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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 23, 2020 | 讻状讜 讘讟讘转 转砖状驻

  • 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 20

Rav Papa asked Abaye why miracles happened in previous generations but do not happen to them? Women, Canaanite slaves and children are exempt from shema and tefillin but are obligated in prayer, mezuza and blessings after the meal. Why? Why does each case need specifying? Why is it not obvious that they are exempt from time bound commandments and there is no need to specify? Why are women obligated in prayer – is it not a time bound commandment? Is women’s obligation to make a blessing after the meal the same as men’s in which case they can say it on behalf of a man and help him fulfill his obligation? Ezra instituted that one who has a seminal emission cannot learn Torah until he goes to a mikveh. What should he do regarding saying shema and blessing after the meal? If one thinks something in his heart, is it as if he said it?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮

but he does become impure for a met mitzva. Here too, the question is asked: Let us say that the obligation to bury a met mitzva, which is predicated on the preservation of human dignity, should not override mitzvot explicitly written in the Torah, as it is stated: 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.鈥

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗讞讜转讜

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is explicitly written: 鈥淎nd his sister,鈥 from which we derive that although he may not become ritually impure to bury his sister, he must do so for a met mitzva.

讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讛 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 砖讗谞讬:

The Gemara suggests: Let us derive a general principle that human dignity takes precedence over all mitzvot in the Torah from this case. This possibility is rejected: This is a special case, because a case of 鈥渟it and refrain from action鈥 [shev ve鈥檃l ta鈥檃seh] is different. Engaging in the burial of a met mitzva is not actually in contravention of a mitzva. Rather, by doing so he becomes ritually impure and is then rendered incapable of fulfilling that mitzva. We cannot derive a general principle from here that human dignity would also override a Torah prohibition in a case where that prohibition is directly contravened.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讗转专讞讬砖 诇讛讜 谞讬住讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗谞谉 讚诇讗 诪转专讞讬砖 诇谉 谞讬住讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 转谞讜讬讬 讘砖谞讬 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜诇讬 转谞讜讬讬 讘谞讝讬拽讬谉 讛讜讛 讜讗谞谉 拽讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 砖讬转讗 住讚专讬 讜讻讬 讛讜讛 诪讟讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注讜拽爪讬谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讻讜讘砖转 讬专拽 讘拽讚专讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讝讬转讬诐 砖讻讘砖谉 讘讟专驻讬讛谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗诪专 讛讜讬讜转 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讜讗谞谉 拽讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 讘注讜拽爪讬谉 转诇讬住专 诪转讬讘转讗 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 砖诇讬祝 讞讚 诪住讗谞讬讛 讗转讬 诪讟专讗 讜讗谞谉 拽讗 诪爪注专讬谞谉 谞驻砖讬谉 讜诪爪讜讞 拽讗 爪讜讞讬谞谉 讜诇讬转 讚诪砖讙讞 讘谉

The Gemara responds: In the context of the discussion whether or not human dignity overrides honoring God in the sense of fulfilling his mitzvot, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about the earlier generations, for whom miracles occurred and what is different about us, for whom miracles do not occur? If it is because of Torah study; in the years of Rav Yehuda all of their learning was confined to the order of Nezikin, while we learn all six orders! Moreover, when Rav Yehuda would reach in tractate Okatzin, which discusses the extent to which the stems of various fruits and vegetables are considered an integral part of the produce in terms of becoming ritually impure, the halakha that a woman who pickles a vegetable in a pot, and some say when he would reach the halakha that olives pickled with their leaves are pure, because after pickling, it is no longer possible to lift the fruit by its leaves, they are no longer considered part of the fruit; he would find it difficult to understand. He would say: Those are the disputes between Rav and Shmuel that we see here. And we, in contrast, learn thirteen versions of Okatzin. While, with regard to miracles, after declaring a fast to pray for a drought to end, when Rav Yehuda would remove one of his shoes the rain would immediately fall, whereas we torment ourselves and cry out and no one notices us.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽诪讗讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪住专讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讗拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 讗谞谉 诇讗 诪住专讬谞谉 谞驻砖讬谉 讗拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讛讛讬讗 讻讜转讬转 讚讛讜转 诇讘讬砖讗 讻专讘诇转讗 讘砖讜拽讗 住讘专 讚讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 拽诐 拽专注讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讗讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讻讜转讬转 讛讬讗 砖讬讬诪讜讛 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讛 砖诪讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诪转讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛 诪转讜谉 诪转讜谉 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 砖讜讬讗:

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: The previous generations were wholly dedicated to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, while we are not as dedicated to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name. Typical of the earlier generations鈥 commitment, the Gemara relates: Like this incident involving Rav Adda bar Ahava who saw a non-Jewish woman who was wearing a garment made of a forbidden mixture of wool and linen [karbalta] in the marketplace. Since he thought that she was Jewish, he stood and ripped it from her. It was then divulged that she was a non-Jew and he was taken to court due to the shame that he caused her, and they assessed the payment for the shame that he caused her at four hundred zuz. Ultimately, Rav Adda said to her: What is your name? She replied: Matun. In a play on words, he said to her: Matun, her name, plus matun, the Aramaic word for two hundred, is worth four hundred zuz.

