Berakhot 13a — the Talmud in English

not that “Jacob” be uprooted

from its place,

for “Jacob”

was still called “Jacob” when he descended to Egypt [as below],

but

the intention is that the name

“Israel” be primary, and

the name

“Jacob”

be

secondary to it.

And so he says

that at the future redemption they will still mention the Exodus from Egypt, as it is stated [Isaiah 43:18]:

“Do not remember former things, and do not contemplate ancient things”; “Do not remember former things”—this is the subjugation of the kingdoms,

for at the time of the redemption they will forget the subjugation and the redemption from the exile of Babylonia, Media, and Greece,

“and do not contemplate ancient things”—this is the Exodus from Egypt

which they will only remember, but will not contemplate as they contemplated it until the coming of the Messiah.

And the reason for this is explained later in the prophecy:

“Behold, I am making a new thing; now it will sprout”—Rabbi Yosef taught: This is the war of Gog and Magog,

for because of the great wars and the intensity of the future redemption, the memory of the subjugation of the kingdoms will be completely forgotten, and the memory of the Exodus from Egypt will become faint.

To what is this comparable? To a person who was walking on the road, and a wolf encountered him, and he was saved from it, and he would recount and continue recounting the incident of the wolf.

Afterward

a lion encountered him, and he was saved from it, and he would recount and continue recounting the incident of the lion.

In the end

a snake encountered him, and he was saved from it; he forgot the incidents of both of them and would recount and continue recounting the incident of the snake. So too, the later troubles of Israel cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

The beraita brings another example of a name that was changed but not completely uprooted:

It is stated in Chronicles I [1:27]

“Abram is Abraham.”

And they expounded these names as abbreviations of words:

At first

he was called “Abram,” an expression meaning “father of Aram,” because

he became a father to

the people of his land,

Aram. And in the end

he was called “Abraham,” an expression meaning “father of a multitude,” because

he became

a father to the entire world.

Yet the aforementioned verse still calls him “Abram,” proving that his first name was not completely nullified.

“Sarai” is “Sarah.” At first

she was called “Sarai,” an expression meaning a ruler over an individual, because

she became a ruler over her nation,

and in the end

she was called “Sarah,” [a ruler] over the many, because

she became a ruler over the entire world.

Rabbi bar Kappara taught: Whoever calls Abraham “Abram” transgresses a positive commandment, as it is stated

[Genesis 17:5]

“And your name shall be Abraham.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: He transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated

[there]

“And he shall no longer call

[

your name Abram.”

The Gemara clarifies:

“If that is so, one who calls Sarah ‘Sarai,’

is it

likewise

the case that he too transgresses a negative commandment, since it is stated there, ‘You shall not call her name Sarai’?”

The Gemara answers:

“There, the Holy One, blessed is He, said

only

to Abraham

[there]

‘Sarai your wife—you shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name,’

and this instruction was stated in the singular, for it was said only to Abraham, and it is unlike the instruction ‘He shall not call,’ which is a general instruction concerning Abraham’s name itself, that it should no longer be called ‘Abram’ by anyone.”

The Gemara clarifies:

“If that is so, one who calls Jacob ‘Jacob,’

is it

likewise

the case that he too transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated [there, 35:10], ‘Your name shall no longer be called Jacob’?”

The Gemara answers:

“There it is different, for the verse returned and restored it,”

for afterward, when he descended to Egypt, it again called him “Jacob,”

as it is written

[there, 46:2]

“And God said to Israel in night visions,

and He said, Jacob, Jacob.”

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raised an objection:

It is stated [Nehemiah 9:7]

“You are the Lord, the God, who chose Abram.”

And it is proven that even now it is permitted to call him “Abram”?

He said to him: “There, it is a prophet who is arranging praise of the Merciful One,

and recounting

what was so originally,

and the prohibition is to call him “Abram” today, but it is permitted to recount that he was once called “Abram,” before his name was uprooted.”

We have completed for you the chapter “From When.”

Mishna:

He was reading

the section of the recitation of Shema

in the Torah

while reading it in order to proofread the scroll,

and the time for recitation arrived [the time for reciting Shema],

[the time for reciting the Shema],

if he directed his heart

to read, and not merely to proofread,

he has fulfilled

the obligation of reciting Shema.

The Mishna details the circumstances in which it is permitted to interrupt speech in the middle of the recitation of Shema, and where one may interrupt:

between the sections,

between one “section” and another [and shortly it will be explained what a “section” is]

he asks —

he initiates a greeting —

because of honor,

to a distinguished person whom it is proper to greet first,

and

also

he responds

to the greeting of a distinguished person who greeted him first.

And in the middle

of the section

he asks

about the welfare only

because of fear,

from a person whom he fears might kill him if he does not greet him first,

and

also

he responds

to him with a greeting [but he does not ask and respond because of honor],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says,

the law of the one who asks differs from the law of the one who responds:

in the middle

of the section

he asks because of fear and responds

even

because of honor, and

if

between the sections he asks because of honor, and

when they greeted him first

he responds with a greeting to every person.

These are the intervals:

Between the first blessing, “Creator of Light” in the morning service and “Who brings on evenings” in the evening service,

“Who forms light” in the morning service and “Who brings on evenings” in the evening service,

and the second, “Abundant Love” in the morning service and “Everlasting Love” in the evening service.

“With abundant love” in the morning service and “An eternal love” in the evening service.

Between

a blessing

and the second blessing and “Shema”.

