Megillah 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

Because

there is the honor of his father and the honor of his teacher.

Here too —

it is possible that the child will be mocked, because

there is the mockery of his father and the mockery of his teacher.

We learned in our Mishna:

A poḥe’aḥ may lead the congregation in the recitation of the Shema, etc.

Ulla bar Rav asked Abaye: May a child who is a poḥe’aḥ read from the Torah,

shall we say that specifically an adult is forbidden, because of the verse, “There shall not be seen among you an unseemly matter”, but a child is not commanded concerning this? Or perhaps, it makes no difference?

He said to him: You should have asked about

a

naked

child: May he read from the Torah?

Rather,

why is it that concerning a naked person

it is obvious to you that he

may not

read,

because of the honor of the congregation? Here too,

a child who is a poḥe’aḥ may not read

because of the honor of the congregation.

We learned in our Mishna:

A blind person may lead the congregation in the recitation of the Shema, etc.,

Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who has never seen lights may not lead the congregation in the recitation of the Shema.

It was taught: They said to Rabbi Yehuda: Many have contemplated

the Merkava

that Ezekiel prophesied,

even

though they

never saw it in their lifetimes.

Here too, why should it matter that he has never seen lights in his lifetime? In any event, he knows their nature through study.

And Rabbi Yehuda

could have said to you:

There,

with regard to the Merkava,

the matter depends on understanding of the heart,

[understanding of the heart],

and he does intend —

and knows;

therefore it does not matter that he expounds on the Workings of the Merkava despite never having seen it in his lifetime.

In contrast,

here,

because

it is on account of benefit

from the lights

that he

recites the blessing, “Who forms the lights,”

and he

has no benefit,

for he has never benefited from the lights!

And the Sages

could say to you: Even though he has never seen lights in his lifetime,

he does benefit

from the lights,

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yosei said: All my days I was troubled by this verse

in order to understand it, for it is written:

“You shall grope at noon as a blind person gropes in darkness.” But what difference does it make to a blind person whether it is darkness or light?

Until an incident happened to me.

Once I was walking in the depth of night and darkness, and I saw a blind man walking along the road —

and he had a torch in his hand.

I said to him: My son, why do you need this torch?

He said to me: As long as this torch is in my hand, people see me and save me from the pits

[ditches],

from the thorns and from the briars.

Maharsha was troubled: since in the dark people do not see him, why then did Scripture use the word "a blind man"? And what difference does it make in the dark between the blind and the seeing!? He answered that nevertheless a seeing man has advantage even in the dark, for once he knows the entrances to the city and its paths, even in the dark he knows somewhat how to guide himself therein, to save himself from pitfalls.

We see that a blind person benefits from the lights, and therefore he may recite a blessing over them.

Mishna:

A priest whose hands have blemishes —

may not raise his hands,

because the people look at him. And one who looks at the priests while they raise their hands will have his eyes dimmed, because the Divine Presence rests upon their hands.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one whose hands were colored with sitis —

may not raise his hands, because the people look at him.

Gemara:

The tanna

taught:

The blemishes that they said

are those found

on his face,

or on

his hands or feet

[or on his feet], referring to the priest. The reason is that he must remove his shoes when he ascends the platform, and if he has blemishes on his feet, people will look at him and come to look at his hands.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If

the

hands

of the priest are

spotted

[having white patches],

he may not raise his hands.

It was also taught so: If his hands are spotted —

he may not raise his hands.

Likewise, if his hands are

bent

[Rashi explained: folded; the Ran says: his hand is bent backward], or

crooked

[bent to the sides] —

he may not raise his hands.

Rav Asi said: A

priest who is

from Haifa,

from the people of Haifa,

or

a priest who is

from Beit She’an,

from the people of Beit She’an,

may not raise his hands,

because the people of those places stammer in their speech and pronounce alefs as ayins and ayins as alefs. Thus, during the Priestly Blessing, they might say instead of “May the Lord cause His countenance to shine upon you,” “May the Lord cause His anger to shine upon you,” which is an expression of curse, for “face” can denote anger, as in: “My presence shall go, and I shall give you rest,” meaning a face of anger.

because the people of those places stammer in their speech, and they pronounce 'alefin' for 'ayinim', and for 'ayinim' — 'alefin' , and thus, when they say in the Priestly Blessing in place: "May the Lord make His face shine" — they will say "May the Lord make His face burn", and it is language of curse; for indeed there is the word "panim" which can mean anger, as in "their faces shall depart and I will leave you", and that is a face of wrath . . The Ran wrote: that his hand was twisted so that he cannot separate his fingers. . The Maharit wrote (in his responsa) that this refers specifically to not being in their proper places, but a Haifa-ite in Haifa and a Beth Sheanite in Beth Shean can certainly raise their hands, for their speech and enunciation there are distinct and known. See there. . The Mishnah Berurah wrote [OC 128:120] that since if all the townsmen pronounce so, it is permitted to raise his hands in that town; therefore nowadays, since most of our people do not know to distinguish the articulation of alef and ayin, it is permitted to raise his hands. . Thus Rashi explained. The Turei Even objected: what will be the practical result, because their blessing will be spoilt — and as Rashi explained, how then do they lower Rabbi before the Ark when he ordained a fast, as appears in Baba Batra [ch. 5]? He answered that if not, the reason of reversing the blessing into a curse did not make the Sages particular about the flaw in the blessing; rather in the matter of descending before the Ark the Mishna was particular, because one causes others to transgress, and since it is possible in another to do it, why should I lower one of them before the Ark? But to cause another to miss [the blessing] entirely — that is significant, and there is no need to honor another person to have him do it. And this is with regard to the Priestly Blessing. And in the responsa Beit Ephraim [OC 65 s.v. 'ubkedi'] he answered that in the matter of passing before the Ark, if all the people of the place pronounce so — it is permitted. But with respect to the Priestly Blessing it is forbidden because it implies a language of curse. See there.