专讘 讙讬讚诇 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讬转讬讘 讗砖注专讬 讚讟讘讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讟讘讬诇讜 讜讛讻讬 讟讘讬诇讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪住转驻讬 诪专 诪讬爪专 讛专注 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚诪讬讬谉 讘讗驻讗讬 讻讬 拽讗拽讬 讞讬讜专讬

It was also related about the earlier generations, that they would degrade themselves in the desire to glorify God. Rav Giddel was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the women鈥檚 immersion sites. He said to them: Immerse yourselves in this way, and immerse yourselves in that way. The Sages said to him: Master, do you not fear the evil inclination? He said to them: In my eyes, they are comparable to white geese.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讬转讬讘 讗砖注专讬 讚讟讘讬诇讛 讗诪专 讻讬 住诇拽谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转讬讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讛 诪住转讻诇谉 讘讬 讜谞讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讝专注讗 讚砖驻讬专讬 讻讜讜转讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪住转驻讬 诪专 诪注讬谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 诪讝专注讗 讚讬讜住祝 拽讗 讗转讬谞讗 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘谉 驻讜专转 讬讜住祝 讘谉 驻讜专转 注诇讬 注讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诇 转拽专讬 注诇讬 注讬谉 讗诇讗 注讜诇讬 注讬谉

Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yo岣nan was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the women鈥檚 immersion sites. Rabbi Yo岣nan, who was known for his extraordinary good looks, explained this and said: When the daughters of Israel emerge from their immersion, they will look at me, and will have children as beautiful as I. The Sages asked him: Master, do you not fear the evil eye? He said to them: I descend from the seed of Joseph over whom the evil eye has no dominion, as it is written: 鈥淛oseph is a bountiful vine, a bountiful vine on a spring [alei ayin]鈥 (Genesis 49:22). 鈥Ayin鈥 can mean both 鈥渟pring鈥 and 鈥渆ye.鈥 And Rabbi Abbahu said a homiletic interpretation: Do not read it alei ayin, rather olei ayin, above the eye; they transcend the influence of the evil eye.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讚讙讜 诇专讘 讘拽专讘 讛讗专抓 诪讛 讚讙讬诐 砖讘讬诐 诪讬诐 诪讻住讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 注讬谉 讛专注 砖讜诇讟转 讘讛诐 讗祝 讝专注讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讗讬谉 注讬谉 讛专注 砖讜诇讟转 讘讛诐

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, cited a different proof, from Jacob鈥檚 blessing of Joseph鈥檚 sons, Ephraim and Menashe: 鈥淭he angel who redeems me from all evil shall bless the young and in them may my name be recalled, and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, and may they multiply [veyidgu] in the midst of the earth鈥 (Genesis 48:16). Veyidgu is related etymologically to the word fish [dag]. Just as the fish in the sea, water covers them and the evil eye has no dominion over them, so too the seed of Joseph, the evil eye has no dominion over them.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 注讬谉 砖诇讗 专爪转讛 诇讝讜谉 诪诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讗讬谉 注讬谉 讛专注 砖讜诇讟转 讘讜:

And if you wish, say instead: Joseph鈥檚 eye, which did not seek to feast on that which was not his, Potiphar鈥檚 wife, the evil eye has no dominion over him.

诪转谞讬壮 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

MISHNA Women, slaves, and minors, who have parallel obligations in various mitzvot, are exempt from the recitation of Shema

讜诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转驻讬诇讛 讜讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讘讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉:

and from phylacteries, but they are obligated in the mitzvot of prayer, mezuza, and Grace after Meals. The Gemara explains the rationale for these exemptions and obligations.

讙诪壮 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 驻砖讬讟讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

GEMARA With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that women are exempt from the recitation of Shema, the Gemara asks: That is obvious, as Shema is a time-bound, positive mitzva, and the halakhic principle is: Women are exempt from any time-bound, positive mitzva, i.e., any mitzva whose performance is only in effect at a particular time. Shema falls into that category as its recitation is restricted to the morning and the evening. Why then did the mishna need to mention it specifically?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 砖诪讬诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

The Gemara replies: Lest you say: Since Shema includes the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, perhaps women are obligated in its recitation despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that, nevertheless, women are exempt.

讜诪谉 讛转驻诇讬谉: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转拽砖 诇诪讝讜讝讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

We also learned in the mishna that women are exempt from phylacteries. The Gemara asks: That is obvious as well. The donning of phylacteries is only in effect at particular times; during the day but not at night, on weekdays but not on Shabbat or Festivals. The Gemara replies: Lest you say: Since the mitzva of phylacteries is juxtaposed in the Torah to the mitzva of mezuza, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them as a sign upon your hands and they shall be frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), followed by: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the door posts of your house and on your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9), just as women are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, so too they are obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that nevertheless, women are exempt.

讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转驻诇讛: 讚专讞诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛 注专讘 讜讘拽专 讜爪讛专讬诐 讻诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and children are obligated in prayer. The Gemara explains that, although the mitzva of prayer is only in effect at particular times, which would lead to the conclusion that women are exempt, nevertheless, since prayer is supplication for mercy and women also require divine mercy, they are obligated. However, lest you say: Since regarding prayer it is written: 鈥淓vening and morning and afternoon I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice鈥 (Psalms 55:18), perhaps prayer should be considered a time-bound, positive mitzva and women would be exempt, the mishna teaches us that, fundamentally, the mitzva of prayer is not time-bound and, therefore, everyone is obligated.

讜讘诪讝讜讝讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转拽砖 诇转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

We also learned in the mishna that women are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: That too is obvious. Why would they be exempt from fulfilling this obligation, it is a positive mitzva that is not time-bound? The Gemara replies: Lest you say: Since the mitzva of mezuza is juxtaposed in the Torah to the mitzva of Torah study (Deuteronomy 11:19鈥20), just as women are exempt from Torah study, so too they are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. Therefore, the mishna explicitly teaches us that they are obligated.

讜讘讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讘转转 讛壮 诇讻诐 讘注专讘 讘砖专 诇讗讻诇 讜诇讞诐 讘讘拽专 诇砖讘注 讻诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

We also learned in the mishna that women are obligated to recite the Grace after Meals. The Gemara asks: That too is obvious. The Gemara replies: Lest you say: Since it is written: 鈥淲hen the Lord shall give you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to the full鈥 (Exodus 16:8), one might conclude that the Torah established fixed times for the meals and, consequently, for the mitzva of Grace after Meals and, therefore, it is considered a time-bound, positive mitzva, exempting women from its recitation. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that women are obligated.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘拽讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗诪讗讬 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Women are obligated to recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day [kiddush]by Torah law. The Gemara asks: Why? Kiddush is a time-bound, positive mitzva, and women are exempt from all time-bound, positive mitzvot. Abaye said: Indeed, women are obligated to recite kiddush by rabbinic, but not by Torah law.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 拽讗诪专 讜注讜讚 讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 谞讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rava said to Abaye: There are two refutations to your explanation. First, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that women are obligated to recite kiddush by Torah law, and, furthermore, the very explanation is difficult to understand. If the Sages do indeed institute ordinances in these circumstances, let us obligate them to fulfill all time-bound, positive mitzvot by rabbinic law, even though they are exempt by Torah law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讻讜专 讜砖诪讜专 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘砖诪讬专讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讝讻讬专讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘砖诪讬专讛 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讝讻讬专讛

Rather, Rava said: This has a unique explanation. In the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus, the verse said: 鈥淩emember Shabbat and sanctify it鈥 (Exodus 20:8), while in the book of Deuteronomy it is said: 鈥淥bserve Shabbat and sanctify it鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:12). From these two variants we can deduce that anyone included in the obligation to observe Shabbat by avoiding its desecration, is also included in the mitzva to remember Shabbat by reciting kiddush. Since these women are included in the mitzva to observe Shabbat, as there is no distinction between men and women in the obligation to observe prohibitions in general and to refrain from the desecration of Shabbat in particular, so too are they included in the mitzva of remembering Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 谞砖讬诐 讘讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 讚专讘谞谉 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 (讘砖诇诪讗) 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗转讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪驻讬拽 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讘讚讘专 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讘讚讘专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 诪讗讬

Ravina said to Rava: We learned in the mishna that women are obligated in the mitzva of Grace after Meals. However, are they obligated by Torah law or merely by rabbinic law? What difference does it make whether it is by Torah or rabbinic law? The difference is regarding her ability to fulfill the obligation of others when reciting the blessing on their behalf. Granted, if you say that their obligation is by Torah law, one whose obligation is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation of others who are obligated by Torah law. However, if you say that their obligation is by rabbinic law, then from the perspective of Torah law, women are considered to be one who is not obligated, and the general principle is that one who is not obligated to fulfill a particular mitzva cannot fulfill the obligations of the many in that mitzva. Therefore, it is important to know what is the resolution of this dilemma.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘谉 诪讘专讱 诇讗讘讬讜 讜注讘讚 诪讘专讱 诇专讘讜 讜讗砖讛 诪讘专讻转 诇讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 转讘讗 诪讗专讛 诇讗讚诐 砖讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 诪讘专讻讬谉 诇讜

Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: Actually they said that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father, and a slave may recite a blessing on behalf of his master, and a woman may recite a blessing on behalf of her husband, but the Sages said: May a curse come to a man who, due to his ignorance, requires his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗转讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪驻讬拽 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 讗转讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜诪驻讬拽 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

From here we may infer: Granted, if you say that their obligation is by Torah law, one whose obligation is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation of others who are obligated by Torah law. However, if you say that their obligation is by rabbinic law, can one who is obligated by rabbinic law, come and fulfill the obligation of one whose obligation is by Torah law?