Between

the end of the section

“Shema” and

the beginning of the section

“And it shall be if you heed.”

Between

the end of the section

“And it shall be if you heed” and

the beginning of the section

“And He said.”

Between

the end of the section

“And He said” [that is, after the words “the Lord your God”]

[that is, after the words “the Lord your God”]

and “True and firm.”

Rabbi Judah says: between “And He said” and “True and firm”

he may not interrupt, [and the Gemara will explain in what they disagree].

and the Gemara will explain in what the Sages disagree].

Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: Why did the section “Shema” precede “And it shall be if you heed”

in the order of their recitation in the recitation of Shema?

So that he first accepts upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven

when he says “the Lord our God,”

and afterward accepts upon himself the yoke of mitzvot,

when he says “And it shall be if you surely heed My commandments.” And why did the recitation of

“And it shall be if you heed” precede “And He said”?

Because

“And it shall be if you heed”

contains “And you shall teach them,” that is, Torah study, which

applies both by day and by night,

whereas in

“And He said”

the section of tzitzit is stated, and its obligation

applies only by day.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from what we learned, specifically “if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation”:

infer from it

in accordance with the view of the one who says [on Rosh Hashana 28a]

mitzvot require intention —

that he intend to perform the act in order to fulfill through it his obligation in the mitzva.

The Gemara rejects this:

What does “if he directed his heart” mean?

To read,

to read in the Torah merely, and he need not intend for the sake of a mitzva.

The Gemara objects to this: why must it add and intend

“to read,” for he is reading

and how is it possible that he reads without intending to read?

And it explains: the case is

with

a person who

is reading in order to proofread

a Torah scroll for errors, and his reading is not considered “the recitation of Shema” unless he intended to read [although he need not intend to perform a mitzva through his reading].

The Sages taught: The recitation of Shema

must be read

according to its writing,

that is, specifically in the Holy Tongue,

the words of Rabbi. And the Sages say,

he may read it

in every

language.

And the Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi’s reason?

The verse says, “And they shall be,”

and its meaning is

“in their being they shall be,”

that they should be said as they were written, in the Holy Tongue.

And the Sages, what is their reason?

The verse says, “Hear,”

and its meaning is,

“in every language that you hear.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

But according to Rabbi [Yehuda] as well, is it not written, “Hear”!?

And it explains:

That

“hear”

is needed to teach

one who recites the Shema:

Make heard to your ears what you utter with your mouth!

But

on the other hand,

the Rabbis,

who learned from this verse that he recites in every language, did not need to learn from it as Rabbi [Yehuda did], because

they hold like the one who says

that one who recites the Shema, even if

he did not make it heard to his ear, has fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But according to the Rabbis as well, is it not written, “And they shall be,”

which implies: they shall be as they are written!?

And it explains:

That is needed

to teach one who recites the Shema that he should recite the words in their proper order,

so that he should not recite them retroactively

[from the end to the beginning] .

But, on the other hand, this is difficult:

And Rabbi [Yehuda],

who derives from “and they shall be” that the Shema must be recited as it is written, specifically in the holy language—this matter of

“so that he should not recite it retroactively,” from where does he derive it?

And the Gemara explains:

He derives it from “words

—the words,”

for it would have been proper to say, “And these words shall be,” and the letter he in the word “the words” is superfluous, and comes to teach that he should say them in the order in which the words were written, and not retroactively.

The Gemara explains:

And the Rabbis,

who needed to exclude retroactive recitation from “and they shall be,” because they

do not expound

“words—the words,” the superfluous he in “the words.”

The Gemara infers from the fact that Rabbi [Yehuda] needed to expound the verse “and they shall be” that the Shema is specifically [to be recited] as it is written:

Does this mean that Rabbi [Yehuda] holds that the entire Torah was stated in every language,

and it is not necessary to read the Torah reading specifically in the holy language?

If it would enter your mind

that it was stated

specifically in the holy language,

then the exclusion of

“and they shall be,” which the Torah wrote

regarding the Shema,

why do I need it?

For the law of its recitation is no less than that of the Torah reading!?

The Gemara rejects this: even if the entire Torah is read specifically in the holy language,

it was needed

to teach through the exclusion of “and they shall be” that the Shema too is stated specifically in the holy language,

because it is written

in it

“hear,”

and without the exclusion of “and they shall be,” we would have said that the meaning of “hear” is “in every language that you hear.” [And only because of the exclusion of “and they shall be” do we say that “hear” is expounded to mean making it heard to one’s ear].

The Gemara infers conversely:

Does this mean that the Rabbis hold that the entire Torah was stated in the holy language,

and one must read the Torah reading specifically in the holy language?

For if it would enter your mind that it was stated in every language, “hear,” which the Torah wrote

to teach that the Shema is recited in every language that you hear,

why do I need it?

The Gemara rejects this: even if the entire Torah is read specifically in every language,

it was needed

to learn from “hear” that the Shema too is in every language,

because it is written

in it “and they shall be,” and without the meaning of “hear” it would be possible to expound it like Rabbi [Yehuda], that it must be recited specifically as it is written in the holy language. [Now, since “hear” is stated, the Sages expound “and they shall be” to teach that he should not recite it retroactively].

The Sages taught: “And they shall be,” so that he should not recite them retroactively.

“These words shall be upon your heart.” Could it be that the entire section requires intention?

The verse says, “these,”

to teach that only

up to here,

up to “upon your heart”

requires intention,

and if he did not have intention, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

From here onward, it does not require intention

as an indispensable condition,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.