Berakhot 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

Or

that he had already prayed a prayer in

congregation,

and now, in the middle of his prayer, he remembered that he had already prayed in

congregation

[and all the more so if he is now praying alone], so that he has fulfilled the obligation of prayer in congregation.

However,

if the second time he is praying with the congregation, and he remembers that he had already prayed individually, one might have thought that he may complete his prayer with the congregation, because an

individual prayer in relation to

a

congregational prayer is considered as though he had not prayed. Therefore,

And if he had taught us only here, in Shmuel’s second statement, that he may not pray again, one might have said that this is only

Samuel teaches us

in his second statement that even if he first prayed individually and now prayed a second time with the congregation, and in the middle he remembered that he had already prayed individually, he may not continue the prayer with the congregation unless he introduces some new element into it.

And had he taught us this here,

in Samuel’s second statement, that he may not repeat the prayer, one might have thought that this is only

because he had not begun it. But there,

when he remembers in the middle of his prayer that he had already prayed,

since he had begun it, I would say that he need not

interrupt, but may complete his prayer.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to have both of Samuel’s statements.

Rav Huna said: One who enters a synagogue and finds the congregation praying

the Amida should:

If he can begin

the Amida

and finish

it

before the prayer leader reaches Modim—

he should pray with the congregation.

But if not—

he should not pray

with them. Rather, he should wait until the prayer leader reaches Modim, and bow with them, so that he will not appear to deny the One before whom his fellow Jews bow ; only afterward should he begin his prayer.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he can begin and finish before the prayer leader reaches Kedusha—

—

he should pray .

But if not—

he should not pray

but should wait until he can respond to Kedusha with them .

The Gemara explains:

Over what do they disagree?

One master,

Rav Huna,

holds: An individual

who prays with the congregation

recites Kedusha

on his own [in addition to what he responds with the congregation during the repetition of the prayer leader], and thereby fulfills his obligation of Kedusha . Therefore, even if he cannot reach the Kedusha recited by the congregation, he need not wait, provided that he reaches Modim and bows with the congregation.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

holds: An individual does not recite Kedusha.

And Rav Adda bar Ahava likewise said: From where is it derived that an individual does not recite Kedusha?

As it is stated [Leviticus 22:32]:

“I shall be sanctified—within the children of Israel

.”

This teaches that

every sacred matter

may not be recited with fewer than ten.

The Gemara explains:

What is the implication

that “within the children of Israel” means ten from Israel?

The Gemara answers: It is derived from that which Rabinai, the brother of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, taught: It is derived by means of a gezera shava, “within, within,”

from which we learn that “within the children of Israel” means within an “assembly” of the children of Israel.

It is written here:

[Leviticus 22:32]

“I shall be sanctified

within the children of Israel.”

And it is written there,

[Numbers 16:21,] concerning the assembly of Korah:

“Separate yourselves from within this assembly.”

And it is derived,

and now we learn by means of the gezera shava

“assembly, assembly,”

that “assembly” means ten people from Israel.

As it is stated concerning the ten spies:

“How long shall I bear this evil assembly?”]

Just as there, the “assembly” of the spies,

includes

ten

people [apart from Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who are not included in “the evil”],

so too here,

in the “assembly of Korah,”

ten,

and from it we learn concerning every sacred matter regarding which it is stated that it must be performed in an “assembly of Israel,” meaning with ten.

And everyone agrees

that

at least—

in every case—

he does not interrupt

in the middle of his prayer in order to respond to Kedusha or Modim with the congregation.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the law regarding interrupting

in the middle of the Amida

to

respond with

“May His great Name

be blessed”?

When Rav Dimi came, he said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yohanan, said: One does not interrupt for anything, except for

responding to

“May His great Name be blessed,” for even

when he is

engaged in the Work of the Chariot—

he interrupts

and responds, “May His great Name be blessed.”

And the halakha is not in accordance with him.

Rather, he does not respond at all in the middle of the Amida .

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says:

A man who experienced a seminal emission

recites blessings before them

[before the recitation of the Shema and Grace after Meals]

and after them.

The Gemara discusses this:

This is to say,

it follows from Rabbi Yehuda’s words that he obligates one who experienced a seminal emission to recite the blessings before and after the Shema, since one who experienced a seminal emission must recite the Shema orally and does not fulfill his obligation by contemplating it; and it is proven that

Rabbi Yehuda holds—

one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to engage in matters of Torah!

This is puzzling, for

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: From where is it derived that one who experienced a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah?

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 4:9]:

“And you shall make them known to your children and your children’s children,” and juxtaposed to it is: “The day on which you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb,”

to teach that

just as there,

at the standing at Mount Sinai at Horeb,

those who had experienced a seminal emission

were

prohibited, so too here—

in “and you shall make them known to your children,” meaning in Torah study,

those who have experienced a seminal emission are prohibited

from engaging in it. How, then, did Rabbi Yehuda permit one who experienced a seminal emission to recite the blessings?

And if you say

that

Rabbi Yehuda

disagreed with this exposition because

he does not expound

the fact that the verses are

juxtaposed,

but Rav Yosef said: Even one who does not expound juxtaposed passages throughout the Torah—

in Deuteronomy he does expound them, for Rabbi Yehuda does not expound juxtaposed passages throughout the entire Torah, but in Deuteronomy he does expound them,

and certainly he agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s exposition, since it is based on the juxtaposition of verses stated in Deuteronomy.

Parenthetically, the Gemara explains:

And throughout the entire Torah—

from where do we know that Rabbi Yehuda does not expound “juxtaposed passages”?

Because adjacent to it is written: “And the man who lay with her shall give.” This proves that Rabbi Yehuda derives laws from adjacent verses in Deuteronomy. The Gemara returns to its question: How could Rabbi Yehuda hold that a man who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to engage in words of Torah? Since he derives laws from adjacent verses in Deuteronomy, he should derive, like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that such a man is prohibited from words of Torah based on the adjacent verses?! The Gemara answers: They said: Yes, indeed Rabbi Yehuda derives laws from adjacent verses in Deuteronomy. But these “adjacent verses” from which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi derives the prohibition against a man who experienced a seminal emission engaging in words of Torah— Rabbi Yehuda needs to expound them for the other derivation, that of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said

As it was taught in a beraita: Ben Azzai says: It is stated

[Exodus 22:17]

“You shall not allow a sorceress to live,”

but Scripture did not state by which form of execution.

And it is stated

immediately afterward:

“Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.” The matter was juxtaposed to it to say: Just as one who lies with an animal

his punishment is

stoning,

so too a sorceress

her punishment is

stoning.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is it because they juxtaposed the matter to it—

that we shall take this one,

the sorceress,

to

the death of

stoning,

which is the most severe form of execution?

Rather,

from another source they learned that a sorceress is executed by stoning:

the necromancer and the wizard—

were included among all sorcerers

in the verse “You shall not allow a sorceress to live,” since the very nature of the necromancer and the wizard is sorcery—

and why were they singled out

to be explicitly written as subject to stoning in their own right, as it is stated concerning them, “They shall stone them with stones”?

To compare to them

all sorcerers

and tell you: Just as a necromancer and a wizard are subject to stoning,

so too a sorceress is subject to stoning.

It is therefore proven from here that throughout the entire Torah Rabbi Yehuda does not expound “juxtaposed passages.”

And

the Gemara now discusses the opposite:

From where do we know that in Deuteronomy he does expound

Rabbi Yehuda

“juxtaposed passages”?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: A man may marry

his

father’s raped

and

seduced

woman. Likewise, a man may marry his

son’s raped or seduced woman.

The Torah prohibited them only when the father or son had married them.

Rabbi Yehuda prohibits marrying his father’s raped woman or his father’s seduced woman.

And Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

It is because

it is written:

[Deuteronomy 23:1]

“A man shall not take his father’s wife,

and he shall not uncover his father’s garment.” They expound it as follows: Any

garment that his father saw,

even involuntarily,

he shall not uncover. And from where do we know that

this verse

is indeed written concerning his father’s raped woman?

As it is juxtaposed to it: “And the man who lay with her shall give.”

This proves that Rabbi Yehuda expounds juxtaposed passages in Deuteronomy.

The Gemara returns to its question: How could Rabbi Yehuda hold that one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to engage in matters of Torah, when, since he expounds juxtaposed passages in Deuteronomy, he should expound, like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that one who experienced a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah, based on the juxtaposed verses?!

The Gemara answers:

They said: Yes,

indeed, Rabbi Yehuda

does expound

juxtaposed passages in Deuteronomy, but

these “juxtaposed passages”

from which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi derives the prohibition against one who experienced a seminal emission engaging in matters of Torah—

he needs

to expound them for

another

exposition,

that of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said

another matter:

Anyone who teaches his son Torah—

Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had received it at Mount Horeb, as it is stated

[Deuteronomy 4:9]:

“And you shall make them known to your children and your children’s children,” and it is written afterward: “The day on which you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb” .

.

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda had no source from which to prohibit one who experienced a seminal emission from studying Torah; therefore, he required him to recite all the blessings orally.

The Gemara challenges this, for Rabbi Yehuda contradicts himself in a beraita:

We learned: A zav who saw a seminal emission

during the seven clean days that he counts for his purification,

and a menstruating woman who expelled semen

from her husband, having become a menstruant after intercourse and subsequently expelling the semen while she was a menstruant, thereby becoming impure with an additional impurity like one who experienced a seminal emission,

and a woman who engaged in intercourse

and contracted the impurity of a seminal emission through intercourse [even before expelling the semen],

and saw menstrual blood

after intercourse, so that in addition to being impure as one who engaged in intercourse she is also impure with menstrual impurity—all of these

require immersion

by Ezra’s enactment in order to permit them to engage in Torah and prayer, despite the fact that they remain impure with the impurity of the zav and the menstruant even after immersion. This is because Ezra’s enactment addressed only the impurity of a seminal emission and not other impurities; therefore, a zav or a menstruant, despite their impurity, are permitted to pray and study Torah.

And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them,

because when they will remain impure with another impurity after their immersion, they were not obligated to immerse .

The Gemara derives:

Rabbi Judah exempted

the impure person from immersion before studying Torah and praying

only in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission—

since

initially,

before he experienced the seminal emission,

he was not fit for immersion; but one who merely experienced a seminal emission is obligated

to immerse before engaging in Torah study. Consequently, this contradicts his statement in our Mishna, where he permitted one who experienced a seminal emission to recite a blessing.

And if you say that the same is true: even one who merely experienced a seminal emission was also exempted by Rabbi Judah

from immersion,

and the reason that they distinguish

specifically

in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission

is in order

to acquaint you with the strength of the Sages’ position,

as they obligated one who experienced a seminal emission to immerse before studying Torah even though through this immersion he is not purified from his severe impurity as a zava or a niddah.

The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to explain that Rabbi Judah exempts one who merely experienced a seminal emission from immersion, for

consider the latter clause: “A woman who engages in intercourse and sees blood—

she requires immersion,”

and it is appropriate to clarify

for

whom

was this taught?

If you say it was taught according to the Sages—

is it obvious?!

For

now, if a zav who experienced a seminal emission, who initially was not fit for immersion,

since at the time he experienced the seminal emission he was already impure with the impurity of a zav, and nevertheless

the Sages obligate

him to immerse before studying Torah—

a woman who engages in intercourse

who first became impure through a seminal emission

and

only afterward

saw menstrual blood, and who initially

at the time she became impure through the seminal emission

was fit for immersion, all the more so

she should be obligated to immerse. The impurity of a niddah does not remove her obligation, and certainly the Mishna does not come to teach us this law.