Berakhot 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

Perhaps it is Rabbi Yehuda, and

only

as an initial matter he does not

have a deaf-mute recite in order to exempt others, because he too does not fulfill the obligation as an initial matter

but after the fact,

if he recited for others,

it is properly valid,

and this is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that after the fact one fulfills the obligation even if he did not make it reach his ear.

The Gemara explains:

It does not enter your mind

to interpret the ruling as meaning that others fulfill their obligation through the recitation of a deaf-mute only after the fact, because it is necessary to say that he does not exempt them even after the fact, because

it teaches

“a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,” implying that the law of the

deaf-mute

is

analogous to that of an imbecile,

and from this it is learned that

just as an imbecile and a minor do not exempt others even after the fact,

through their recitation,

so too a deaf-mute does not do so even after the fact.

This establishes the necessity of interpreting the Mishna as following Rabbi Yosei, who holds that if one did not make it reach his ear, he did not fulfill the obligation even after the fact.

The Gemara rejects the inference from the wording of the Mishna that a deaf-mute does not exempt others even after the fact:

But perhaps

the Mishna does not intend to equate a deaf-mute with an imbecile and a minor. Rather,

this one,

the deaf-mute,

is as it is stated

that he does not exempt others only as an initial matter;

and this one,

the imbecile and the minor,

is as it is stated

that they do not exempt others even after the fact. If so, the difficulty returns: Perhaps this Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara answers:

Can you establish it as following Rabbi Yehuda?

But from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause, “Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit,” by inference, the first clause is not Rabbi Yehuda.

It is therefore preferable to establish it as following Rabbi Yosei and explain that the deaf-mute does not exempt others even after the fact.

The Gemara rejects this:

But perhaps the entire Mishna

is in accordance with

Rabbi Yehuda, and

it does not come to disagree with the first clause. Rather, both the first and latter clauses deal with

two types of minor, and the text is incomplete,

and this is what it teaches

in the Mishna:

Everyone is fit to read the Megilla except for a deaf-mute,

who may not recite it initially, and

an imbecile,

who does not exempt others even after the fact,

and a minor,

whose law is like that of a deaf-mute, and who may not recite it only as an initial matter.

When are these matters stated?

That a minor may not initially exempt others—

with regard to a minor who has not reached

the age of

education; but a minor who has reached the age of education is fit even initially

to exempt others through his recitation.

These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda, whom Rabbi Yehuda deems fit

to fulfill the obligation through

the

recitation of a

minor

who has reached the age of education.

It follows that the entire Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, as is his statement in our Mishna concerning the recitation of Shema: A deaf-mute is unfit to recite only as an initial matter, but after the fact he fulfills the obligation and exempts others through his recitation, [and not in accordance with Rav Mattana].

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

On what basis did you establish

the Mishna in Megilla

as following Rabbi Yehuda: after the fact, yes; initially, no?

Rather,

according to this explanation it is difficult:

Who is the author of that which Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught: “A deaf-mute who can speak but cannot hear contributes teruma initially”?

For

neither Rabbi Yosei nor Rabbi Yehuda

holds this.

For if it is Rabbi Yehuda, he said

with regard to reciting Shema silently

that after the fact, yes; initially, no.

How, then, can a deaf-mute contribute teruma initially?

And if it is Rabbi Yosei, he said

that if one did not make it reach his ear,

he did not fulfill the obligation even after the fact,

since the Sages instituted with regard to teruma that he must make the blessing reach his ear, as with the recitation of Shema, and if he does not do so, his teruma does not take effect.

Rather, what must you say?

It is necessary to explain that

Rabbi Yehuda

is the one who holds that a deaf-mute may contribute teruma

even initially,

and the Mishna in Megilla, which says that a deaf-mute may not recite it, is established as following Rabbi Yosei [and Rav Mattana].

Rather,

if so, it is difficult:

That which was taught in a beraita: “A person may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart,”

meaning in a manner that he does not hear with his ears,

but if

after the fact he

recited

silently,

he has fulfilled the obligation.

Who is its author?

For

neither Rabbi Yosei nor Rabbi Yehuda

holds this:

For if it is Rabbi Yehuda, he said that one fulfills the obligation even initially,

so why does it say, “A person may not recite it in his heart”?

