Berakhot 15b — the Talmud in English

Perhaps it is Rabbi Judah, and

only

it is only that initially

the deaf-mute should not recite in order to fulfill the obligation for others, because he too does not fulfill the obligation initially through his recitation,

but as for after the fact,

if he recited for others,

it is satisfactory,

and it is like Rabbi Judah, who holds that after the fact one fulfills the obligation even if he did not make it audible to his ear.

The Gemara explains:

It does not enter your mind

to interpret that only initially may others not fulfill their obligation through the deaf-mute's recitation, because there is a necessity to say that he does not fulfill the obligation for them even after the fact, because

it teaches “

deaf-mute, mentally incompetent person, and minor,” and the implication is that the law of the

deaf-mute

is

analogous to that of the mentally incompetent person,

and it is learned from this that

just as a mentally incompetent person and a minor do not, even after the fact,

fulfill the obligation for others through their recitation,

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

and from here there is the necessity to establish the Mishna according to the view of Rabbi Yose, that if he did not make it audible to 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 fulfill the obligation even after the fact:

But perhaps

the intention of the Mishna is not to compare a deaf-mute with a mentally incompetent person and a minor; rather,

this

deaf-mute

is as stated,

that only initially he does not fulfill the obligation for others,

whereas this

mentally incompetent person and minor

are as stated,

that even after the fact they do not fulfill the obligation for others. And if so, the difficulty returns: perhaps this Mishna is according to Rabbi Judah.

The Gemara answers:

And can you establish it according to Rabbi Judah? —

But since the final clause teaches, “Rabbi Judah validates in the case of a minor,” it follows that the first clause is not Rabbi Judah,

and therefore it is preferable to establish it according to Rabbi Yose, and explain it as meaning that he does not fulfill the obligation for others even after the fact.

The Gemara rejects this:

But perhaps the entire

according to the view of

Rabbi Judah it is, and

it does not come to disagree with the first clause; rather, the first clause and the final clause 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 initially does not recite, and

a mentally incompetent person

who does not fulfill the obligation for others even after the fact,

and a minor

whose law is like that of a deaf-mute, and who only initially does not recite.

In what case is this said

that a minor should not fulfill the obligation for others initially?

With a minor who has not reached

the age of

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

to fulfill the obligation for others through his recitation,

the words of Rabbi Judah, for Rabbi Judah validates

fulfilling the obligation

through

the recitation of a

minor

who has reached the age of education.

It follows that the entire Mishna is according to Rabbi Judah, and in accordance with his words in our Mishna concerning reciting the Shema: a deaf-mute is not suitable for recitation only initially, but after the fact he fulfills the obligation and fulfills the obligation for others through his recitation, [and not in accordance with Rav Mattana].

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

According to what have you established

the Mishna in Megilla —

according to Rabbi Judah; after the fact, yes, initially, no.

But

according to this establishment there is a difficulty:

the statement taught by Rabbi Judah, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: “A deaf-mute who speaks but does not hear separates teruma initially”—whose view is it? —

for

neither Rabbi Yose nor Rabbi Judah

holds this:

For if it is Rabbi Judah, he said

concerning the silent recitation of the Shema:

after the fact, yes; initially, no,

and how could a deaf-mute separate teruma initially?

And if it is Rabbi Yose, he said

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

he did not fulfill the obligation even after the fact,

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

But rather, what [is the conclusion]?

necessarily we shall explain that

Rabbi Judah

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

even initially,

and we shall establish the Mishna in Megilla, which says that a deaf-mute should not recite, according to Rabbi Yose [and according to Rav Mattana] —

But,

if so, there is a difficulty with

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

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

and if

after the fact

he recited the blessing

silently

he fulfilled the obligation.

Whose view is it? —

for

neither Rabbi Yose nor Rabbi Judah

holds this:

for if it is Rabbi Judah, he said that he fulfills the obligation even initially,

and why does it say, “He should not recite the blessing in his heart”?

And if it is Rabbi Yose,

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

even after the fact he did not

fulfill the obligation, since Grace after Meals is from the Torah.

Actually, it is Rabbi Judah

who holds that a deaf-mute may separate teruma,

even initially,

and the Mishna in Megilla is according to Rabbi Yose , and a deaf-mute does not fulfill the obligation for others through his recitation even after the fact,

and

nevertheless

it is not difficult

as to who said the beraita that initially one must make the Grace after Meals audible to his ears, because

this

beraita, which says that a deaf-mute may separate teruma initially,

he himself,

Rabbi Judah himself said it.

