Berakhot 21b — the Talmud in English

Or

that he had already prayed a prayer with a

congregation,

and now remembered, in the middle of his prayer with a

congregation

[and all the more so if he is now praying individually] that he had fulfilled the obligation of prayer with a congregation.

But

if the second time he is praying with a congregation, and he remembers that he had already prayed individually, it might have been said that he can complete his prayer with the congregation, because the prayer of an

individual relative to

the prayer of a

congregation is considered as though he had not prayed—

therefore

he informs us

in Shmuel’s second statement that even if he first prayed individually, and now prayed a second time with a congregation, and remembered in the middle that he had already prayed individually, he cannot continue the prayer with the congregation unless he introduces something new into it.

And had he informed us here,

in Shmuel’s second statement, that he cannot return and pray, it might have been said that this is only

because he had not begun it. But there,

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

since he had begun it, say that he does not

need to interrupt, but can complete his prayer.

Therefore

it is necessary

to state both of Shmuel’s statements.

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

the Eighteen Benedictions is:

If he can begin

the Eighteen Benedictions

and complete

it

before the prayer leader reaches Modim—

he should pray with the congregation.

But if not—

he should not pray

with them, but should wait until the prayer leader reaches Modim, and bow with them—in order not to appear like one who denies the One before whom his fellows bow

Rav Huna,

—

and only afterward should he begin his prayer. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: If he can begin and complete [his prayer] before the prayer leader reaches Kedusha— he should pray

. But if not—

he should not pray

but should wait until he answers Kedusha with them

. And the Gemara explains:

In what do they disagree?

One master,

Rav Huna,

holds: An individual

who prays with the congregation

recites Kedusha

by himself [in addition to what he answers with the congregation during the repetition of the prayer leader], and fulfills the obligation of Kedusha through it , and therefore even if he cannot reach the Kedusha that the congregation says, he need not wait, provided that he reaches Modim and bows with the congregation.

And the other,

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi,

holds: An individual does not recite Kedusha.

And so said Rav Adda bar Ahava: From where [do we know] that an individual does not recite Kedusha—

as it is stated: [Leviticus 22:32]

“And I shall be sanctified—

within the children of Israel”

to teach that

every matter of Kedusha—

may not have fewer than ten.

And the Gemara explains:

What does it indicate

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

The Gemara answers: From that which Ravinai, the brother of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, taught: It is derived through a gezerah shavah, “within, within,”

from which it is learned that “within the children of Israel” means within an “assembly” of the children of Israel.

It is written here:

[Leviticus 22:32]

“And 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 it is learned through the gezerah shavah of

“assembly, assembly,”

that “assembly” means ten people from Israel.

As it is stated concerning the ten spies:

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

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

ten

people

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

so here also

in the “assembly of Korah” there were

ten,

and from it we learn concerning every matter of Kedusha in which it is stated that it is to be performed in the “assembly of Israel,” meaning with ten.

And everyone

agreed that

at least—

in every matter—

he does not interrupt

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

They raised a question before them: What is [the law] regarding interrupting

in the middle of the Eighteen Benedictions

for

answering

“May His great Name

be blessed”?

When Rav Dimi came, he said: Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon, students of Rabbi Yohanan, said: For everything one does not interrupt, except for

answering

“May His great Name be blessed,” for even

while he is

engaged in the Account of the Chariot—

he interrupts

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

And the halakha is not like him.

Rather, he does not answer at all in the middle of the Eighteen Benedictions

. We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Judah says:

one who experienced a seminal emission

recites blessings before them

[before the recitation of Shema and Grace after Meals]

and after them.

And the Gemara discusses:

Does this mean

that it is implied from Rabbi Judah’s words that he obligates one who experienced a seminal emission to recite before and after the recitation of Shema, because one who experienced a seminal emission is obligated to read the Shema orally and does not fulfill his obligation by contemplating it, and it is proven

that Rabbi Judah holds—

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

And this is difficult, because

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: From where [do we know] that one who experienced a seminal emission is forbidden to engage in words of Torah—

as it is stated: [Deuteronomy 4:9]

“And you shall make them known to your children and to your children’s children,” and adjacent 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 seminal emissions

were

forbidden, so here—

in “And you shall make them known to your children,” meaning in the study of Torah—

those who have experienced seminal emissions are forbidden

in it! And how did Rabbi Judah permit one who experienced a seminal emission to recite blessings?

And if you would say:

that

Rabbi Judah

disagreed with this exposition because he

does not expound

from the fact that the verses are

adjacent.

But Rav Yosef said: Even one who does not expound adjacency throughout the entire Torah—

in “Mishneh Torah” he does expound, for Rabbi Judah does not expound adjacency throughout the entire Torah, but in “Mishneh Torah” he does expound,

and certainly he agrees with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s exposition, since it is based on the adjacency of verses stated in “Mishneh Torah.”

And parenthetically the Gemara explains:

And throughout the entire Torah—

from where do we know that Rabbi Judah does not expound “adjacencies”?

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

For it was taught: Ben Azzai says: It is stated

[Exodus 22:17]

“You shall not allow a sorceress to live,”

but Scripture did not state by which death.

And it is stated

adjacent to this—

“Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death”; it juxtaposed the matter 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 Judah said to him: Is it because they juxtaposed the matter to it—

shall we bring this one,

the sorceress,

to

the death of

stoning,

which is the most severe death?

Rather,

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

the necromancer and the wizard—

were included among all the sorcerers

in the verse “You shall not allow a sorceress to live,” for the entire essence of the necromancer and the wizard is a matter of sorcery—

and why were they singled out

to be written explicitly with the punishment of stoning by themselves, as it is stated concerning them, “They shall stone them with stones”?—

to juxtapose to them

all the sorcerers,

and to tell you: Just as the necromancer and the wizard are executed by stoning—

so too, a sorceress is executed by stoning.

And it is proven from here that throughout the entire Torah Rabbi Judah does not expound “adjacencies.”

And

now the Gemara discusses the opposite:

In “Mishneh Torah,” from where do we know that he expounds

Rabbi Judah

“adjacencies”?

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: A man may marry

the

woman raped by his father and

the

woman seduced by his father.

And likewise a man may marry

the woman raped by his son and the woman seduced by his son.

The Torah prohibited them only if there had been marriage to his father or to his son.

Rabbi Judah prohibits [a man from marrying] the woman raped by his father and the woman seduced by his father.

And Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: What is Rabbi Judah’s reason?

Because

it is written:

[Deuteronomy 23:1]

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

and he shall not uncover his father’s wing,” and they expounded it as follows: Every

wing that his father saw,

even through rape—

he shall not uncover it; and from where do we know that

this verse indeed

is written concerning the woman raped by his father—

for adjacent to it is: “And he shall give the man who lay with her.”

And from here it is proven that Rabbi Judah expounds adjacencies in “Mishneh Torah.”

And the Gemara returns to its question: How could Rabbi Judah hold that one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to engage in words of Torah, since once he expounds “adjacencies” in “Mishneh Torah,” he should expound like Rabbi Joshua ben Levi to prohibit one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in words of Torah, based on the exposition of the adjacent verses?!

The Gemara answers:

They said: Yes,

indeed Rabbi Judah

expounds

adjacencies in “Mishneh Torah,” but

these “adjacencies”

from which Rabbi Joshua ben Levi derives the prohibition of one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in words of Torah

are needed

by Rabbi Judah to expound them for

the other

exposition,

that of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said

another matter:

Anyone who teaches his son Torah—

Scripture considers it for him as though he received it at Mount Horeb, as it is stated

[Deuteronomy 4:9]:

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

.

It emerges that Rabbi Judah had no source from which to prohibit one who experienced a seminal emission from studying Torah, and therefore he obligated him to recite all the blessings orally.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Judah contradicts himself in a beraita:

We learned: A man with a gonorrheal discharge who experienced a seminal emission

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

and a menstruant woman who discharged semen

of her husband, who began menstruating after intercourse and afterward discharged the semen while she was menstruating, thereby becoming impure with an additional impurity like one who experienced a seminal emission,

and a woman who had intercourse

who became impure with the impurity of a seminal emission through intercourse [even before she discharged the semen],

and saw menstrual blood

after intercourse, so that in addition to being impure as a woman who had intercourse she is also impure with menstrual impurity—all these

require immersion

by Ezra’s enactment in order to permit them to engage in Torah and prayer, even though they remain in the impurity of the man with a gonorrheal discharge and of the menstruant even after immersion, and this is because Ezra’s enactment applied only to the impurity of a seminal emission and not to other impurities; therefore, a man with a gonorrheal discharge or a menstruant, despite their impurity, are permitted in prayer and in Torah study.

And Rabbi Judah exempts them,

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

The Gemara infers:

Rabbi Judah exempted [him] only up to this point

from immersion before studying Torah and [engaging in] prayer,

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

since

at the outset,

before he experienced the seminal emission,

he was not a candidate for immersion, but one with merely a seminal emission is obligated

to immerse before he engages in Torah, and it follows that he contradicts his words in our Mishna, where he permitted one with a seminal emission to recite a blessing.

And should you say, the same law applies: even one with merely a seminal emission Rabbi Judah likewise exempted

from immersion,

and the fact that they distinguish

specifically

in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission,

is in order

to inform you of the strength of the Sages,

for they obligated one with a seminal emission to immerse before studying Torah, even though through this immersion he is not purified from his severe impurity, that of a zavah or a niddah.

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

say the latter clause: “A woman who had intercourse and saw blood

requires immersion,”

and it is appropriate to clarify

to

according

to whom is it taught?

If you say, according to the Sages—

is it not obvious?!

For

now, just as: What of a zav who experienced a seminal emission, who at the outset was not a candidate for immersion,

for at the time that he experienced the seminal emission he was already impure with ziva, and nevertheless

the Sages obligate [him]

to immerse before studying Torah—

a woman who had intercourse

who first became impure through a seminal emission

and

only afterward

saw menstrual blood, who at the outset

at the time that she became impure through a seminal emission

was a candidate for immersion, all the more so

that she is obligated to immerse, and the impurity of niddah does not remove her obligation; and certainly the Mishna does not come to teach us this law.