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 拽讟谉 讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 砖讬注讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗转讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜诪驻讬拽 讚专讘谞谉:

The Gemara challenges this proof: And according to your reasoning, is a minor obligated by Torah law to perform mitzvot? Everyone agrees that a minor is exempt by Torah law, yet here the baraita said that he may recite a blessing on behalf of his father. There must be another way to explain the baraita. With what we are dealing here? With a case where his father ate a quantity of food that did not satisfy his hunger, a measure for which one is only obligated by rabbinic law to recite Grace after Meals. In that case, one whose obligation is by rabbinic law can come and fulfill the obligation of another whose obligation is by rabbinic law.

讚专砖 专讘 注讜讬专讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讝诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专讜 诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转讱 讗砖专 诇讗 讬砖讗 驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬拽讞 砖讞讚 讜讛诇讗 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 驻谞讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖讗 讛壮 驻谞讬讜 讗诇讬讱 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讜讻讬 诇讗 讗砖讗 驻谞讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖讻转讘转讬 诇讛诐 讘转讜专讛 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转 讜讘专讻转 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讜讛诐 诪讚拽讚拽讬诐 [注诇] 注爪诪诐 注讚 讻讝讬转 讜注讚 讻讘讬爪讛:

After citing the halakha that one who eats a quantity of food that does not satisfy his hunger is obligated by rabbinic law to recite Grace after Meals, the Gemara cites a related homiletic interpretation. Rav Avira taught, sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Ami, and sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, in Your Torah it is written: 鈥淭he great, mighty and awesome God who favors no one and takes no bribe鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:17), yet You, nevertheless, show favor to Israel, as it is written: 鈥淭he Lord shall show favor to you and give you peace鈥 (Numbers 6:26). He replied to them: And how can I not show favor to Israel, as I wrote for them in the Torah: 鈥淎nd you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:10), meaning that there is no obligation to bless the Lord until one is satiated; yet they are exacting with themselves to recite Grace after Meals even if they have eaten as much as an olive-bulk or an egg-bulk. Since they go beyond the requirements of the law, they are worthy of favor.

诪转谞讬壮 讘注诇 拽专讬 诪讛专讛专 讘诇讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘专讱 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛 讜注诇 讛诪讝讜谉 诪讘专讱 诇讗讞专讬讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘专讱 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘专讱 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗讞专讬讛诐:

MISHNA: Ezra the Scribe decreed that one who is ritually impure because of a seminal emission may not engage in matters of Torah until he has immersed in a ritual bath and purified himself. This halakha was accepted over the course of many generations; however, many disputes arose with regard to the Torah matters to which it applies. Regarding this, the mishna says: If the time for the recitation of Shema arrived and one is impure due to a seminal emission, he may contemplate Shema in his heart, but neither recites the blessings preceding Shema, nor the blessings following it. Over food which, after partaking, one is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing, one recites a blessing afterward, but one does not recite a blessing beforehand, because the blessing recited prior to eating is a requirement by rabbinic law. And in all of these instances Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites a blessing beforehand and thereafter in both the case of Shema and in the case of food.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛专讛讜专 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗讜 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 诇诪讛 诪讛专讛专

GEMARA: Ravina said: That is to say, from the mishna that contemplation is tantamount to speech. As if it would enter your mind that it is not tantamount to speech, then why does one who is impure because of a seminal emission contemplate? It must be that it is tantamount to speech.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讛专讛讜专 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 讬讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜

The Gemara rejects this: But what are you saying, that contemplation is tantamount to speech? Then, if one who is impure because of a seminal emission is permitted to contemplate, why does he not utter the words with his lips?

讻讚讗砖讻讞谉 讘住讬谞讬

The Gemara answers: As we found at Mount Sinai. There one who had sexual relations with a woman was required to immerse himself before receiving the Torah, which was spoken and not merely contemplated. Here, too, it was decreed that one who was impure due to a seminal emission may not recite matters of Torah out loud until he immerses himself.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讛专讛讜专 诇讗讜 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛专讛讜专 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 讬讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜

And Rav 岣sda said that the opposite conclusion should be drawn from the mishna: Contemplation is not tantamount to speech, as if it would enter your mind that contemplation is tantamount to speech, then one who is impure because of a seminal emission should ab initio, utter Shema with his lips.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讛专讛讜专 诇讗讜 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 诇诪讛 诪讛专讛专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 注讜住拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讛讜讗 讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇

The Gemara challenges this argument: But what are you saying, that contemplation is not tantamount to speech? If so, why does he contemplate? Rabbi Elazar said: So that a situation will not arise where everyone is engaged in reciting Shema and he sits idly by.

讜谞讙专讜住 讘驻专拽讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讘讚讘专 砖讛爪讘讜专 注讜住拽讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: If that is the only purpose, let him study another chapter and not specifically Shema or one of the blessings. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is fitting that one engage in a matter in which the community is engaged.

  • 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 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 20

讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮

but he does become impure for a met mitzva. Here too, the question is asked: Let us say that the obligation to bury a met mitzva, which is predicated on the preservation of human dignity, should not override mitzvot explicitly written in the Torah, as it is stated: 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.鈥

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗讞讜转讜

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is explicitly written: 鈥淎nd his sister,鈥 from which we derive that although he may not become ritually impure to bury his sister, he must do so for a met mitzva.

讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讛 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 砖讗谞讬:

The Gemara suggests: Let us derive a general principle that human dignity takes precedence over all mitzvot in the Torah from this case. This possibility is rejected: This is a special case, because a case of 鈥渟it and refrain from action鈥 [shev ve鈥檃l ta鈥檃seh] is different. Engaging in the burial of a met mitzva is not actually in contravention of a mitzva. Rather, by doing so he becomes ritually impure and is then rendered incapable of fulfilling that mitzva. We cannot derive a general principle from here that human dignity would also override a Torah prohibition in a case where that prohibition is directly contravened.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讗转专讞讬砖 诇讛讜 谞讬住讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗谞谉 讚诇讗 诪转专讞讬砖 诇谉 谞讬住讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 转谞讜讬讬 讘砖谞讬 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜诇讬 转谞讜讬讬 讘谞讝讬拽讬谉 讛讜讛 讜讗谞谉 拽讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 砖讬转讗 住讚专讬 讜讻讬 讛讜讛 诪讟讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注讜拽爪讬谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讻讜讘砖转 讬专拽 讘拽讚专讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讝讬转讬诐 砖讻讘砖谉 讘讟专驻讬讛谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗诪专 讛讜讬讜转 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讜讗谞谉 拽讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 讘注讜拽爪讬谉 转诇讬住专 诪转讬讘转讗 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 砖诇讬祝 讞讚 诪住讗谞讬讛 讗转讬 诪讟专讗 讜讗谞谉 拽讗 诪爪注专讬谞谉 谞驻砖讬谉 讜诪爪讜讞 拽讗 爪讜讞讬谞谉 讜诇讬转 讚诪砖讙讞 讘谉

The Gemara responds: In the context of the discussion whether or not human dignity overrides honoring God in the sense of fulfilling his mitzvot, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about the earlier generations, for whom miracles occurred and what is different about us, for whom miracles do not occur? If it is because of Torah study; in the years of Rav Yehuda all of their learning was confined to the order of Nezikin, while we learn all six orders! Moreover, when Rav Yehuda would reach in tractate Okatzin, which discusses the extent to which the stems of various fruits and vegetables are considered an integral part of the produce in terms of becoming ritually impure, the halakha that a woman who pickles a vegetable in a pot, and some say when he would reach the halakha that olives pickled with their leaves are pure, because after pickling, it is no longer possible to lift the fruit by its leaves, they are no longer considered part of the fruit; he would find it difficult to understand. He would say: Those are the disputes between Rav and Shmuel that we see here. And we, in contrast, learn thirteen versions of Okatzin. While, with regard to miracles, after declaring a fast to pray for a drought to end, when Rav Yehuda would remove one of his shoes the rain would immediately fall, whereas we torment ourselves and cry out and no one notices us.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽诪讗讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪住专讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讗拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 讗谞谉 诇讗 诪住专讬谞谉 谞驻砖讬谉 讗拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讛讛讬讗 讻讜转讬转 讚讛讜转 诇讘讬砖讗 讻专讘诇转讗 讘砖讜拽讗 住讘专 讚讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 拽诐 拽专注讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讗讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讻讜转讬转 讛讬讗 砖讬讬诪讜讛 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讛 砖诪讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诪转讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛 诪转讜谉 诪转讜谉 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 砖讜讬讗:

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: The previous generations were wholly dedicated to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, while we are not as dedicated to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name. Typical of the earlier generations鈥 commitment, the Gemara relates: Like this incident involving Rav Adda bar Ahava who saw a non-Jewish woman who was wearing a garment made of a forbidden mixture of wool and linen [karbalta] in the marketplace. Since he thought that she was Jewish, he stood and ripped it from her. It was then divulged that she was a non-Jew and he was taken to court due to the shame that he caused her, and they assessed the payment for the shame that he caused her at four hundred zuz. Ultimately, Rav Adda said to her: What is your name? She replied: Matun. In a play on words, he said to her: Matun, her name, plus matun, the Aramaic word for two hundred, is worth four hundred zuz.

