Berakhot 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who wishes to accept upon himself the complete

yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven

should relieve himself

so that his body will be clean when he recites the Shema and prays,

and wash his hands, put on tefillin, recite the Shema, and pray; and this is

the acceptance of the

complete yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who relieves himself

of himself

and washes his hands, puts on tefillin, recites the Shema, and prays, the verse considers him as though he built an altar and offered a sacrifice upon it, as it is written [Psalms 26:6]:

(Psalms 26:6),

“I will wash my hands in purity and encircle Your altar, O Lord.”

Rava said

to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba:

Does the Master not hold

that one who washes his hands before prayer is considered by the verse

as though he immersed

his entire body in a ritual bath? For so it is implied by

the verse,

the wording

“I will wash

in purity” “

which means, “I will wash myself,”

and not

does it say

“I will wash

my hands,” “

which would mean that I will wash my hands. Necessarily, then, the intention is that, in reward for washing his hands, he is considered as though he washed his entire body for prayer.

Ravina said to Rava: Have you seen that Torah scholar who came from the West and said: “One who has no water with which to wash his hands

when he comes to pray

wipes his hands

by rubbing them

with earth, a pebble, or a sliver of wood”?

He said to him

Rava to Ravina:

He spoke well,

that Torah scholar, for

does it say, “I will wash in water”? It says: “

I will wash

in purity,” meaning that one may wash with

whatever

cleans.

It is likewise evident that there is no obligation to wash specifically with water:

for Rav Ḥisda cursed anyone who seeks water at the time of prayer [in certain circumstances, as follows].

[in certain circumstances, as follows].

And this applies

when Rav Ḥisda ruled that one should not seek water specifically

for reciting the Shema,

since its time is fixed, and if he seeks water he may allow its time to pass,

but for prayer

whose time extends throughout the day,

he should seek

to wash his hands specifically with water.

The Gemara discusses this:

And how far

what is the distance one is required to travel in order to seek water?

Up to a parasang.

And this applies

that one must seek water up to a parasang specifically

ahead,

when he is traveling, he must proceed up to a parasang and seek water for washing,

but

if there is no water farther along the road, and it is available only if he turns back

even one mil

[which is one-quarter of a parasang],

he need not turn back.

The Gemara infers:

And from it

it follows from this statement that specifically a distance of

one mil

behind him

is the distance for which he need not turn back; but for less than one mil, he must turn back.

Mishna:

One who recites the Shema

quietly

and does not make it audible to his ear has fulfilled

his obligation to recite the Shema.

Rabbi Yosei says: He has not fulfilled it.

If he recited it but was not precise in pronouncing its letters,

pronouncing them properly with his lips,

Rabbi Yosei says he has fulfilled it; Rabbi Yehuda says he has not fulfilled it.

One who reads

words or verses from it

out of order—

placing what comes later before what comes earlier—

has not fulfilled his obligation.

If he recited it and erred,

and does not know where he is currently up to,

he must return to the place where he erred,

namely, the place up to which he knows that he recited correctly.

Gemara:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei

that if one did not make the Shema audible to his ear, he has not fulfilled his obligation?

Because it is written, “Hear,”

and its meaning is

make audible

to your ear what you bring forth from your mouth.

The Gemara explains the opposing view:

And the first tanna,

how does he interpret the meaning of “Hear”?

He holds

that the meaning of

“Hear”

is “understand,” teaching that one may recite it

in any language that you understand.

The Gemara returns to explain the opposing view:

And Rabbi Yosei,

from where does he learn that one may recite it in any language?

He derives two laws from it: the word “Hear” teaches both that one may recite it in any language that one understands and that one must make it audible to his ear.

the word “Hear” teaches both that one may recite it in any language that one understands and that one must make it audible to his ear.

We learned there [Terumot 1:2]:

(Terumot 1:2):

“A deaf-mute who can speak but cannot hear may not separate teruma,”

because he cannot hear the blessing that he recites at the time of the separation,

but if he did separate it,

after the fact,

his teruma is teruma.

The Gemara discusses this:

Who is the tanna

who stated this law, that

a deaf-mute who can speak but cannot hear

only

after the fact may

have his teruma take effect, but

initially may he not separate it?

Rav Ḥisda said:

It is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Yosei

in our Mishna;

that is so.

As we learned: “One who recites the Shema but does not make it audible to his ear has fulfilled his obligation; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He has not fulfilled it.”

Rav Ḥisda infers:

Rabbi Yosei said “he has not fulfilled it” only

with regard to

reciting the Shema,

which is a

mitzva from the Torah, but

the reason that a deaf-mute may not separate

teruma

is because

he cannot hear the

blessing, and

the obligation of a

blessing

is only

rabbinic.

And

therefore,

the matter does not depend on the blessing—it does not prevent the teruma from taking effect. Consequently, although he does not fulfill his obligation with regard to the blessing, his separation takes effect.

the blessing does not prevent the teruma from taking effect, and so, although he does not fulfill his obligation through the blessing, his separation is valid.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And from where

do we know that the Mishna in Terumot follows the view

of Rabbi Yosei,

whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that a deaf-mute may separate teruma initially?

Perhaps

it is Rabbi Yehuda.

And what he

said concerning the Shema as well,

said with regard to the Shema as well—that he fulfills his obligation when he does not make it audible to his ear—means only

when he does not make it audible to his ear, applies only

after the fact, yes,

but

initially, no: he may recite it only if he makes it audible to his ear.

Know

that Rabbi Yehuda holds that initially one must make it audible to his ear:

For it teaches: “One who recites

the Shema but does not make it audible to his ear has fulfilled his obligation.” The wording “one who recites” implies that only

after the fact—

yes,

but

initially, no—he may recite it only if he makes it audible to his ear. [If so, the Mishna in Terumot can be explained as following Rabbi Yehuda: the intention is that a deaf-mute may not separate teruma initially because he does not make it audible to his ear, contrary to Rav Ḥisda.]

But the Gemara rejects the inference from the wording of the Mishna:

But the Gemara rejects the inference from the wording of the Mishna:

They said: The fact that it teaches, “One who recites”

in language indicating a post-facto case was not stated to teach that he fulfills the obligation only after the fact, but rather

to inform you of the force of Rabbi Yosei,

and to reveal that his intention when he

said, “He has not fulfilled it,”

is that

even after the fact he has not fulfilled it. If

it were

Rabbi Yehuda,

however, holds that one who recites without making it audible to his ear

has fulfilled the obligation even initially. [Consequently, the statement in Terumot that one may not separate teruma initially could indeed follow only Rabbi Yosei, as Rav Ḥisda said.]

Thus, what we learned in Terumot—that one may not separate teruma initially—could indeed follow Rabbi Yosei, as Rav Ḥisda said.

The Gemara raises another objection:

According to what

did you establish the Mishna in Terumot?

According to Rabbi Yosei, and

if so, there is a difficulty:

But what of that which was taught: “A person may not recite the Grace after Meals mentally,

that is, in a manner in which he does not hear it with his ears” ,

but if

after the fact

he recited

quietly,

he has fulfilled his obligation”; who is the author?

For

it is neither Rabbi Yosei nor Rabbi Yehuda

who holds this:

For if it is Rabbi Yehuda, he said that even initially he has fulfilled the obligation,

so why does it say, “A person may not recite it mentally”?

But if it is Rabbi Yosei,

the statement in the latter clause that “if he recited the blessing, he has fulfilled his obligation” is difficult, for according to him

even after the fact, he has not

fulfilled his obligation, since Grace after Meals is mandated by Torah law .

Rather, what can be said?

It is necessarily the case that this beraita follows the view of

Rabbi Yehuda. And

it is evident that according to him,

after the fact, it is not

possible to fulfill the obligation of reciting the Shema if one did not make it audible to his ear; however,

at the outset, one may not ]and it follows once again that the Mishna in Trumot is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda: a deaf-mute may not contribute teruma ab initio, because he cannot hear the blessing that he articulates.

