Berakhot 21a — the Talmud in English

But what of prayer,

which is

a matter with which the congregation is occupied,

and if one with a seminal emission must think about the matter with which the congregation is occupied, then one with a seminal emission must think about prayer,

and

nevertheless

we learned

[below 22b]:

If he was standing in prayer and remembered that he had a seminal emission, he does not interrupt, but shortens

the blessings, saying only the opening and the concluding formula.

And it is precisely implied from this Mishna:

the reason

that one with a seminal emission can finish his prayer by shortening the blessings is only because

he began

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

Had he not begun

praying at all—

he should not begin!

And why should he not begin, for is not the Eighteen Benedictions prayer a matter with which the congregation is occupied?

And the Gemara answers:

Prayer is different

from the recitation of the Shema,

for it does not contain

in prayer acceptance of the yoke of

the Kingdom of Heaven.

Therefore the Sages did not make lenient law so that one with a seminal emission could think about it, even when the congregation 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,

then the blessing after it of the food

of the food,

for it does not contain

acceptance of the yoke of

the Kingdom of Heaven, and

nevertheless

we learned:

one with a seminal emission—

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

Therefore the Gemara states another distinction:

Rather,

this is the distinction between prayer, in which a person with a seminal emission was not permitted to think, and the recitation of the Shema and the blessing over food, concerning which a person with a seminal emission was permitted to think:

The recitation of the Shema and the blessing over food

their mitzvot are

from the Torah, and

whereas

prayer

its mitzva is

rabbinic .

Rav Yehuda said: From where do we derive

the obligation of

the blessing over food afterward

[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 Torah beforehand

[before study], that it is

from the Torah?

As it is stated:

[Deuteronomy 32:3]

“For I shall proclaim the name of the Lord—

ascribe greatness to our God.”

For this is what Moses our master said to Israel at the opening of the Song of Ha'azinu: I begin the words of the song with the blessing “For I shall proclaim 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 before them, so every study of Torah requires a blessing before it.

Rabbi Yohanan said: We learned the blessing over Torah afterward from the blessing over food, by a kal va-chomer.

And

likewise we learned

the blessing over food beforehand from the blessing over Torah, by a kal va-chomer.

And thus we learned

the blessing over Torah afterward from the blessing over food, by a kal va-chomer:

And if food, which does not have

an explicit source from a verse that it is

required

according to Torah law to have a blessing

before it,

nevertheless it is

required

to have a blessing according to Torah law

after it.

With regard to Torah, which is required

according to Torah law to have a blessing

before it, is it not logical that it is required

to have a blessing according to Torah law

after it!

And

thus we learned

the blessing over food beforehand from the blessing over Torah,

by a kal va-chomer:

And if Torah, which is not required

according to Torah law to have a blessing

after it,

it is explicitly stated in the Torah that it is

required

to have a blessing according to Torah law

before it.

Food, which is required

to have a blessing according to Torah law

after it, is it not logical that it should be required

to have a blessing according to Torah law

before it?!

The Gemara rejects this:

The Gemara rejects this:

There is room to refute

both of Rabbi Yohanan’s kal va-chomer derivations:

1.

What is special about food

that there is greater reasoning to bless before it,

for one derives benefit

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

2.

And what is special about Torah,

that there is greater reasoning to bless before it,

for

it brings a person to

the life

of the world

to come!

And further

there is a difficulty from our Mishna for Rabbi Yohanan, who obligates a blessing before food according to Torah law:

For

we learned:

a person with a seminal emission—

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

Yet we said above that a person with a seminal emission recites a blessing whose obligation is from the Torah, whereas according to Rabbi Yohanan the blessing before food is also from the Torah. Why, then, does a person with 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 return and 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 said the passage of tzitzit, which contains mention of the Exodus from Egypt ]—

he returns and says “True and Certain” .

What is the reason

that with “True and Certain” he returns, but with the recitation of the Shema he does not return? Because the commandment of

the recitation of the Shema

is only an obligation

that is rabbinic, whereas the blessing of

whereas the blessing of

“True and Certain”

is a mitzva

from the Torah,

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

Rav Yosef objected:

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 up”?!

Abaye said to him: That

verse

is written concerning words of Torah.

It teaches that it is a mitzva to engage in them by day and by night, but there is no commandment from the Torah to recite specifically the passage “Hear, Israel” .

It was taught: One who has experienced a seminal emission reflects

the recitation of the Shema

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

And regarding food: he recites a blessing

through the reflection of his heart

after it, but he 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—

to recite a blessing after it

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

The Gemara answers:

What is the reason

that one who has experienced a seminal emission

recites

the blessing of True and Firm? But

if it is because of the Exodus from Egypt

which is a mitzva from the Torah—

he has already mentioned it,

he has already mentioned the Exodus from Egypt

in

the section of tzitzit, which is the third section of

“the recitation of the Shema.”

And that which we learned, that if one is uncertain whether he recited True and Firm, he returns and recites it, applies specifically in a case where he did not recite the section of tzitzit, for then he has a mitzva from the Torah to mention the Exodus from Egypt, and he does so in the blessing of True and Firm.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Let him say

that one who has experienced a seminal emission recites only

this—

the blessing of True and Firm, through which he fulfills the Torah mitzva of mentioning the Exodus from Egypt—

and need not

recite

this—

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

It answers:

The recitation of the Shema is preferable

to recite it, because

it contains two

things: 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 recitation of the Shema, whether he did not recite it—

he returns and recites the recitation of the Shema,

because in his view the obligation of the recitation of the Shema is from the Torah.

But

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

he does not return and pray.

For in his view the obligation of prayer is only rabbinic.

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

And therefore, even when he is uncertain whether he prayed, he must return and pray.

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

in prayer and remembered that he had

already

prayed—

he interrupts

the prayer

even if

he was standing

in the middle of a blessing.

The Gemara wondered:

Is this so?

But Rav Nahman said: When we were in the house of Rabbah bar Avuha, we asked him

we asked him:

These students of the house of Rav,

who happened

to err, and they remembered

and mentioned the blessings of the eighteen [blessings]

of a weekday 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 it that they should finish

that blessing, or are they obligated to stop immediately?

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

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

How can you compare!

What is the comparison!?

There,

in one who was praying on Shabbat,

for the man is one who is subject to the obligation

of prayer , and since he began the weekday Eighteen prayer, according to the essential law he should have completed the entire weekday Eighteen prayer [and mentioned Shabbat in the order of the Temple service, like the other festivals and appointed times],

but it was the Rabbis who did not burden him

to finish the entire weekday prayer

because of the honor of Shabbat,

and therefore he may finish the blessing in which he is holding when he remembered 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

already, and therefore he cannot continue even that same blessing in the middle of which he is standing.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

One who has already

prayed. And he entered the synagogue and found a congregation praying. If he can introduce into it

in his prayer

something new—

he should return and pray

with the congregation .

And if

not—

he should not return and pray,

because only when he requests something that has newly become necessary for him is it apparent that he is praying voluntarily for the purpose of supplication, and not as an obligatory prayer.

And it is necessary

for Shmuel to teach us in two laws that one should not pray twice a. When he remembered in the middle of his prayer that he had already prayed, he stops immediately. b. When he entered the synagogue and found a congregation praying, if he cannot introduce something new into it, he should not return and pray.

For if he had taught us the first one,

that one who prays and remembers in the middle that he had already prayed is obligated to stop, we might have said that

these words

that he cannot continue praying apply specifically if he prayed the prayer of

an individual,

and his second prayer too he prayed

individually.