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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 24, 2020 | 讻状讝 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 21

From where do we derive that one needs to make a blessing after eating and before learning Torah? Can we say that the reverse also applies? The gemara brings various cases where one is unsure if one already said shema or the blessing after shema or shmone esreh? What does one do? Is shema a Torah obligation or from the rabbis? If one says the everyday blessing on Shabbat, does one continue or stop immediately? If one remebers one has already davened when one is in the middle of a blessing of shmone esreh, does one stop in the middle or finish? If one enters a shul and has already prayed, does one pray again with them? If one entrers shul and they are already saying shmone esreh, does one wait until they finish kedusha or modim, or does one start one’s own shmone esreh – on what does it depend? Does one say kedusha as part of their silent shmone esreh? Does one answer to kadish if one is in the middle of shmone esreh? Rabbi Yehuda says that one who has a seminal emission can says blessings of shema – it seems to imply one can also learn Torah. How can that be? A contradition to Rabbi Yehuda is brought from a mishna further on. How is it resolved?

 

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜讛专讬 转驻诇讛 讚讚讘专 砖讛爪讘讜专 注住讜拽讬谉 讘讜 讜转谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛讜讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 诇讗 讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讗 讬拽爪专 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讞讬诇 讛讗 诇讗 讗转讞讬诇 诇讗 讬转讞讬诇

The Gemara challenges: And prayer, which is also a matter in which the community is engaged, and we learned in the mishna: One who was standing in prayer and remembered that he is one who experienced a seminal emission and did not yet immerse himself should not interrupt his prayer, rather he should abridge it. The Gemara infers: The reason is because he already began to pray; however, if he did not yet begin, then he should not begin, even by means of contemplation.

砖讗谞讬 转驻诇讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讛专讬 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讚诇讬转 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜转谞谉 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 讗诇讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜转驻诇讛 讚专讘谞谉:

The Gemara responds: Prayer is different in that it does not contain the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. The Gemara rejects this: And Grace after Meals does not contain the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, and yet we learned in the mishna: Over food, one recites a blessing afterward, but does not recite a blessing beforehand. Rather, the differences must be explained otherwise: The recitation of Shema and Grace after Meals are both mitzvot by Torah law, while prayer is only by rabbinic law. Therefore, one who is impure need not pray.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诇讗讞专讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转 讜讘专讻转

Rav Yehuda said: From where is the mitzva by Torah law to recite Grace after Meals, derived? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:10).

诪谞讬谉 诇讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诇驻谞讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 砖诐 讛壮 讗拽专讗 讛讘讜 讙讚诇 诇讗诇讛讬谞讜

And from where is the mitzva by Torah law to recite the blessing over the Torah before it is read, derived? As it is stated: 鈥淲hen I proclaim the Lord鈥檚 name, give glory to our God鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:3), meaning that before one proclaims the Lord鈥檚 name by reading the Torah, he must give glory to God.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讚谞讜 讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 诪谉 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诇驻谞讬讛 诪谉 讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 诪谉 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讝讜谉 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讟注讜谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 转讜专讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 诇驻谞讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 讜讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诇驻谞讬讛 诪谉 讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 转讜专讛 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇驻谞讬讛 诪讝讜谉 砖讛讜讗 讟注讜谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 诇驻谞讬讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: We derived that one must recite the blessing over the Torah after it is read from Grace after Meals by means of an a fortiori inference. And we derive the obligation to recite a blessing before partaking of food from the blessing over the Torah by means of an a fortiori inference. The blessing over the Torah after it is read from Grace after Meals by means of an a fortiori inference: Food, which does not require a blessing beforehand by Torah law, requires a blessing afterward; Torah, which requires a blessing beforehand, is it not right that it requires a blessing afterward? And similarly: The blessing before partaking of food from the blessing over the Torah by means of an a fortiori inference: Torah, which requires no blessing afterward by Torah law, requires a blessing beforehand; food, which requires a blessing afterward, is it not right that it requires a blessing beforehand?

讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪讝讜谉 砖讻谉 谞讛谞讛 讜诪讛 诇转讜专讛 砖讻谉 讞讬讬 注讜诇诐 讜注讜讚 转谞谉 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 转讬讜讘转讗:

The Gemara notes: The logic of this a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is true with regard to food, where one derives pleasure from eating, is not true with regard to matters which offer no bodily pleasure. Therefore, the blessing over the Torah cannot be derived from the blessing over food. And similarly: What is true with regard to Torah, that provides eternal life to those who engage in its study, is not true with regard to matters that do not provide eternal life. Therefore, the blessing before partaking of food cannot be derived from the blessing over the Torah. Furthermore, we learned in the mishna: Over food, one who is impure due to a seminal emission recites a blessing afterward, but does not recite a blessing beforehand. The mishna does not derive the blessing recited before a meal from the blessing recited over Torah. Consequently, this is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住驻拽 拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 住驻拽 诇讗 拽专讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜拽讜专讗 住驻拽 讗诪专 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 住驻拽 诇讗 讗诪专 讞讜讝专 讜讗讜诪专 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Yehuda said: One who is uncertain whether he recited Shema or whether he did not recite it does not recite it again. However, one who is uncertain whether he recited: True and Firm [emet veyatziv], the blessing that follows Shema in the morning, must recite emet veyatziv again. What is the reason for this? In his opinion, the obligation to recite Shema is only by rabbinic law. His ruling follows the principle that in cases of uncertainty involving rabbinic law, the ruling is lenient and he need not repeat it. However, since emet veyatziv is primarily a commemoration of the exodus from Egypt, it is a mitzva by Torah law, and, in cases of uncertainty involving Torah law, the ruling is stringent and he must repeat it.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讘砖讻讘讱 讜讘拽讜诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讛讜讗 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讻转讬讘

Rav Yosef raises an objection: How can you say that the obligation to recite Shema is only by rabbinic law when it is explicitly written: 鈥淎nd you shall recite them to your children and speak of them when you sit in your home and when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:7)? Abaye said to him: That verse was written with regard to matters of Torah. One need not interpret the verse in the conventional manner, as obligating the recitation of Shema, but rather as referring to the general obligation to study Torah.

转谞谉 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

From here, the Gemara attempts to resolve this issue by citing proof from the mishna. We learned in the mishna: One who experienced a seminal emission may contemplate Shema in his heart, but neither recites the blessings preceding Shema, nor the blessings thereafter. Over food which, after partaking, one is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing, one recites a blessing thereafter, but not beforehand.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讘专讜讱 诇讗讞专讬讛

And if it would enter your mind that the obligation to recite emet veyatziv is by Torah law, let him recite the blessing after Shema. Since he does not recite the blessing, apparently, he is exempt.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讘专讱 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讛讗 讗讚讻专 诇讬讛 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

The Gemara refutes this: What is the reason that he recites emet veyatziv? If it is because it deals primarily with the exodus from Egypt, wasn鈥檛 it already mentioned in the recitation of Shema, in the portion of the ritual fringes?

讜谞讬诪讗 讛讗 讜诇讗 诇讘注讬 讛讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 转专转讬

The Gemara challenges: And let him say this, emet veyatziv, and he will not need to recite that, Shema. The Gemara responds: While one may commemorate the exodus from Egypt in either Shema or emet veyatziv, Shema is preferable as it contains two elements, both a commemoration of the exodus and an acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 住驻拽 拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 住驻拽 诇讗 拽专讗 讞讜讝专 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 住驻拽 讛转驻诇诇 住驻拽 诇讗 讛转驻诇诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪转驻诇诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讜诇讜讗讬 砖讬转驻诇诇 讗讚诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜:

And Rabbi Elazar said a different opinion: One who is uncertain whether he recited Shema or whether he did not recite Shema, must recite Shema again. According to his opinion, there is a mitzva by Torah law to recite Shema. However, if one is uncertain whether he prayed or whether he did not pray, he does not pray again, as the obligation to pray is by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He must pray again; if only a person would pray throughout the entire day.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛转驻诇诇 驻讜住拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诪爪注 讘专讻讛 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘注谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讛谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讬 专讘 讚讟注讜 讜诪讚讻专讬 讚讞讜诇 讘砖讘转 诪讛讜 砖讬讙诪专讜 讜讗诪专 诇谉 讙讜诪专讬谉 讻诇 讗讜转讛 讘专讻讛

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who was standing in prayer and remembered that he already prayed must interrupt his prayer, even in the middle of a blessing. The Gemara challenges this: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: When we were in the school of Rabba bar Avuh we raised a dilemma before him: Those students in the school of Rav who mistakenly recited a blessing from the weekday Amida on Shabbat, what is the ruling with regards to completing the weekday prayer? And Rabba bar Avuh said to us: The ruling is that one must complete that entire blessing. How then did Rav Yehuda say that one must interrupt his prayer even in the middle of a blessing?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 爪诇讬 诇讬讛:

The Gemara rejects this: How can you compare the two cases? There, on Shabbat, the individual is one who is obligated and should actually recite all eighteen blessings, and it is the Sages who did not impose upon him in deference to Shabbat and instituted an abridged formula. But here, didn鈥檛 he already pray? Therefore he can stop, even in the middle of a blessing.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转驻诇诇 讜谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜诪爪讗 爪讘讜专 砖诪转驻诇诇讬谉 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讚砖 讘讛 讚讘专 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转驻诇诇

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who already prayed, and then enters a synagogue to find a congregation standing and praying, if he is able to introduce a new element, an expression or request, into his prayer, he may pray again, and if not, he may not pray again.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚

The Gemara notes: This concept is identical to Shmuel鈥檚 previous statement regarding one who already prayed that he need not pray again. Nevertheless, both statements are necessary. If he had taught us the first halakha, we would have said that applies only to a case involving an individual who prayed and an individual who began to repeat the prayer,

讗讜 爪讘讜专 讜爪讘讜专 讗讘诇 讬讞讬讚 诇讙讘讬 爪讘讜专 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 爪诇讬 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗转讞讬诇 讘讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚讗转讞讬诇 讘讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

or a case where he prayed as part of a congregation and began to repeat it as part of a congregation; however, in a case where he initially prayed by himself and subsequently joined the congregation at the venue where it was praying, we might have said that an individual vis-脿-vis the congregation is considered as one who has not prayed. Therefore, he taught us that in this case, too, one may not repeat the prayer. And, on the other hand, if he had taught us here only with regard to one who entered a synagogue, we would have thought that the reason he may not pray again is because he did not yet begin to recite the prayer, but there, in the case where he already began to recite the prayer, say that this is not the case and he may continue to repeat the prayer. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜诪爪讗 爪讘讜专 砖诪转驻诇诇讬谉 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讙讬注 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 诇诪讜讚讬诐 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讙讬注 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇

Rav Huna said: One who did not yet pray and enters a synagogue and found that the congregation is in the midst of reciting the Amida prayer, if he is able to begin and complete his own prayer before the prayer leader reaches the blessing of thanksgiving [modim], he should begin to pray, and, if not, he should not begin to pray. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he is able to begin and complete his prayer before the prayer leader reaches sanctification [kedusha], then he should begin to pray. If not, then he should not begin to pray.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬讞讬讚 讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖讛

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? The basis for their dispute is that one Sage, Rav Huna, holds: An individual is permitted to recite kedusha on his own, so he need not insist on reciting it along with the prayer leader; and the other Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, holds that an individual may not recite kedusha alone, and, therefore he is required to complete his prayer before the communal prayer leader reaches kedusha.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽讚砖转讬 讘转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘拽讚讜砖讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛

Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava stated, in accordance with the second opinion: From where is it derived that an individual may not recite kedusha alone? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 22:32), any expression of sanctity may not be recited in a quorum of fewer than ten men.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘谞讗讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗转讬讗 转讜讱 转讜讱 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜谞拽讚砖转讬 讘转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讛讘讚诇讜 诪转讜讱 讛注讚讛 讛讝讗转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注砖专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: How is this inferred from that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a baraita, which was taught by Rabbenai, the brother of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: It is inferred by means of a verbal analogy [gezera shava] between the words among, among. Here it is written: 鈥淎nd I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,鈥 and there, regarding Korah鈥檚 congregation, it is written 鈥淪eparate yourselves from among this congregation鈥 (Numbers 16:21). Just as there among connotes ten, so too here, among connotes ten. The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淗ow long shall I bear with this evil congregation?鈥 (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten.

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 诪驻住拽 诇讗 驻住讬拽

And, in any case, everyone agrees that one may not interrupt his prayer in order to respond to kedusha.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛驻住讬拽 诇讬讛讗 砖诪讜 讛讙讚讜诇 诪讘讜专讱 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讻诇 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讬讛讗 砖诪讜 讛讙讚讜诇 诪讘讜专讱 砖讗驻讬诇讜 注讜住拽 讘诪注砖讛 诪专讻讘讛 驻讜住拽 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛:

However, a dilemma was raised before the Sages of the yeshiva: What is the ruling? Is one permitted to interrupt his prayer in order to recite: 鈥淢ay His great name be blessed鈥 in kaddish? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yo岣nan, said: One may not interrupt his prayer for anything, except for: 鈥淢ay His great name be blessed,鈥 as even if one was engaged in the exalted study of the Act of the Divine Chariot [Ma鈥檃seh Merkava] (see Ezekiel 1) he stops to recite it. However, the Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

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: 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注诇 拽专讬 诪讜转专 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讘注诇 拽专讬 砖讗住讜专 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讜讚注转诐 诇讘谞讬讱 讜诇讘谞讬 讘谞讬讱 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讗砖专 注诪讚转 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission; he recites a blessing beforehand and afterward in both the case of Shema and in the case of food. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to engage in matters of Torah? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: From where in the Torah is it derived that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah? As it is stated: 鈥淛ust take heed and guard your soul diligently lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, for all the days of your life, and you shall impart them to your children and your children鈥檚 children鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:9), from which we derive, among other things, the obligation to study Torah. And, juxtaposed to it, is the verse: 鈥淭he day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:10). This juxtaposition teaches us that just as below, at the revelation at Mount Sinai, those who experienced a seminal emission were prohibited and were commanded to refrain from relations with their wives and immerse themselves, so too here, throughout the generations, those who experience a seminal emission are prohibited from engaging in Torah study.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚专讬砖 住诪讜讻讬诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 住诪讜讻讬诐 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚专讬砖 住诪讜讻讬谉 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖

And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef already say: Even one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah, nevertheless, derives them in Deuteronomy [Mishne Torah], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in Mishne Torah.

讜讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖驻讛 诇讗 转讞讬讛 讜谞讗诪专 讻诇 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讘讛诪讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 住诪讻讜 注谞讬谉 诇讜 诇讜诪专 诪讛 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讘讛诪讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 诪讻砖驻讛 谞诪讬 讘住拽讬诇讛

And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the punishment of a sorceress, ben Azzai says: It is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not allow a sorceress to live鈥 (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, and it is stated: 鈥淲hoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death鈥 (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that was to say: Just as one who lies with a beast is executed by stoning (see Leviticus 20), so too a sorceress is executed by stoning.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖住诪讻讜 注谞讬谉 诇讜 谞讜爪讬讗 诇讝讛 诇住拽讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讜讘 讜讬讚注讜谞讬 讘讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪讻砖驻讬诐 讛讬讜 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗讜 诇讛拽讬砖 诇讛谉 讜诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讗讜讘 讜讬讚注讜谞讬 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 诪讻砖驻讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

With regard to this proof Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And does the fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that warrant taking this person out to be stoned? Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on that basis Rather, the source is: Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out from the rest, in the verse: 鈥淎nd a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them鈥 (Leviticus 20:27)? In order to draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard are executed by stoning, so too is a sorceress executed by stoning.

讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讚专讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讜砖讗 讗讚诐 讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讗讘讬讜 讗谞讜住转 讘谞讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讘谞讜

And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Mishne Torah? As it was taught in another baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said that a man may wed a woman raped by his father and one seduced by his father; a woman raped by his son and one seduced by his son. Though one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, this prohibition does not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讘讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘诪驻讜转转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讙诇讛 (讗转) 讻谞祝 讗讘讬讜 讻谞祝 砖专讗讛 讗讘讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诇讛

And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits him from marrying a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife, and shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:1). The last expression, 鈥渁nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt,鈥 implies that: A skirt that has been seen by his father, i.e., any woman who has had sexual relations with his father, may not be uncovered by his son, i.e., his son may not marry her.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讻转讬讘 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜谞转谉 讛讗讬砖 讛砖讜讻讘 注诪讛 讜讙讜壮

And from where do we know that the verse is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? As the previous section, juxtaposed to it, deals with the laws of rape: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her must give her father fifty shekels鈥ecause he has violated her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29).

讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖 讜讛谞讬 住诪讜讻讬谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛诪诇诪讚 诇讘谞讜 转讜专讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗诇讜 拽讘诇讛 诪讛专 讞讜专讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讜讚注转诐 诇讘谞讬讱 讜诇讘谞讬 讘谞讬讱 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讬讜诐 讗砖专 注诪讚转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘讞讜专讘

At any rate, we see that in Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses. Why does he fail to derive that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah from the juxtaposition of the verses? They replied: Indeed, in Mishne Torah Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from the juxtaposition of verses, but he requires these juxtaposed verses in order to derive another statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes to him credit as if he received the Torah from Mount Horeb. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall impart them to your children and your children鈥檚 children鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:9) after which it is written: 鈥淭he day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.鈥 Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda cannot derive from that same juxtaposition a prohibition banning one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in matters of Torah.

转谞谉 讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讜谞讚讛 砖驻诇讟讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讛诪砖诪砖转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专

We learned in a mishna that a zav who experienced a seminal emission, and a menstruating woman who discharged semen, and a woman who engaged in intercourse with her husband and she saw menstrual blood, all of whom are ritually impure for at least seven days due to the severity of their impurity, nevertheless require ritual immersion in order to purify themselves from the impurity of the seminal emission before they may engage in matters of Torah. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them from immersion.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻讟专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇 拽专讬 讙专讬讚讗 诪讞讬讬讘

However, Rabbi Yehuda only exempted from immersion in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission, who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, as even after immersion he would remain impure with the seven-day impurity of the zav. But, in the case of one who experienced a seminal emission alone, with no concurrent impurity, even Rabbi Yehuda requires immersion before he may engage in Torah matters.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇 拽专讬 讙专讬讚讗 谞诪讬 驻讟专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬 讘讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛诪砖诪砖转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 爪专讬讻讛 讟讘讬诇讛

And if you say: The same is true even in the case of one who experienced a seminal emission alone, that Rabbi Yehuda also exempts him from immersion, and the fact that they disagree in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission and not in the case of a person who experienced a seminal emission alone is in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who require immersion even in this case. If so, say the last case of that same mishna: A woman who was engaged in intercourse and she saw menstrual blood requires immersion.

诇诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讜讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 专讘谞谉 讛诪砖诪砖转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讘转 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讚讜拽讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛

The Gemara seeks to clarify: In accordance with whose opinion was this case in the mishna taught? If you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is obvious; if in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, when he experienced the seminal emission, the Rabbis nevertheless require immersion, all the more so wouldn鈥檛 they require immersion for a woman who engaged in intercourse and only then saw blood, who was fit to immerse herself from the outset, when she came into contact with the seminal emission of her husband? Rather, isn鈥檛 this Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, and this case was taught specifically in order to teach

  • 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 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 21

讜讛专讬 转驻诇讛 讚讚讘专 砖讛爪讘讜专 注住讜拽讬谉 讘讜 讜转谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛讜讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 诇讗 讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讗 讬拽爪专 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讞讬诇 讛讗 诇讗 讗转讞讬诇 诇讗 讬转讞讬诇

The Gemara challenges: And prayer, which is also a matter in which the community is engaged, and we learned in the mishna: One who was standing in prayer and remembered that he is one who experienced a seminal emission and did not yet immerse himself should not interrupt his prayer, rather he should abridge it. The Gemara infers: The reason is because he already began to pray; however, if he did not yet begin, then he should not begin, even by means of contemplation.

砖讗谞讬 转驻诇讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讛专讬 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讚诇讬转 讘讛 诪诇讻讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜转谞谉 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 讗诇讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜转驻诇讛 讚专讘谞谉:

The Gemara responds: Prayer is different in that it does not contain the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. The Gemara rejects this: And Grace after Meals does not contain the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, and yet we learned in the mishna: Over food, one recites a blessing afterward, but does not recite a blessing beforehand. Rather, the differences must be explained otherwise: The recitation of Shema and Grace after Meals are both mitzvot by Torah law, while prayer is only by rabbinic law. Therefore, one who is impure need not pray.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诇讗讞专讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转 讜讘专讻转

Rav Yehuda said: From where is the mitzva by Torah law to recite Grace after Meals, derived? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:10).

诪谞讬谉 诇讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诇驻谞讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 砖诐 讛壮 讗拽专讗 讛讘讜 讙讚诇 诇讗诇讛讬谞讜

And from where is the mitzva by Torah law to recite the blessing over the Torah before it is read, derived? As it is stated: 鈥淲hen I proclaim the Lord鈥檚 name, give glory to our God鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:3), meaning that before one proclaims the Lord鈥檚 name by reading the Torah, he must give glory to God.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讚谞讜 讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 诪谉 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诇驻谞讬讛 诪谉 讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 诪谉 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讝讜谉 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讟注讜谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 转讜专讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 诇驻谞讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 讜讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 诇驻谞讬讛 诪谉 讘专讻转 讛转讜专讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 转讜专讛 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇驻谞讬讛 诪讝讜谉 砖讛讜讗 讟注讜谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 诇驻谞讬讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: We derived that one must recite the blessing over the Torah after it is read from Grace after Meals by means of an a fortiori inference. And we derive the obligation to recite a blessing before partaking of food from the blessing over the Torah by means of an a fortiori inference. The blessing over the Torah after it is read from Grace after Meals by means of an a fortiori inference: Food, which does not require a blessing beforehand by Torah law, requires a blessing afterward; Torah, which requires a blessing beforehand, is it not right that it requires a blessing afterward? And similarly: The blessing before partaking of food from the blessing over the Torah by means of an a fortiori inference: Torah, which requires no blessing afterward by Torah law, requires a blessing beforehand; food, which requires a blessing afterward, is it not right that it requires a blessing beforehand?

讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪讝讜谉 砖讻谉 谞讛谞讛 讜诪讛 诇转讜专讛 砖讻谉 讞讬讬 注讜诇诐 讜注讜讚 转谞谉 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 转讬讜讘转讗:

The Gemara notes: The logic of this a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is true with regard to food, where one derives pleasure from eating, is not true with regard to matters which offer no bodily pleasure. Therefore, the blessing over the Torah cannot be derived from the blessing over food. And similarly: What is true with regard to Torah, that provides eternal life to those who engage in its study, is not true with regard to matters that do not provide eternal life. Therefore, the blessing before partaking of food cannot be derived from the blessing over the Torah. Furthermore, we learned in the mishna: Over food, one who is impure due to a seminal emission recites a blessing afterward, but does not recite a blessing beforehand. The mishna does not derive the blessing recited before a meal from the blessing recited over Torah. Consequently, this is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住驻拽 拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 住驻拽 诇讗 拽专讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜拽讜专讗 住驻拽 讗诪专 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 住驻拽 诇讗 讗诪专 讞讜讝专 讜讗讜诪专 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Yehuda said: One who is uncertain whether he recited Shema or whether he did not recite it does not recite it again. However, one who is uncertain whether he recited: True and Firm [emet veyatziv], the blessing that follows Shema in the morning, must recite emet veyatziv again. What is the reason for this? In his opinion, the obligation to recite Shema is only by rabbinic law. His ruling follows the principle that in cases of uncertainty involving rabbinic law, the ruling is lenient and he need not repeat it. However, since emet veyatziv is primarily a commemoration of the exodus from Egypt, it is a mitzva by Torah law, and, in cases of uncertainty involving Torah law, the ruling is stringent and he must repeat it.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讘砖讻讘讱 讜讘拽讜诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讛讜讗 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讻转讬讘

Rav Yosef raises an objection: How can you say that the obligation to recite Shema is only by rabbinic law when it is explicitly written: 鈥淎nd you shall recite them to your children and speak of them when you sit in your home and when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:7)? Abaye said to him: That verse was written with regard to matters of Torah. One need not interpret the verse in the conventional manner, as obligating the recitation of Shema, but rather as referring to the general obligation to study Torah.

转谞谉 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

From here, the Gemara attempts to resolve this issue by citing proof from the mishna. We learned in the mishna: One who experienced a seminal emission may contemplate Shema in his heart, but neither recites the blessings preceding Shema, nor the blessings thereafter. Over food which, after partaking, one is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing, one recites a blessing thereafter, but not beforehand.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪转 讜讬爪讬讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讘专讜讱 诇讗讞专讬讛

And if it would enter your mind that the obligation to recite emet veyatziv is by Torah law, let him recite the blessing after Shema. Since he does not recite the blessing, apparently, he is exempt.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讘专讱 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讛讗 讗讚讻专 诇讬讛 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

The Gemara refutes this: What is the reason that he recites emet veyatziv? If it is because it deals primarily with the exodus from Egypt, wasn鈥檛 it already mentioned in the recitation of Shema, in the portion of the ritual fringes?

讜谞讬诪讗 讛讗 讜诇讗 诇讘注讬 讛讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 转专转讬

The Gemara challenges: And let him say this, emet veyatziv, and he will not need to recite that, Shema. The Gemara responds: While one may commemorate the exodus from Egypt in either Shema or emet veyatziv, Shema is preferable as it contains two elements, both a commemoration of the exodus and an acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 住驻拽 拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 住驻拽 诇讗 拽专讗 讞讜讝专 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 住驻拽 讛转驻诇诇 住驻拽 诇讗 讛转驻诇诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪转驻诇诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讜诇讜讗讬 砖讬转驻诇诇 讗讚诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜:

And Rabbi Elazar said a different opinion: One who is uncertain whether he recited Shema or whether he did not recite Shema, must recite Shema again. According to his opinion, there is a mitzva by Torah law to recite Shema. However, if one is uncertain whether he prayed or whether he did not pray, he does not pray again, as the obligation to pray is by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He must pray again; if only a person would pray throughout the entire day.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛转驻诇诇 驻讜住拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诪爪注 讘专讻讛 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘注谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讛谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讬 专讘 讚讟注讜 讜诪讚讻专讬 讚讞讜诇 讘砖讘转 诪讛讜 砖讬讙诪专讜 讜讗诪专 诇谉 讙讜诪专讬谉 讻诇 讗讜转讛 讘专讻讛

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who was standing in prayer and remembered that he already prayed must interrupt his prayer, even in the middle of a blessing. The Gemara challenges this: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: When we were in the school of Rabba bar Avuh we raised a dilemma before him: Those students in the school of Rav who mistakenly recited a blessing from the weekday Amida on Shabbat, what is the ruling with regards to completing the weekday prayer? And Rabba bar Avuh said to us: The ruling is that one must complete that entire blessing. How then did Rav Yehuda say that one must interrupt his prayer even in the middle of a blessing?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 爪诇讬 诇讬讛:

The Gemara rejects this: How can you compare the two cases? There, on Shabbat, the individual is one who is obligated and should actually recite all eighteen blessings, and it is the Sages who did not impose upon him in deference to Shabbat and instituted an abridged formula. But here, didn鈥檛 he already pray? Therefore he can stop, even in the middle of a blessing.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转驻诇诇 讜谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜诪爪讗 爪讘讜专 砖诪转驻诇诇讬谉 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讚砖 讘讛 讚讘专 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转驻诇诇

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who already prayed, and then enters a synagogue to find a congregation standing and praying, if he is able to introduce a new element, an expression or request, into his prayer, he may pray again, and if not, he may not pray again.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚

The Gemara notes: This concept is identical to Shmuel鈥檚 previous statement regarding one who already prayed that he need not pray again. Nevertheless, both statements are necessary. If he had taught us the first halakha, we would have said that applies only to a case involving an individual who prayed and an individual who began to repeat the prayer,

讗讜 爪讘讜专 讜爪讘讜专 讗讘诇 讬讞讬讚 诇讙讘讬 爪讘讜专 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 爪诇讬 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗转讞讬诇 讘讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚讗转讞讬诇 讘讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

or a case where he prayed as part of a congregation and began to repeat it as part of a congregation; however, in a case where he initially prayed by himself and subsequently joined the congregation at the venue where it was praying, we might have said that an individual vis-脿-vis the congregation is considered as one who has not prayed. Therefore, he taught us that in this case, too, one may not repeat the prayer. And, on the other hand, if he had taught us here only with regard to one who entered a synagogue, we would have thought that the reason he may not pray again is because he did not yet begin to recite the prayer, but there, in the case where he already began to recite the prayer, say that this is not the case and he may continue to repeat the prayer. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜诪爪讗 爪讘讜专 砖诪转驻诇诇讬谉 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讙讬注 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 诇诪讜讚讬诐 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讙讬注 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇

Rav Huna said: One who did not yet pray and enters a synagogue and found that the congregation is in the midst of reciting the Amida prayer, if he is able to begin and complete his own prayer before the prayer leader reaches the blessing of thanksgiving [modim], he should begin to pray, and, if not, he should not begin to pray. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he is able to begin and complete his prayer before the prayer leader reaches sanctification [kedusha], then he should begin to pray. If not, then he should not begin to pray.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬讞讬讚 讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖讛

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? The basis for their dispute is that one Sage, Rav Huna, holds: An individual is permitted to recite kedusha on his own, so he need not insist on reciting it along with the prayer leader; and the other Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, holds that an individual may not recite kedusha alone, and, therefore he is required to complete his prayer before the communal prayer leader reaches kedusha.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽讚砖转讬 讘转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘拽讚讜砖讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛

Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava stated, in accordance with the second opinion: From where is it derived that an individual may not recite kedusha alone? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 22:32), any expression of sanctity may not be recited in a quorum of fewer than ten men.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘谞讗讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗转讬讗 转讜讱 转讜讱 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜谞拽讚砖转讬 讘转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讛讘讚诇讜 诪转讜讱 讛注讚讛 讛讝讗转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注砖专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: How is this inferred from that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a baraita, which was taught by Rabbenai, the brother of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: It is inferred by means of a verbal analogy [gezera shava] between the words among, among. Here it is written: 鈥淎nd I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,鈥 and there, regarding Korah鈥檚 congregation, it is written 鈥淪eparate yourselves from among this congregation鈥 (Numbers 16:21). Just as there among connotes ten, so too here, among connotes ten. The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淗ow long shall I bear with this evil congregation?鈥 (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten.

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 诪驻住拽 诇讗 驻住讬拽

And, in any case, everyone agrees that one may not interrupt his prayer in order to respond to kedusha.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛驻住讬拽 诇讬讛讗 砖诪讜 讛讙讚讜诇 诪讘讜专讱 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讻诇 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讬讛讗 砖诪讜 讛讙讚讜诇 诪讘讜专讱 砖讗驻讬诇讜 注讜住拽 讘诪注砖讛 诪专讻讘讛 驻讜住拽 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛:

However, a dilemma was raised before the Sages of the yeshiva: What is the ruling? Is one permitted to interrupt his prayer in order to recite: 鈥淢ay His great name be blessed鈥 in kaddish? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yo岣nan, said: One may not interrupt his prayer for anything, except for: 鈥淢ay His great name be blessed,鈥 as even if one was engaged in the exalted study of the Act of the Divine Chariot [Ma鈥檃seh Merkava] (see Ezekiel 1) he stops to recite it. However, the Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

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: 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注诇 拽专讬 诪讜转专 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讘注诇 拽专讬 砖讗住讜专 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讜讚注转诐 诇讘谞讬讱 讜诇讘谞讬 讘谞讬讱 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讗砖专 注诪讚转 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission; he recites a blessing beforehand and afterward in both the case of Shema and in the case of food. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to engage in matters of Torah? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: From where in the Torah is it derived that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah? As it is stated: 鈥淛ust take heed and guard your soul diligently lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, for all the days of your life, and you shall impart them to your children and your children鈥檚 children鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:9), from which we derive, among other things, the obligation to study Torah. And, juxtaposed to it, is the verse: 鈥淭he day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:10). This juxtaposition teaches us that just as below, at the revelation at Mount Sinai, those who experienced a seminal emission were prohibited and were commanded to refrain from relations with their wives and immerse themselves, so too here, throughout the generations, those who experience a seminal emission are prohibited from engaging in Torah study.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚专讬砖 住诪讜讻讬诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 住诪讜讻讬诐 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚专讬砖 住诪讜讻讬谉 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖

And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef already say: Even one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah, nevertheless, derives them in Deuteronomy [Mishne Torah], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in Mishne Torah.