专讘 讙讬讚诇 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讬转讬讘 讗砖注专讬 讚讟讘讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讟讘讬诇讜 讜讛讻讬 讟讘讬诇讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪住转驻讬 诪专 诪讬爪专 讛专注 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚诪讬讬谉 讘讗驻讗讬 讻讬 拽讗拽讬 讞讬讜专讬

It was also related about the earlier generations, that they would degrade themselves in the desire to glorify God. Rav Giddel was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the women鈥檚 immersion sites. He said to them: Immerse yourselves in this way, and immerse yourselves in that way. The Sages said to him: Master, do you not fear the evil inclination? He said to them: In my eyes, they are comparable to white geese.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讬转讬讘 讗砖注专讬 讚讟讘讬诇讛 讗诪专 讻讬 住诇拽谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转讬讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讛 诪住转讻诇谉 讘讬 讜谞讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讝专注讗 讚砖驻讬专讬 讻讜讜转讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪住转驻讬 诪专 诪注讬谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 诪讝专注讗 讚讬讜住祝 拽讗 讗转讬谞讗 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘谉 驻讜专转 讬讜住祝 讘谉 驻讜专转 注诇讬 注讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诇 转拽专讬 注诇讬 注讬谉 讗诇讗 注讜诇讬 注讬谉

Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yo岣nan was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the women鈥檚 immersion sites. Rabbi Yo岣nan, who was known for his extraordinary good looks, explained this and said: When the daughters of Israel emerge from their immersion, they will look at me, and will have children as beautiful as I. The Sages asked him: Master, do you not fear the evil eye? He said to them: I descend from the seed of Joseph over whom the evil eye has no dominion, as it is written: 鈥淛oseph is a bountiful vine, a bountiful vine on a spring [alei ayin]鈥 (Genesis 49:22). 鈥Ayin鈥 can mean both 鈥渟pring鈥 and 鈥渆ye.鈥 And Rabbi Abbahu said a homiletic interpretation: Do not read it alei ayin, rather olei ayin, above the eye; they transcend the influence of the evil eye.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讚讙讜 诇专讘 讘拽专讘 讛讗专抓 诪讛 讚讙讬诐 砖讘讬诐 诪讬诐 诪讻住讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 注讬谉 讛专注 砖讜诇讟转 讘讛诐 讗祝 讝专注讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讗讬谉 注讬谉 讛专注 砖讜诇讟转 讘讛诐

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, cited a different proof, from Jacob鈥檚 blessing of Joseph鈥檚 sons, Ephraim and Menashe: 鈥淭he angel who redeems me from all evil shall bless the young and in them may my name be recalled, and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, and may they multiply [veyidgu] in the midst of the earth鈥 (Genesis 48:16). Veyidgu is related etymologically to the word fish [dag]. Just as the fish in the sea, water covers them and the evil eye has no dominion over them, so too the seed of Joseph, the evil eye has no dominion over them.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 注讬谉 砖诇讗 专爪转讛 诇讝讜谉 诪诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讗讬谉 注讬谉 讛专注 砖讜诇讟转 讘讜:

And if you wish, say instead: Joseph鈥檚 eye, which did not seek to feast on that which was not his, Potiphar鈥檚 wife, the evil eye has no dominion over him.

诪转谞讬壮 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

MISHNA Women, slaves, and minors, who have parallel obligations in various mitzvot, are exempt from the recitation of Shema

讜诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转驻讬诇讛 讜讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讘讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉:

and from phylacteries, but they are obligated in the mitzvot of prayer, mezuza, and Grace after Meals. The Gemara explains the rationale for these exemptions and obligations.

讙诪壮 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 驻砖讬讟讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

GEMARA With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that women are exempt from the recitation of Shema, the Gemara asks: That is obvious, as Shema is a time-bound, positive mitzva, and the halakhic principle is: Women are exempt from any time-bound, positive mitzva, i.e., any mitzva whose performance is only in effect at a particular time. Shema falls into that category as its recitation is restricted to the morning and the evening. Why then did the mishna need to mention it specifically?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 砖诪讬诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

The Gemara replies: Lest you say: Since Shema includes the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, perhaps women are obligated in its recitation despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that, nevertheless, women are exempt.

讜诪谉 讛转驻诇讬谉: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转拽砖 诇诪讝讜讝讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

We also learned in the mishna that women are exempt from phylacteries. The Gemara asks: That is obvious as well. The donning of phylacteries is only in effect at particular times; during the day but not at night, on weekdays but not on Shabbat or Festivals. The Gemara replies: Lest you say: Since the mitzva of phylacteries is juxtaposed in the Torah to the mitzva of mezuza, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them as a sign upon your hands and they shall be frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), followed by: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the door posts of your house and on your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9), just as women are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, so too they are obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that nevertheless, women are exempt.

讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转驻诇讛: 讚专讞诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛 注专讘 讜讘拽专 讜爪讛专讬诐 讻诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and children are obligated in prayer. The Gemara explains that, although the mitzva of prayer is only in effect at particular times, which would lead to the conclusion that women are exempt, nevertheless, since prayer is supplication for mercy and women also require divine mercy, they are obligated. However, lest you say: Since regarding prayer it is written: 鈥淓vening and morning and afternoon I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice鈥 (Psalms 55:18), perhaps prayer should be considered a time-bound, positive mitzva and women would be exempt, the mishna teaches us that, fundamentally, the mitzva of prayer is not time-bound and, therefore, everyone is obligated.

讜讘诪讝讜讝讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转拽砖 诇转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

We also learned in the mishna that women are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: That too is obvious. Why would they be exempt from fulfilling this obligation, it is a positive mitzva that is not time-bound? The Gemara replies: Lest you say: Since the mitzva of mezuza is juxtaposed in the Torah to the mitzva of Torah study (Deuteronomy 11:19鈥20), just as women are exempt from Torah study, so too they are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. Therefore, the mishna explicitly teaches us that they are obligated.

讜讘讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讘转转 讛壮 诇讻诐 讘注专讘 讘砖专 诇讗讻诇 讜诇讞诐 讘讘拽专 诇砖讘注 讻诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

We also learned in the mishna that women are obligated to recite the Grace after Meals. The Gemara asks: That too is obvious. The Gemara replies: Lest you say: Since it is written: 鈥淲hen the Lord shall give you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to the full鈥 (Exodus 16:8), one might conclude that the Torah established fixed times for the meals and, consequently, for the mitzva of Grace after Meals and, therefore, it is considered a time-bound, positive mitzva, exempting women from its recitation. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that women are obligated.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘拽讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗诪讗讬 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Women are obligated to recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day [kiddush]by Torah law. The Gemara asks: Why? Kiddush is a time-bound, positive mitzva, and women are exempt from all time-bound, positive mitzvot. Abaye said: Indeed, women are obligated to recite kiddush by rabbinic, but not by Torah law.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 拽讗诪专 讜注讜讚 讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 谞讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rava said to Abaye: There are two refutations to your explanation. First, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that women are obligated to recite kiddush by Torah law, and, furthermore, the very explanation is difficult to understand. If the Sages do indeed institute ordinances in these circumstances, let us obligate them to fulfill all time-bound, positive mitzvot by rabbinic law, even though they are exempt by Torah law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讻讜专 讜砖诪讜专 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘砖诪讬专讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讝讻讬专讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘砖诪讬专讛 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讝讻讬专讛

Rather, Rava said: This has a unique explanation. In the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus, the verse said: 鈥淩emember Shabbat and sanctify it鈥 (Exodus 20:8), while in the book of Deuteronomy it is said: 鈥淥bserve Shabbat and sanctify it鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:12). From these two variants we can deduce that anyone included in the obligation to observe Shabbat by avoiding its desecration, is also included in the mitzva to remember Shabbat by reciting kiddush. Since these women are included in the mitzva to observe Shabbat, as there is no distinction between men and women in the obligation to observe prohibitions in general and to refrain from the desecration of Shabbat in particular, so too are they included in the mitzva of remembering Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 谞砖讬诐 讘讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 讚专讘谞谉 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 (讘砖诇诪讗) 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗转讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪驻讬拽 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讘讚讘专 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讘讚讘专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 诪讗讬

Ravina said to Rava: We learned in the mishna that women are obligated in the mitzva of Grace after Meals. However, are they obligated by Torah law or merely by rabbinic law? What difference does it make whether it is by Torah or rabbinic law? The difference is regarding her ability to fulfill the obligation of others when reciting the blessing on their behalf. Granted, if you say that their obligation is by Torah law, one whose obligation is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation of others who are obligated by Torah law. However, if you say that their obligation is by rabbinic law, then from the perspective of Torah law, women are considered to be one who is not obligated, and the general principle is that one who is not obligated to fulfill a particular mitzva cannot fulfill the obligations of the many in that mitzva. Therefore, it is important to know what is the resolution of this dilemma.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘谉 诪讘专讱 诇讗讘讬讜 讜注讘讚 诪讘专讱 诇专讘讜 讜讗砖讛 诪讘专讻转 诇讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 转讘讗 诪讗专讛 诇讗讚诐 砖讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 诪讘专讻讬谉 诇讜

Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: Actually they said that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father, and a slave may recite a blessing on behalf of his master, and a woman may recite a blessing on behalf of her husband, but the Sages said: May a curse come to a man who, due to his ignorance, requires his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗转讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪驻讬拽 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 讗转讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜诪驻讬拽 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

From here we may infer: Granted, if you say that their obligation is by Torah law, one whose obligation is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation of others who are obligated by Torah law. However, if you say that their obligation is by rabbinic law, can one who is obligated by rabbinic law, come and fulfill the obligation of one whose obligation is by Torah law?

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 拽讟谉 讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 砖讬注讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗转讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜诪驻讬拽 讚专讘谞谉:

The Gemara challenges this proof: And according to your reasoning, is a minor obligated by Torah law to perform mitzvot? Everyone agrees that a minor is exempt by Torah law, yet here the baraita said that he may recite a blessing on behalf of his father. There must be another way to explain the baraita. With what we are dealing here? With a case where his father ate a quantity of food that did not satisfy his hunger, a measure for which one is only obligated by rabbinic law to recite Grace after Meals. In that case, one whose obligation is by rabbinic law can come and fulfill the obligation of another whose obligation is by rabbinic law.

讚专砖 专讘 注讜讬专讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讝诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专讜 诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转讱 讗砖专 诇讗 讬砖讗 驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬拽讞 砖讞讚 讜讛诇讗 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 驻谞讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖讗 讛壮 驻谞讬讜 讗诇讬讱 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讜讻讬 诇讗 讗砖讗 驻谞讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖讻转讘转讬 诇讛诐 讘转讜专讛 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转 讜讘专讻转 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讜讛诐 诪讚拽讚拽讬诐 [注诇] 注爪诪诐 注讚 讻讝讬转 讜注讚 讻讘讬爪讛:

After citing the halakha that one who eats a quantity of food that does not satisfy his hunger is obligated by rabbinic law to recite Grace after Meals, the Gemara cites a related homiletic interpretation. Rav Avira taught, sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Ami, and sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, in Your Torah it is written: 鈥淭he great, mighty and awesome God who favors no one and takes no bribe鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:17), yet You, nevertheless, show favor to Israel, as it is written: 鈥淭he Lord shall show favor to you and give you peace鈥 (Numbers 6:26). He replied to them: And how can I not show favor to Israel, as I wrote for them in the Torah: 鈥淎nd you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:10), meaning that there is no obligation to bless the Lord until one is satiated; yet they are exacting with themselves to recite Grace after Meals even if they have eaten as much as an olive-bulk or an egg-bulk. Since they go beyond the requirements of the law, they are worthy of favor.

诪转谞讬壮 讘注诇 拽专讬 诪讛专讛专 讘诇讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘专讱 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛 讜注诇 讛诪讝讜谉 诪讘专讱 诇讗讞专讬讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘专讱 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘专讱 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗讞专讬讛诐:

MISHNA: Ezra the Scribe decreed that one who is ritually impure because of a seminal emission may not engage in matters of Torah until he has immersed in a ritual bath and purified himself. This halakha was accepted over the course of many generations; however, many disputes arose with regard to the Torah matters to which it applies. Regarding this, the mishna says: If the time for the recitation of Shema arrived and one is impure due to a seminal emission, he may contemplate Shema in his heart, but neither recites the blessings preceding Shema, nor the blessings following it. Over food which, after partaking, one is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing, one recites a blessing afterward, but one does not recite a blessing beforehand, because the blessing recited prior to eating is a requirement by rabbinic law. And in all of these instances Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites a blessing beforehand and thereafter in both the case of Shema and in the case of food.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛专讛讜专 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗讜 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 诇诪讛 诪讛专讛专

GEMARA: Ravina said: That is to say, from the mishna that contemplation is tantamount to speech. As if it would enter your mind that it is not tantamount to speech, then why does one who is impure because of a seminal emission contemplate? It must be that it is tantamount to speech.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讛专讛讜专 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 讬讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜

The Gemara rejects this: But what are you saying, that contemplation is tantamount to speech? Then, if one who is impure because of a seminal emission is permitted to contemplate, why does he not utter the words with his lips?

讻讚讗砖讻讞谉 讘住讬谞讬

The Gemara answers: As we found at Mount Sinai. There one who had sexual relations with a woman was required to immerse himself before receiving the Torah, which was spoken and not merely contemplated. Here, too, it was decreed that one who was impure due to a seminal emission may not recite matters of Torah out loud until he immerses himself.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讛专讛讜专 诇讗讜 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛专讛讜专 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 讬讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜

And Rav 岣sda said that the opposite conclusion should be drawn from the mishna: Contemplation is not tantamount to speech, as if it would enter your mind that contemplation is tantamount to speech, then one who is impure because of a seminal emission should ab initio, utter Shema with his lips.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讛专讛讜专 诇讗讜 讻讚讘讜专 讚诪讬 诇诪讛 诪讛专讛专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 注讜住拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讛讜讗 讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇

The Gemara challenges this argument: But what are you saying, that contemplation is not tantamount to speech? If so, why does he contemplate? Rabbi Elazar said: So that a situation will not arise where everyone is engaged in reciting Shema and he sits idly by.

讜谞讙专讜住 讘驻专拽讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讘讚讘专 砖讛爪讘讜专 注讜住拽讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: If that is the only purpose, let him study another chapter and not specifically Shema or one of the blessings. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is fitting that one engage in a matter in which the community is engaged.

Scroll To Top