—and it follows once again that the Mishna in Trumot is according to Rabbi Yehuda: a deaf-mute may not initially separate the tithe, because he cannot hear the blessing that he utters.

The Gemara raises a difficulty according to this explanation of the Mishna in Trumot:

Rather, this teaching of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi—“A deaf-mute who can speak but cannot hear may contribute teruma ab initio”—in accordance with whose view is it?

For

it is held by neither Rabbi Yosei nor Rabbi Yehuda

that this is so:

If it is Rabbi Yehuda, he said

with regard to the silent recitation of the Shema

that after the fact, yes, but at the outset, no;

so how could a deaf-mute contribute teruma ab initio?

And if it is Rabbi Yosei, he said

that if one did not make it audible to his ear,

even after the fact he has not fulfilled his obligation,

since the Sages instituted with regard to teruma that one must make the blessing audible to his ear, as with the recitation of the Shema; and if he does not make it audible, his teruma does not take effect .

Rather, it is always Rabbi Yehuda

who holds that a deaf-mute may contribute teruma

even ab initio as well,

while the Mishna in Trumot, which says “he may not contribute,” follows the view of Rabbi Yosei . But after the fact, his teruma is teruma, since the blessing is only rabbinic.

And

nevertheless,

there is no difficulty

as to who stated the beraita that one must make the blessing over Grace after Meals audible to his ears ab initio.

For

this,

the beraita stating that a deaf-mute may contribute teruma ab initio,

is his,

was stated by Rabbi Yehuda himself.

And

if

this,

the statement in the beraita that with regard to Grace after Meals one fulfills the obligation only after the fact, was stated by Rabbi Yehuda only in accordance with the view

of his teacher,

as follows:

For we learned: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites the Shema must make it audible to his ear, as it is stated

(Deuteronomy 6:4),

“Hear, Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

The implication of the word “must” is that this requirement applies only ab initio, but after the fact he has fulfilled his obligation even if he did not make it audible to his ear. [And if so, it is reasonable that he is the tanna who taught in the beraita that the obligation to make the blessing over Grace after Meals audible to one’s ear applies only ab initio] .

Rabbi Meir said

to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Even ab initio, there is no need to make the recitation of the Shema audible to one’s ear, for

it says: “

“And these words shall be”

“which I command you today shall be upon your heart.”

The implication is that

“the words” are dependent entirely upon the intention of the heart.

That is, one need only direct his heart to the “words” stated here, but need not make them audible to his ears.

The Gemara concludes:

Now that you have arrived at this,

that we have found the view of Rabbi Meir that there is no need to make it audible to one’s ears even ab initio,

you may even say that Rabbi Yehuda follows his teacher,

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

and holds

that ab initio one must make the recitation of the Shema audible to his ear,

and

nevertheless,

there is no difficulty

as to who stated the beraita that one must make the blessing over Grace after Meals audible to his ears ab initio, for

this,

the beraita stating that a deaf-mute may contribute teruma ab initio, was stated by

Rabbi Meir

.

And

if

this,

what we find in the beraita with regard to Grace after Meals, and in the Mishna in Trumot with regard to a deaf-mute’s teruma—that ab initio one must make it audible to one’s ear—was stated in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Yehuda.

We learned there

(Megilla 19b):

“All are fit to read the Megilla, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit.”

The Gemara analyzes this:

Who is the tanna

who stated the law of

a deaf-mute

together with that of an imbecile, implying that

even after the fact, he does not

enable others to fulfill their obligation?

Rav Mattana said:

It is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Yosei.

For we learned: One who recites the Shema but does not make it audible to his ear has fulfilled his obligation; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He has not fulfilled his obligation.

Since he cannot fulfill the obligation of reading the Megilla even after the fact, he is exempt from reading it, and therefore cannot enable others to fulfill their obligation, because he is not obligated to the same degree as they are. [But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who fulfills his obligation through his recitation after the fact, he can also enable others to fulfill their obligation after the fact].

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And from where

do we know that the Mishna in Megilla follows the view

of Rabbi Yosei, and

means that even

after the fact, he does not

enable the others to fulfill their obligation?