And

if

this,

the beraita concerning Grace after Meals, Rabbi Judah said only according to the view

of his teacher,

as follows:

For we learned in a Mishna: Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah: One who recites the Shema must make it audible to his ear, as it is stated [דברים ו ד]

in Deuteronomy 6:4,

“Hear, Israel: Hashem is our God, Hashem is One.” And the meaning of the word “must” is that his obligation is only initially, but after the fact he fulfills the obligation even if he did not make it audible to his ear. [And if so, it is reasonable that he is the tan­ ­nay who taught in the beraita that the obligation to make the Grace after Meals audible to his ear applies only initially.]

The meaning of the word “must” is that this obligation applies only as an initial matter, but after the fact one fulfills the obligation even if he did not make it heard by his ears. [If so, it is reasonable that this is the tanna who taught in the beraita that making the Grace after Meals heard by one’s ears is required only as an initial matter.]

Rabbi Meir said to

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah: even initially there is no need to make the recitation of the Shema audible to his ear, for

it says “

and these words shall be

which I command you today upon your heart,” and its meaning is that

This means that

the words are dependent upon the intention of the heart,

that is, he need only direct his heart to the “words” stated here, but he 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 his ears even initially,

you may even say that Rabbi Judah follows his teacher,

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah,

holds

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

and

nevertheless

it is not difficult

as to who said the beraita that initially one must make the Grace after Meals audible to his ears.

For

this —

the beraita that says that a deaf-mute may separate teruma initially —

Rabbi Meir

said it.

And

if

this —

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

Rabbi Judah.

It follows that the Mishna in Megilla is according to Rabbi Judah: initially one must make it audible to his ear, but after the fact, even if he does not hear it, he fulfills the obligation and fulfills the obligation for others through his recitation.

Rav Hisda said that Rav Shila said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Judah, who said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah,

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

And the halakha is according to Rabbi Judah.

The Gemara explains his words:

And it is necessary

to rule according to both statements that Rav Judah made:

For if he had taught us

Rav Hisda only

“The halakha is according to Rabbi Judah,” we would have said that even initially

he need not make it audible to his ear ; therefore

he teaches us

that also

the halakha is according to Rabbi Judah

in what

he said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah,

that initially he must make it audible to his ears.

And

on the other hand

if he had taught us

only that

the halakha is according to Rabbi Judah who said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, we would have said

that

“must”

means an absolute requirement to make it audible to his ears,

and

if he did not make it audible

there is no remedy for him,

and therefore

Rav Hisda teaches us

that

the halakha is according to Rabbi Judah

also in what he himself said: that if he did not hear it, he fulfilled the obligation after the fact .

Rav Yosef said: The dispute

this dispute between Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Judah concerns only

the recitation of the Shema, but concerning the other mitzvot

everyone agrees —

if he did not make it audible to his ear —

he did not fulfill the obligation, as it is written [דברים כז ט]:

in Deuteronomy 27:9:

“Pay attention and hear, Israel.”

They raised an objection:

for we learned in a beraita:

A person should not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart —

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

And if he recited the blessing

and did not make it audible to his ear,

he did not fulfill the obligation.

And it is proven that according to Rabbi Judah, with the other mitzvot as well, he does not fulfill the obligation.

Therefore, the Gemara establishes Rav Yosef's words differently:

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

Rav Yosef said: The dispute

this dispute concerns only

the recitation of the Shema

alone, because

it is written

in it

“Hear, Israel,”

whose meaning is to make it audible to one's ears,

but concerning the other mitzvot, everyone agrees that he fulfilled the obligation

even if he did not make it audible to his ears.

The Gemara wonders: how does he fulfill his obligation concerning the other mitzvot,

when it is written, “Pay attention and hear, Israel”?

The Gemara answers:

that

the verse “Pay attention and hear”

is written concerning words of Torah,

that when he studies, he should make it audible to his ear , and one cannot derive from it a rule concerning the other mitzvot .

We learned in the Mishna:

If he recited but was not precise with its letters,

Rabbi Yose says that he fulfilled the obligation; Rabbi Judah says that he did not fulfill the obligation.

Rabbi Tavi said that Rav Oshaya said: The halakha follows the words of both of them leniently,

like Rabbi Judah, who says that if he did not make it audible to his ear, he fulfilled the obligation, and like Rabbi Yose, who says that precision does not prevent fulfillment.

And

another statement

Rabbi Tavi said that Rav Oshaya said: What is the meaning of that which is written [משלי ל טו]

in Proverbs 30:15:

“There are three that are not satisfied: the grave,

the grave,

and the closed womb,

a land that is not satisfied with water

”? —

And what connection does the grave have with the womb? —

Rather, this is to tell you: just as a womb receives

seed into it

and brings forth

a child from it,

so too the grave receives

the dead into it

and

in the future

brings forth

the living from it.

Is this not a kal va-chomer: just as a womb into which

seed

is inserted secretly, they bring forth from it

the child

with loud voices —

the grave, into which

the dead person

is inserted with loud voices

of the weeping of those accompanying him, and is it not the law that

in the future they shall

in the future be

brought forth from it with loud voices —

from here there is an answer to those who say that there is no resurrection of the dead in the Torah.

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

teaches that

everything is in writing

and one must write in the phylacteries and the mezuzah

even

verses of

commands,

such as those that deal with the mitzvot of phylacteries and mezuzah, and it is not sufficient to write only the essential portion of the passage.

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Oshaya:

Who is the one who said this to you?

Who is the one who told you that it is necessary to derive from a verse that the commands also must be written? Is it perhaps the view of

Rabbi Judah, who said [בסוטה יז א]

in [Sota 17a]

concerning

the writing of the scroll of

the woman suspected of adultery: “curses,”

which are stated in the passage concerning the woman suspected of adultery, the priest

writes

in the scroll of the woman suspected of adultery, but

commands

that are stated there

he does not write. And

you have learned that only

there,

in the scroll of the woman suspected of adultery,

he

does not write them, because

it is written

in it

“and he shall write these curses,”

and it implies specifically curses, but not commands,

but here,

in the phylacteries and mezuzah he writes them, because

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

to teach that

even commands also

are written.

However, it cannot be that Rabbi Judah is the one who needs to derive from Scripture that “everything is in writing,” because

is it so that Rabbi Judah's reason

for not writing commands in the scroll of the woman suspected of adultery is because it is written

“and he shall write”

and not “and you shall write them”? For

Rabbi Judah's reason

is

because it is written “

the

curses”

and it implies

curses, yes; commands, no.

It follows that there is no need to derive from “and you shall write them” that in the phylacteries one also writes commands, since there is no reason whatsoever to exclude their writing. And if so, it is difficult: for what purpose was the additional expression stated, that “everything is in writing”?

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary;

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

it might enter your mind to derive

a gezeira shava

“writing

—

writing” from there: just as there,

in the scroll of the woman suspected of adultery,

“curses,” yes, commands, no, so too here,

in the phylacteries and mezuzah,

also, commands, no ;

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

to teach

that in the phylacteries and mezuzah they write

even commands.

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

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

that your learning should be complete

and he should take care not to omit the reading of a letter, and this is through

giving space between the joined words—

that he should pause slightly where there are similar syllables adjacent to one another

Rambam [Keriat Shema 2:10] wrote that even one who recites in every language must be precise in it as in the Holy Tongue, and the Ra'avad disagreed with him because “all languages are interpretation,” and Even Ha-Ezel explained that they disagreed in explaining “that your learning should be complete”: according to the Ra'avad, it teaches that one must recite as it was said at Sinai, although for understanding the language precision is unnecessary; whereas the Rambam held that without precision this is not the essence of the language, and its understanding is only like an interpretation. And he derived from this that, according to the Ra'avad, one who understands the Holy Tongue should not recite in another language, for one who recites without precision is no better than [one who recites in] another language, and if he does not fulfill his obligation, certainly in another language he does not fulfill his obligation, except when he does not understand the Holy Tongue. Rava answered after him:

This care is necessary with adjacent words whose second one begins with the same sound as the first one ends,

such as “on—

your heart,” “on—

your hearts,” “with all—

your hearts,” “with all—

your heart,” “grass—

in your field,”

“and you shall be lost—

quickly,” “the corner—

a thread,” “you—

from the land.”

Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina said: Whoever recites the recitation of Shema and is precise in its letters, they cool for him

Gehenna, as it is stated [

Psalms 68]

“When the Almighty scattered kings in it, it snowed in Tzalmon”—do not read “when He scattered” but “when he expounds.”

The meaning of which is: for one who expounds the words, and likewise

do not read “in Tzalmon” but “in the shadow of death,”

that is, Gehenna. And the verse is thus interpreted: If you expound the words of accepting the yoke of the kingship of the Almighty, then the Torah, through which “kings shall reign,” will cool for you the shadow of death in Gehenna