讜讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖驻讛 诇讗 转讞讬讛 讜谞讗诪专 讻诇 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讘讛诪讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 住诪讻讜 注谞讬谉 诇讜 诇讜诪专 诪讛 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讘讛诪讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 诪讻砖驻讛 谞诪讬 讘住拽讬诇讛

And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the punishment of a sorceress, ben Azzai says: It is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not allow a sorceress to live鈥 (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, and it is stated: 鈥淲hoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death鈥 (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that was to say: Just as one who lies with a beast is executed by stoning (see Leviticus 20), so too a sorceress is executed by stoning.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖住诪讻讜 注谞讬谉 诇讜 谞讜爪讬讗 诇讝讛 诇住拽讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讜讘 讜讬讚注讜谞讬 讘讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪讻砖驻讬诐 讛讬讜 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗讜 诇讛拽讬砖 诇讛谉 讜诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讗讜讘 讜讬讚注讜谞讬 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 诪讻砖驻讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

With regard to this proof Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And does the fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that warrant taking this person out to be stoned? Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on that basis Rather, the source is: Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out from the rest, in the verse: 鈥淎nd a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them鈥 (Leviticus 20:27)? In order to draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard are executed by stoning, so too is a sorceress executed by stoning.

讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讚专讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讜砖讗 讗讚诐 讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讗讘讬讜 讗谞讜住转 讘谞讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讘谞讜

And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Mishne Torah? As it was taught in another baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said that a man may wed a woman raped by his father and one seduced by his father; a woman raped by his son and one seduced by his son. Though one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, this prohibition does not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讘讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘诪驻讜转转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讙诇讛 (讗转) 讻谞祝 讗讘讬讜 讻谞祝 砖专讗讛 讗讘讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诇讛

And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits him from marrying a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife, and shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:1). The last expression, 鈥渁nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt,鈥 implies that: A skirt that has been seen by his father, i.e., any woman who has had sexual relations with his father, may not be uncovered by his son, i.e., his son may not marry her.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讻转讬讘 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜谞转谉 讛讗讬砖 讛砖讜讻讘 注诪讛 讜讙讜壮

And from where do we know that the verse is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? As the previous section, juxtaposed to it, deals with the laws of rape: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her must give her father fifty shekels鈥ecause he has violated her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29).

讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖 讜讛谞讬 住诪讜讻讬谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛诪诇诪讚 诇讘谞讜 转讜专讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗诇讜 拽讘诇讛 诪讛专 讞讜专讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讜讚注转诐 诇讘谞讬讱 讜诇讘谞讬 讘谞讬讱 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讬讜诐 讗砖专 注诪讚转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘讞讜专讘

At any rate, we see that in Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses. Why does he fail to derive that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah from the juxtaposition of the verses? They replied: Indeed, in Mishne Torah Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from the juxtaposition of verses, but he requires these juxtaposed verses in order to derive another statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes to him credit as if he received the Torah from Mount Horeb. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall impart them to your children and your children鈥檚 children鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:9) after which it is written: 鈥淭he day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.鈥 Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda cannot derive from that same juxtaposition a prohibition banning one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in matters of Torah.

转谞谉 讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讜谞讚讛 砖驻诇讟讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讛诪砖诪砖转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专

We learned in a mishna that a zav who experienced a seminal emission, and a menstruating woman who discharged semen, and a woman who engaged in intercourse with her husband and she saw menstrual blood, all of whom are ritually impure for at least seven days due to the severity of their impurity, nevertheless require ritual immersion in order to purify themselves from the impurity of the seminal emission before they may engage in matters of Torah. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them from immersion.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻讟专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇 拽专讬 讙专讬讚讗 诪讞讬讬讘

However, Rabbi Yehuda only exempted from immersion in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission, who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, as even after immersion he would remain impure with the seven-day impurity of the zav. But, in the case of one who experienced a seminal emission alone, with no concurrent impurity, even Rabbi Yehuda requires immersion before he may engage in Torah matters.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇 拽专讬 讙专讬讚讗 谞诪讬 驻讟专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬 讘讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛诪砖诪砖转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 爪专讬讻讛 讟讘讬诇讛

And if you say: The same is true even in the case of one who experienced a seminal emission alone, that Rabbi Yehuda also exempts him from immersion, and the fact that they disagree in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission and not in the case of a person who experienced a seminal emission alone is in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who require immersion even in this case. If so, say the last case of that same mishna: A woman who was engaged in intercourse and she saw menstrual blood requires immersion.

诇诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讜讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 专讘谞谉 讛诪砖诪砖转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讘转 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讚讜拽讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛

The Gemara seeks to clarify: In accordance with whose opinion was this case in the mishna taught? If you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is obvious; if in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, when he experienced the seminal emission, the Rabbis nevertheless require immersion, all the more so wouldn鈥檛 they require immersion for a woman who engaged in intercourse and only then saw blood, who was fit to immerse herself from the outset, when she came into contact with the seminal emission of her husband? Rather, isn鈥檛 this Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, and this case was taught specifically in order to teach

Scroll To Top