Berakhot 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

And yet, prayer,

which is

a matter with which the community is occupied,

so that if one who experienced a seminal emission must contemplate a matter with which the community is occupied, one who experienced a seminal emission should be required to contemplate the prayer,

and

nevertheless

we learned [below, 22b]:

[below, 22b]:

If one was standing in prayer and remembered that he had experienced a seminal emission, he should not interrupt, but should shorten

the blessings, saying only their opening and closing formulas.

And it can be inferred precisely from this Mishna that

the reason

that one who experienced a seminal emission may complete his prayer by reciting shortened versions of the blessings is only

because he began

the prayer and remembered in the middle that he had experienced a seminal emission.

But if he did not begin

the prayer

at all—he may not begin!

And why may he not begin, given that the Eighteen Benedictions is a matter with which the community is occupied?

The Gemara answers:

Prayer is different

from the recitation of the Shema,

as it does not contain

the acceptance, in prayer, of the yoke of

the Kingdom of Heaven.

Therefore, the Sages did not make the leniency that one who experienced a seminal emission may contemplate it, even when the community is occupied with it.

And

the difficulty nevertheless remains: If the distinction between prayer and the recitation of the Shema is that in prayer there is no acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,

what of the blessing after the meal

of food,

which does not contain

acceptance of the yoke of

the Kingdom of Heaven, and

nevertheless

we learned:

one who experienced a seminal emission—

for food he recites the blessing afterward, but he does not recite the blessing before it?!

Therefore the Gemara offers another distinction:

Rather,

this is the distinction between prayer, in which one who experienced a seminal emission is not permitted to contemplate the words, and the recitation of the Shema and the blessing after the meal, in which one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to contemplate them:

The recitation of the Shema and the blessing after the meal

are mitzvot

of Torah law, and

whereas

prayer

is a mitzva

of rabbinic law.

Rav Yehuda said: From where do we derive

the obligation of

the blessing after the meal [

after the meal], that it is

from the Torah?

As it is stated: [Deuteronomy 8:10]

“

And you shall eat and be satisfied—

and you shall bless.”

From where do we derive

the obligation of

the blessing over the Torah before it [

before study], that it is

from the Torah?

As it is stated: [Deuteronomy 32:3]

“

When I call out the name of the Lord—

ascribe greatness to our God.”

This is what Moses our teacher said to Israel at the opening of the Song of Ha’azinu: I begin the words of the song with the blessing, “When I call out the name of the Lord,” and you, “ascribe greatness to our God,” by answering amen to my blessing. And just as the words of the song required a blessing beforehand, so too all Torah study requires a blessing beforehand.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We derive the blessing over the Torah afterward from the blessing after the meal, by means of a kal va-chomer.

And

likewise we derive

the blessing after the meal beforehand from the blessing over the Torah, by means of a kal va-chomer.

And this is how we derive

the blessing over the Torah afterward from the blessing after the meal, by means of a kal va-chomer:

And if food, which does not

have an explicit source in a verse that it is

required

by Torah law to have a blessing

before it,

nevertheless it

is required

to have a blessing by Torah law

afterward,

then Torah, which is required

by Torah law to have a blessing

before it, is it not surely required

to have a blessing by Torah law

afterward!

And

this is how we derive

the blessing after the meal beforehand from the blessing over the Torah,

by means of a kal va-chomer:

And if Torah, which is not required

by Torah law to have a blessing

afterward,

is explicitly stated in the Torah to be

required

to have a blessing by Torah law

before it,

then food, which is required

to have a blessing by Torah law

afterward, is it not surely required

to have a blessing by Torah law

before it?!

The Gemara rejects this:

The Gemara rejects this:

There is room to refute

both of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s kal va-chomer inferences:

1.

What is distinctive about food

is that there is greater reason to recite a blessing before it,

since one derives benefit

from the food, and he must offer thanks in a blessing for the benefit he receives from the Holy One, blessed be He.

2.

And what is distinctive about Torah,

is that there is greater reason to recite a blessing before it,

since

it brings a person to

the life

of the World

to Come!

Furthermore,

our Mishna presents a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who requires a blessing before food by Torah law:

For

we learned:

one who experienced a seminal emission—

for food he recites the blessing afterward, but he does not recite it beforehand!

Yet we said above that one who experienced a seminal emission recites a blessing whose obligation is from the Torah, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the blessing before food is also of Torah origin. Why, then, does one who experienced a seminal emission not recite it?!

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta.

Rav Yehuda said:

A person who

is uncertain

whether he

recited the Shema, or is uncertain whether he did not recite it—

does not recite it again

.

But

if he is uncertain

whether he

said the blessing

of

“True and certain,” or is uncertain whether he did not say it [

and likewise, he is uncertain whether he recited the passage of Tzitzit, which contains mention of the Exodus from Egypt ]—

he repeats and says “True and certain.”

What is the reason

that in the case of “True and certain” he repeats it, but in the case of the Shema he does not repeat it? Because the mitzva of

the recitation of the Shema

is merely an obligation

of rabbinic law, whereas the blessing of

whereas the blessing of

“True and certain”

is a mitzva

of Torah law,

since it contains mention of the Exodus from Egypt, which is a mitzva from the Torah.

Rav Yosef raised an objection:

How can you say that the recitation of the Shema is only rabbinic? Its mitzva is explicit in the Torah, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 6:7]:

“When you lie down and when you rise”?!

Abaye said to him: That

verse

is written with regard to words of Torah.

The mitzva is to engage in them by day and by night, but there is no Torah mitzva to recite specifically the passage “Hear, O Israel.”

We learned in the Mishna: One who experienced a seminal emission contemplates

the recitation of the Shema

in his heart, but does not recite a blessing either before it or after it.

And with regard to food: He recites a blessing

in his heart’s contemplation

after eating it, but does not recite a blessing before it.

And if it would enter your mind

that the obligation to recite the blessing of

True and Firm

is

from the Torah—

let him recite the blessing after

the Shema, the blessing of True and Firm! For matters whose obligation is from the Torah, one who experienced a seminal emission recites them.

The Gemara answers:

What is the reason

that one who experienced a seminal emission should

recite

the blessing of True and Firm? And if

it is because of the Exodus from Egypt

which is a mitzva from the Torah—

he has already mentioned it,

having already mentioned the Exodus from Egypt

in

the passage of tzitzit, which is the third passage of

the “recitation of the Shema.”

And as for what we learned, that if one is uncertain whether he recited “True and Firm,” he repeats it, that applies specifically when he did not recite the passage of tzitzit. In that case, he has a mitzva from the Torah to mention the Exodus from Egypt, and he fulfills it through the blessing of True and Firm.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Let him say

that one who experienced a seminal emission should recite only

this—

the blessing of True and Firm, through which he fulfills the Torah obligation to mention the Exodus from Egypt—

and not require

him to recite

this—

the Shema, whose mitzva, according to Rav Yehuda, is only rabbinic!?

It answers:

It is preferable to recite the Shema

because

it contains two elements:

the Exodus from Egypt and acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, whereas “True and Firm” contains only the Exodus from Egypt.

And Rabbi Elazar said: If one is uncertain whether he recited the Shema,—

he repeats and recites the Shema,

because in his view the obligation to recite the Shema is from the Torah.

But

if one is uncertain whether he prayed or did not pray—

he does not repeat his prayer.

For in his view, the obligation to pray is only rabbinic.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Would that a person would pray the entire day.

Therefore, even when he is uncertain whether he prayed, he must repeat his prayer.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: If one was standing

in prayer and remembered that he had already

already

prayed—

he stops

praying,

even if

he was

in the middle of a blessing.

The Gemara expresses surprise:

Is that so?

But didn’t Rav Naḥman say: When we were in the study hall of Rabba bar Avuha, we asked him

we asked him:

These students of the study hall,

who happened

to err and remember

the blessings of the weekday Amidah

in

the prayer of

Shabbat,

and in the middle of one of the blessings of the weekday prayer they remembered that today was Shabbat—

what is the ruling: should they complete

that blessing, or must they stop immediately?

And he said to us: They complete that entire blessing!

If so, why did Shmuel say that if one remembered in the middle of a blessing that he had already prayed, he must stop in the middle of the blessing? The Gemara answers:

Can this be compared?

What is the comparison!?

There,

in the case of one praying on Shabbat,

the person is indeed obligated

in prayer, and since he began the weekday Amidah, according to the fundamental law he should have completed the entire weekday Amidah [and mentioned Shabbat in the order of the Temple service, as with the other festivals and appointed times].

It is the Sages who did not burden him

with completing the entire weekday prayer

out of respect for Shabbat,

and therefore he may complete the blessing at which he had arrived when he remembered that it was Shabbat.

But here,

in the case of one who remembered in the middle of his prayer that he had already prayed—

he has already prayed it

previously; therefore, he cannot continue even the blessing in the middle of which he is standing.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

One who has already

prayed and entered a synagogue and found a congregation praying—if he can introduce into it

in his prayer

a novel element—

he should pray again

with the congregation.

But if

not—

he should not pray again,

because only when he asks for a newly arising need is it apparent that he is praying a voluntary prayer for the sake of supplication, and not as an obligatory prayer.

And it was necessary

for Shmuel to teach us two laws concerning the prohibition against praying twice a. If one remembers in the middle of his prayer that he has already prayed, he stops immediately. b. If one enters a synagogue and finds a congregation praying, if he cannot introduce a novel element into the prayer, he should not pray again.

Had he taught us the first case alone,

that one who is praying and remembers in the middle that he has already prayed must stop, we might have said that

this applies

only when he cannot continue praying—that is specifically when he had prayed the

individual

prayer, and his second prayer was also prayed as an

individual.