗讜诇 诪讻谞讬住 讜诪讜爪讬讗

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: 鈥淭here are three that are never satisfied鈥he grave and the barren womb鈥 (Proverbs 30:15鈥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.

讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 专讞诐 砖诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讜 讘讞砖讗讬 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘拽讜诇讬 拽讜诇讜转 砖讗讜诇 砖诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讜 讘拽讜诇讬 拽讜诇讜转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘拽讜诇讬 拽讜诇讜转 诪讻讗谉 转砖讜讘讛 诇讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 转讞讬讬转 讛诪转讬诐 诪谉 讛转讜专讛:

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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讻转讘转诐 讛讻诇 讘讻转讘 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜讗讜转

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讱 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讙讘讬 住讜讟讛 讗诇讜转 讻讜转讘 爪讜讗讜转 讗讬谞讜 讻讜转讘 讜讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讘 讗转 讛讗诇讜转 讛讗诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讘转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜讗讜转 谞诪讬

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall write [vekhatav] these curses in a scroll鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you shall write them [ukhtavtam],鈥 even the commands must also be written.

讗讟讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讘 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讜转 讗诇讜转 讗讬谉 爪讜讗讜转 诇讗

The Gemara questions this: Is that to say Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 reason for writing only the curses in the sota scroll is because the verse in the portion of sota says: 鈥淎nd the priest shall write [vekhatav],鈥 as opposed to: 鈥淎nd you shall write them [ukhtavtam]鈥? Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 讻转讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讛 诪讛转诐 诪讛 讛转诐 讗诇讜转 讗讬谉 爪讜讗讜转 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 爪讜讗讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讻转讘转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜讗讜转:

The Gemara responds: 鈥淎nd you shall write them鈥 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.

转谞讬 专讘 注讜讘讚讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜诇诪讚转诐 砖讬讛讗 诇诪讜讚讱 转诐 砖讬转谉 专讬讜讞 讘讬谉 讛讚讘拽讬诐

On a similar note: Rav Ovadya taught a baraita before Rava: That which was stated: 鈥淎nd you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your children鈥 (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.

注谞讬 专讘讗 讘转专讬讛 讻讙讜谉 注诇 诇讘讘讱 注诇 诇讘讘讻诐 讘讻诇 诇讘讘讱 讘讻诇 诇讘讘讻诐 注砖讘 讘砖讚讱 讜讗讘讚转诐 诪讛专讛 讛讻谞祝 驻转讬诇 讗转讻诐 诪讗专抓

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鈥檃vadtem mehera, hakanaf petil, and etkhem me鈥檈retz. 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诪讚拽讚拽 讘讗讜转讬讜转讬讛 诪爪谞谞讬谉 诇讜 讙讬讛谞诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘驻专砖 砖讚讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讘讛 转砖诇讙 讘爪诇诪讜谉 讗诇 转拽专讬 讘驻专砖 讗诇讗 讘驻专砖 讗诇 转拽专讬 讘爪诇诪讜谉 讗诇讗 讘爪诇诪讜转:

On this same topic, Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: Anyone who recites Shema and is punctilious in enunciating its letters, Gehenna is cooled for him, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen the Almighty scatters [befares] kings over it, it will snow in Tzalmon鈥 (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鈥檚 name precisely, God will cool Gehenna for him.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 谞住诪讻讜

Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi 岣nina, also said: Why were

Scroll To Top