And if it is Rabbi Yosei,

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

he does not fulfill the obligation even after the fact,

as the Grace after Meals is of Torah origin.

Actually, it is Rabbi Yehuda

who holds that a deaf-mute may contribute teruma

even initially,

while the Mishna in Megilla follows Rabbi Yosei , and a deaf-mute does not exempt others through his recitation even after the fact.

And

nevertheless,

there is no difficulty

concerning who said the beraita that one must initially make the Grace after Meals reach his ears, because

this one,

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

is his,

Rabbi Yehuda himself said it.

And

if

this one,

the beraita concerning the Grace after Meals, was stated by Rabbi Yehuda only according to

his teacher

and as follows:

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

[Deuteronomy 6:4]

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

The meaning of the word “must” is that this obligation applies only initially, but after the fact he fulfills it even if he did not make it reach his ear. [It therefore stands to reason that he is the tanna who taught in the beraita that making the Grace after Meals reach one’s ear is required only initially.]

Rabbi Meir said

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

it says

“And these words

that I command you today shall be upon your heart.”

This means that

the “words” are determined entirely by the intention of the heart;

that is, one need only direct his heart toward the “words” stated here, but need not make them reach 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 reach one’s ear even initially,

you may even say that Rabbi Yehuda follows his teacher,

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

and holds

that initially one must make the recitation of Shema reach his ear,

and

nevertheless

there is no difficulty

concerning who said the beraita that one must initially make the Grace after Meals reach his ears.

For

this one—

the beraita stating that a deaf-mute may contribute teruma initially—

was stated by Rabbi Meir,

who said it.

And

if

this one—

what we find in the beraita concerning the Grace after Meals, and in the Mishna in Terumot concerning the teruma of a deaf-mute, that initially one must make it reach his ear—was stated according to

Rabbi Yehuda.

It follows that the Mishna in Megilla follows Rabbi Yehuda: Initially one must make it reach his ear, but after the fact, even if he does not hear it, he fulfills the obligation and exempts others through his recitation.

Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Rav Sheila: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

that initially one must make the recitation of Shema reach his ear, but after the fact, even if he did not hear it, he fulfills the obligation.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara explains his statement:

It is necessary

to rule according to both statements made by Rav Yehuda:

For had he taught us

only

“The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,” we might have said that even initially

there is no need to make it reach one’s ear . Therefore,

he teaches us

that the

halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

in that

which he said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

that initially one must make it reach his ear.

And

conversely,

had he taught us

only that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, we might have said

that

“must”

means an absolute requirement to make it reach one’s ear,

and

if he did not make it reach his ear,

there is no remedy for him.

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Rav Ḥisda said that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

also with regard to what he said himself: If one did not hear it, he fulfills the obligation after the fact .

Rav Yosef said: The dispute

between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda applies only with regard to

the recitation of Shema, but with regard to other mitzvot

everyone agrees

that if one did not make it reach his ear,

he did not fulfill the obligation, as it is written

“Be attentive and hear, Israel.”

“Pay attention and hear, Israel.”

The following objection was raised:

For we learned in a beraita:

A person may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart

—silently, so that it is not heard by his ear.

But if he recited it

without making it reach his ear,

he did not fulfill the obligation.

This proves that according to Rabbi Yehuda, even with regard to other mitzvot one does not fulfill the obligation.

The Gemara therefore establishes Rav Yosef’s statement differently:

Rather, if it was stated, this is how it was stated:

Rav Yosef said: The dispute

applies only

to the recitation of Shema

alone, because

it is written

with regard to it

“Hear, Israel,”

whose meaning is that one must make it reach his ears.

But with regard to other mitzvot, everyone agrees that he has fulfilled the obligation

even if he did not make it reach his ears.

The Gemara asks: How can one fulfill his obligation with regard to other mitzvot,

when it is written, “Be attentive and hear, Israel”?

The Gemara answers:

That

verse, “Be attentive and hear,”

is written with regard to words of Torah;

when one studies, he must make the words reach his ear , but one may not derive from it the same rule for other mitzvot .

We learned in the Mishna:

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

Rabbi Yosei says he has fulfilled the obligation; Rabbi Yehuda says he has not fulfilled the obligation.

Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rav Oshaya: The halakha follows both of their statements leniently,

like Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if one did not make it reach his ear he fulfilled the obligation, and like Rabbi Yosei, who says that precise pronunciation is not indispensable.

And

another statement

Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rav Oshaya: What is the meaning of that which is written

[Proverbs 30:15]

“There are three that are never satisfied: the grave

[the burial place],

the barren womb,

the earth that is not satisfied with water”—

”? —

and what connection is there between the grave and the womb?

Rather, this comes to tell you: Just as the womb takes in

seed

and brings forth

a child,

so too the grave takes in

the dead

and

in the future

brings forth

the living.

And is this not a kal va-chomer: If a womb into which

seed is inserted

in secrecy brings forth

the child

amid loud cries,

then a grave into which

the dead person is placed

amid loud cries

of the mourners accompanying him—surely

is it not logical that

in the future they will

bring him forth amid loud cries—

this is an answer to those who say that the resurrection of the dead is not mentioned in the Torah.

Rabbi Oshaya taught before Rava: “And you shall write them”;

this teaches that

everything is in writing,

and one must write in tefillin and a mezuzah

even

the verses of

instructions,

such as those dealing with the mitzvot of tefillin and mezuzah; it is not sufficient to write only the principal portion of the passage.

Rava said to him,

to Rav Oshaya:

Whose statement is the one you are telling me?

Who is it that told you that it is necessary to derive from a verse that the instructions must also be written? Is it perhaps the approach of

Rabbi Yehuda, who said

[Sota 17a]

concerning

the writing of the scroll of the

sotah

that the priest

writes

the curses mentioned in the passage of the sotah in the sotah scroll, but

the instructions

mentioned there

he does not write. And

you learn that only

there,

in the sotah scroll,

does he

not write them, because

it is written

with regard to it

“And he shall write these curses,”

which implies specifically curses, but not instructions.

But here,

with regard to tefillin and mezuzah, he writes them, because

it is written, “And you shall write them,”

to teach that

even the instructions as well

are to be written.

However, it cannot be that Rabbi Yehuda is the one who requires a scriptural derivation that “everything is in writing,” because

is that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason

for not writing the instructions in the sotah scroll really because it says

“and he shall write”

and not “and you shall write”? After all,

Rabbi Yehuda’s reason

is

because it is written

“the

curses” ,

which implies

curses, yes; instructions, no.

It follows that there is no need to derive from “and you shall write them” that the instructions are also written in tefillin, since there is no reason to exclude their writing. If so, why is the additional expression stated that “everything is in writing”?

The Gemara explains:

It was necessary.

Rabbi Yehuda requires the additional expression “and you shall write them” to teach that “everything is in writing,” because

it might enter your mind to derive

a gzera shava

“writing”—

—

“writing”: Just as there

in the sotah scroll

“curses,” yes, but instructions, no, so here too

with regard to tefillin and mezuzah,

instructions, no.

Therefore, the expression “and you shall write them” was written

to teach

that in tefillin and mezuzah one writes

even the instructions.

Rav Ovadya taught before Rava: “And you shall teach them” -

This word is expounded as two words, “and teach completely,” to say

that one’s study should be complete

and one should take care not to omit the reading of a letter, by

leaving a space between words that run together —

pausing slightly where similar syllables are adjacent to one another .

Rava answered him:

This caution is necessary with adjacent words whose second word begins with the same sound with which the first ends,

such as “al —

levavekha,” “al —

levavkhem,” “bekhol —

levavkhem,” “bekhol —

levavekha,” “esev —

besadkha,”

“va'avadtem —

mehera,” “hakanaf —

petil,” “etkhem —

me'eretz.”

Rabbi Hama, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: Anyone who recites Keriat Shema and is precise in its letters, they cool for him

the fires of Gehenna, as it is stated

[Psalms 68]:

“When the Almighty scattered kings over it, it snowed in Zalmon.” Do not read “befares” but “befares.”

The meaning is: for one who explains the words; and likewise,

“Do not read ‘be-Tzalmon’ but ‘be-Tzal-mavet’

that is, Gehenna. The verse is thus interpreted: If you explain the words by which one accepts the yoke of the sovereignty of the Almighty, then the Torah, through which “kings reign,” will cool for you the shadow of death in Gehenna .