It was also taught so: One does not bring before the ark, neither the people of Beit She’an, nor the people of Beit Haifa, nor the people of Tivon, because they pronounce alefs —

as ayins, and ayins —

as alefs.

And they impair their prayer.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi: Were you not a Levite —

you would be disqualified from the platform, because your voice is thick

[your voice is deep], and Levites are disqualified on account of their voices [as we say in tractate Ḥullin, 24a].

Rabbi Shimon came

and

told his father

what Rabbi Ḥiyya had said.

He said to him: Go and tell him

to Rabbi Ḥiyya: You, who pronounce ḥet as heh,

when you reach the verse, “And I shall hope for the Lord,”

you end up saying, “And I shall strike,”

will you not thereby be blaspheming and cursing?!

. Tosefot objected: if so, how did they lower Rabbi Chiyya before the Ark when he proclaimed a fast, as it appears in Baba Batra [ch. 5]? They answered that when he intended to read the spelled-out Name he read it correctly as required. But that was only with exertion and not lightly. Therefore there, since Elijah told the Rabbi that by lowering before the Ark the redemption would be hastened, they lowered him.

Rav Huna said: A zavlagan,

whose eyes constantly shed tears,

may not raise his hands,

because the people look at him.

We raise an objection: Is that so?

But there was that

zavlagan

who lived in the neighborhood

[in the vicinity]

of Rav Huna, and he would spread his hands?!

We resolve:

That one was accustomed in his city,

for the people of his city were accustomed to him and no longer looked at him.

It was also taught so: A zavlagan may not raise his hands. But if he was accustomed in his city —

it is permitted.

. Tosefot wrote: similarly regarding blemishes in his hands, if he was established in his town — it is permitted. And they brought that such is found in the Jerusalem Talmud. But in the Rambam [Hilchot Tefillah 15:2] it does not appear so. And likewise in Lechem Mishneh there — concerning blemishes in the hands — being established in his town does not avail.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One blind in one eye —

may not raise his hands.

We object:

But there was that

person blind in one eye

who lived in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s neighborhood and would spread his hands?!

We resolve:

That one —

was accustomed in his city.

It was also taught so: One blind in one eye —

may not raise his hands. But if he was accustomed in his city —

it is permitted.

]. Turei Even wrote that it is not specifically one blind in one eye; rather even one blind in both eyes, if he was established in his town — it is permitted. And the reason he mentioned one blind in one eye is because of the generality of the opening clause, that even so he does not raise his hands. And so writes the Ba"Y (OC 128).

Rabbi Yehuda says: One whose hands were colored —

may not raise his hands.

The tanna taught: If most of the people of the city engage in such work —

it is permitted.

Mishna:

One who says: “I will not lead the prayer while wearing

colored

garments; I will not lead it even in white garments” [the reason is explained in the Gemara].

—the reason is explained in the Gemara.

Likewise,

one who says:

“I will not lead the prayer wearing sandals,”

before the ark,

may not lead it even barefoot.

One who makes his phylactery

[the head tefilla]

round —

it is dangerous

lest it enter his head,

and it does not constitute a mitzva,

for we require them to be square.

If he placed

his phylactery

on his forehead, or

placed it

on the palm of his hand —

this is the way of heresy.

For the heretics disparage the words of the Sages and follow the verse according to its plain meaning. They say: “Between your eyes” means literally between your eyes, and “on your hand”

— literally.

The Sages, however, expounded by means of a gzera shava that “between your eyes”

means the crown of the head, the place where an infant’s brain is soft. And “on your hand” means the upper part of the arm, the biceps, so that the phylactery is placed opposite the heart.

If he overlaid them,

the passages of the phylacteries, with

gold,

meaning that he made the cases of gold,

and placed

[or placed it]

on the sleeve

[the sleeve of a garment]

of his garment —

this is the way of the outsiders,

meaning people who follow their own opinions rather than the opinion of the Sages.

The reason that one may not place them on the sleeve is that the Sages expounded: “And it shall be for you as a sign” — but not as a sign for others; therefore, they must be placed specifically beneath the sleeve.

And if he overlaid them with gold, they are likewise disqualified, because it is written: “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth,” and we expound: From that which is permitted to your mouth — meaning that everything must be made from a kosher animal.

Gemara:

What is the reason

that one who says, “I will not lead the prayer in colored garments,” may not lead it even in white garments?

Because

we are concerned that perhaps a trace of heresy has entered him,

for the heretics, who worship idolatry, are particular not to pray in colored garments.

We learned in our Mishna:

One who makes his phylactery round: it is dangerous, and it does not constitute a mitzva.

Shall we say that we learned

this in our Mishna

from that which the Sages taught: Phylacteries must be square —

a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And Rava said: In their stitching and in their diagonal.

That is, when stitching them, one must take care not to ruin their square form by pulling the thread of the stitching. Their diagonal must likewise conform to the halakha: If their length and width are exactly one fingerbreadth, their diagonal must be one fingerbreadth and two-fifths. This is also what we learn in the Mishna, that one may not make the phylacteries round!

Rav Pappa said:

You cannot derive this matter from our Mishna, for

the Mishna is referring to one made like a walnut

[like a nut], because in such a case there is danger, lest it enter his head. But if it is round like an egg or a lentil, perhaps it is indeed acceptable.

The one who says: