Megillah 20a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Actually

that statement concerning teruma

is Rabbi Judah

's,

and

in truth

even initially

he deems it fit, as we said. And our Mishna is Rabbi Yosei's, and even after the fact one may not recite it.

And it is not difficult

with regard to that statement concerning the Grace after Meals—

For

this

that we learned, that one separates teruma initially,

is his,

it is Rabbi Judah's own method.

But

this

concerning the Grace after Meals, that initially one should not recite the blessing, but if he recited it, he has fulfilled his obligation—is

the method of his teacher,

of Rabbi Judah; that is Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah: One who recites the Shema—

must make it heard to his ear. As it is stated: “Hear, Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One,”

and we derive:

Make heard to your ear what you bring forth from your mouth.

And from the wording, “must make it heard to his ear,” it follows that initially he must do so, but after the fact he has fulfilled his obligation.

Rabbi Meir says: “Which I command you today shall be upon your heart”—

it implies that

according to the intention of the heart are the matters.

And therefore he holds that even initially one need not make it heard to his ear, for the essential matter depends upon the intention of the heart.

And we say:

Now that you have arrived at this,

that you have taught us this dispute between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir,

even say

that

Rabbi Judah—

holds in accordance with his teacher,

and both of them hold that one who recites the Shema but did not make it heard to his ear has fulfilled his obligation only after the fact, but initially he may not recite it. And our Mishna, too, is Rabbi Judah's, and only initially may he not recite it. And that statement concerning the Grace after Meals is also Rabbi Judah's.

And

if what you find difficult is

that which Judah, the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught,

that one separates teruma even initially—whose view is it? It cannot be established either according to Rabbi Judah or according to Rabbi Yosei?!

Do not find this difficult, for it may be said that

it is Rabbi Meir's,

who deems it fit even initially.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Judah deems a minor fit.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah said

: Behold,

I was a minor, and I recited it before Rabbi Tarfon and the elders in Lod!

They said to him: One does not bring proof from a minor .

It was taught: Rabbi said: I was a minor, and I recited it before Rabbi Judah!

They said to him: One does not bring proof from one who permits,

for Rabbi Judah, before whom you recited it, is himself the one who permits a minor; and if so, there is no proof from the fact that he said nothing about it, for many disagree with him.

And we raise an objection:

Why should they not say to him

to Rabbi:

“One does not bring proof from a minor”?

And we answer:

One

matter,

and another

matter—

they said to him:

One—

that you were a minor,

and one does not bring proof from a minor.

And another—

that

even

if

you had been an adult,

still

one does not bring proof from one who permits.

Mishna:

One does not read the Scroll of Esther,

nor circumcise,

and

a zav and one impure through contact with a corpse who reached the seventh day of their impurity

do not immerse

immediately at the beginning of the seventh day, at night; and although night is the beginning of the day, here a day specifically is required, as we explain in the Gemara . [After the day has passed, they may also immerse at night , for the fact that a day specifically is required means that the time of their immersion begins during the day.]

Nor sprinkle

the waters of the red heifer upon the impure person,

and likewise a woman who observes one day corresponding to one day,

that is, a woman during the days of ziva who saw one sighting, who must observe one day corresponding to the day of the sighting, and afterward immerse—

may not immerse,

all these may not perform their acts

until the sun has risen,

for then the uncertainty concerning night has passed.

And all of them, if they performed the act after dawn broke,

it is valid.

For in truth, from dawn it is day; but since not everyone is expert in it, they must wait until sunrise . And therefore, after the fact, if he performed the act from dawn, it is valid .

Gemara:

From where do we know

that the reading of the Scroll of Esther requires specifically the day?

For the verse says: “And these days are remembered and performed.”

It implies:

during the day—

yes; at night—

no.

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi? For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: A person is obligated to read the Scroll of Esther at night and to repeat it during the day.

But our Mishna teaches that one reads specifically during the day?!

And we answer:

When

the Mishna teaches that the reading of the Scroll of Esther is specifically during the day, it refers to

a

second reading,

that

one reads during

the day.

But the first reading is read at night.

We learned in our Mishna:

Nor circumcise, etc.

From where do we know this?

For it is written: “And on the eighth day he shall be circumcised.”

It implies—during the day specifically.

We learned in our Mishna:

Nor immerse nor sprinkle, etc.

From where do we know this?

For it is written

with regard to one impure through contact with a corpse:

“And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure on the seventh day,”

which implies that the sprinkling is specifically during the day.

And immersion was likened

to sprinkling,

as it is written at the end of the verse: “And he shall wash in water.” And from here we also derive the matter of a zav and a zava—that their immersion is specifically during the day.

We learned in our Mishna:

And likewise a woman who observes one day corresponding to one day may not immerse until the sun has risen, etc.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious! What is different about a woman who observes one day corresponding to one day from all those obligated to immerse?

And we answer:

It was necessary.

For

it might enter your mind to say, let

the sighting of a zava

be like the first sighting of a zav, and the first sighting of a zav

was likened to one who experiences a seminal emission, as it is written: “This is the law of the zav and of him from whom an emission of semen issues” [That the zav here means one who has had one sighting, for only one sighting is written there; and “from whom an emission of semen issues” refers to one who experiences a seminal emission.]

because the man with a discharge mentioned here is one who had a single discharge, since a single discharge is written there; and “of one from whom a seminal emission issues” refers to one who experienced a seminal emission.]

If so, let us say:

Just as one who experiences a seminal emission

immerses during the day

of the emission,

so too this one—

a zava, which resembles a zav who was likened to one who experiences a seminal emission—

should immerse on her day [That is,

on the day of the sighting]!

And

since it is impossible to say this, for

this

zava

during the day

of the sighting

cannot immerse, as it is written: “All the days of her flow shall be like the days of her menstrual impurity; she shall be,”

and we derive [in tractate Niddah 73a]: “She shall be”—this teaches that she counts one corresponding to one, that is, she must observe one day corresponding to the day of the sighting. And therefore she cannot immerse on the day of the sighting, but only after the following day has begun.

If so,

at night

of the following day

at least, let her perform part of the observance—

and immerse!

It teaches us

that

since she requires counting,

for counting one day corresponding to one day is analogous to counting seven days—