Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth

Folio 15a

he should consult nature and wash his hands and put on tefillin and recite the Shema' and say the tefillah: this is the complete acknowledgment of the kingdom of heaven. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: If one consults nature and washes his hands and puts on tefillin and recites the Shema' and says the tefillah, Scripture accounts it to him as if he had built an altar and offered a sacrifice upon it, as it is written, I will wash my hands in innocency and I will compass Thine altar, O Lord.¹  Said Raba to him: Does not your honour think that it is as if he had bathed himself, since it is written, I will wash in purity and it is not written, 'I will wash my hands'.²

Rabina said to Raba: Sir, pray look at this student who has come from the West [Palestine] and who says: If one has no water for washing his hands, he can rub³  his hands with earth or with a pebble or with sawdust. He replied: He is quite correct. Is it written, I will wash in water? It is written: In cleanliness — with anything which cleans. For R. Hisda cursed anyone who went looking for water at the time of prayer.⁴  This applies to the recital of the Shema', but for the tefillah one may go looking. How far? — As far as a parasang. This is the case in front of him, but in the rear, he may not go back even a mil. [From which is to be deduced], A mil he may not go back; but less than a mil he may go back.

MISHNAH. IF ONE RECITES THE SHEMA' WITHOUT HEARING WHAT HE SAYS, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. R. JOSE SAYS: HE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE RECITES IT WITHOUT PRONOUNCING THE LETTERS CORRECTLY, R. JOSE SAYS THAT HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION, R. JUDAH SAYS THAT HE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE RECITES IT BACKWARD,⁵  HE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE RECITES IT AND MAKES A MISTAKE HE GOES BACK TO THE PLACE WHERE HE MADE THE MISTAKE.

GEMARA. What is R. Jose's reason? — Because it is written, 'Hear' which implies, let your ear hear what you utter with your mouth. The first Tanna, however, maintains that 'hear' means, in any language that you understand. But R. Jose derives both lessons from the word.

We have learnt elsewhere: A deaf person who can speak but not hear should not set aside terumah;⁶  if, however, he does set aside, his action is valid. Who is it that teaches that the action of a deaf man who can speak but not hear in setting aside terumah is valid if done, but should not be done in the first instance? — Said R. Hisda: It is R. Jose, as we have learnt: IF ONE RECITES THE SHEMA' WITHOUT HEARING WHAT HE SAYS, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. R. JOSE SAYS: HE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. Now R. Jose holds that he has not performed his obligation only in the case of the recital of the Shema', which is Scriptural, but the setting aside of terumah, [is forbidden] only on account of the blessing, and blessings are an ordinance of the Rabbis,⁷  and the validity of the act does not depend upon the blessing. But why should you say that this⁸  is R. Jose's opinion? Perhaps it is R. Judah's opinion, and he holds that in the case of the recital of the Shema' also, it is valid only if the act is done, but it should not be done in the first instance, and the proof of this is that he states, IF ONE RECITES, which implies, if done, it is done, but it should not be done in the first instance? — The answer is: The reason why it says, IF ONE RECITES, is to show you how far R. Jose is prepared to go, since he says that even if it is done it is not valid. For as to R. Judah, he holds that even if he does it in the first instance he has performed his obligation. Now what is your conclusion? That it is the opinion of R. Jose. What then of this which we have learnt: A man should not say the grace after meals mentally, but if he does so he has performed his obligation. Whose opinion is this? It is neither R. Jose's nor R. Judah's. For it cannot be R. Judah's, since he said that even if he does so in the first instance he has performed his obligation; nor can it be R. Jose's, since he says that even if done it is not valid!⁹  What must we say then? That it is R. Judah's opinion' and he holds that it is valid only if done but it should not be done in the first instance. But what of this which was taught by R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi: A deaf man who can speak but not hear may set aside terumah in the first instance. Whose view does this follow? It can be neither R. Judah's nor R. Jose's. For as for R. Judah, he says that it is valid only if done but it should not be done in the first instance; while R. Jose says that even if done it is not valid! In fact it follows R. Judah's view, and he holds that it may be done even in the first instance, and there is no contradiction [between the two views attributed to him], one being his own and the other that of his teacher, as we have learnt: R. Judah said in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah: When one recites the Shema', he must let himself hear what he says,¹⁰  as it says, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one'. Said R. Meir to him: Behold it says, 'Which I command thee this day upon thy heart': on the intention of the heart depends the validity of the words.¹¹  If you come so far, you may even say that R. Judah agreed with his teacher, and there is no contradiction: one statement¹²  gives R. Meir's view, the other R. Judah's.

We have learnt elsewhere:¹³  All are qualified to read the Megillah¹⁴  except a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor; R. Judah declares a minor qualified. Who is it that declares the act of a deaf-mute, even if done, to be invalid?¹⁵  R. Mattena says: It is R. Jose, as we have learnt: IF ONE RECITES THE SHEMA' WITHOUT HEARING WHAT HE SAYS, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. SO R. JUDAH. R. JOSE SAYS: HE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. But why should we say that the above statement [regarding a deaf-mute] follows R. Jose, and that the act even if done is invalid?

1. Ps. XXVI, 6.
2. Raba apparently stresses the order of the words in the original, and renders: I will (do the equivalent) of bathing in purity [by washing] my hands.
3. Lit., 'wipe'.
4. And so delayed to say his prayers.
5. I.e., with the sections in the wrong order.
6. Because he cannot hear the blessing which he has to say over the action.
7. V. Pes. 7.
8. That a deaf man should not set aside terumah.
9. Since grace after meals is a Scriptural injunction.
10. I.e., in the first instance, but the act if done is valid.
11. Hence even in the first instance the act is valid.
12. That of R. Judah son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi.
13. Meg. 1b.
14. V. Glos.
15. The questioner assumes this to be the intention of the statement just quoted.

Perhaps it follows R. Judah, and while the act may not be done [only] in the first instance, yet if done it is valid? — Do not imagine such a thing. For the statement puts a deaf-mute on the same level as an imbecile and a minor, [implying that] just as in the case of an imbecile and a minor the act if done is not valid,¹  so in the case of a deaf-mute the act if done is not valid. But perhaps each case has its own rule?²  — But [even if so] can you construe this statement as following R. Judah? Since the later clause³  says that 'R. Judah declares it valid', may we not conclude that the earlier clause does not follow R. Judah? — Perhaps the whole statement follows R. Judah, and two kinds of minor are referred to, and there is a lacuna, and the whole should read thus: All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor. This applies only to one who is not old enough to be trained [in the performance of the precepts].⁴  But one who is old enough to be trained may perform the act even in the first instance. This is the ruling of R. Judah: for R. Judah declares a minor qualified. How have you construed the statement? As following R. Judah, and that the act is valid only if done but should not be done in the first instance. But then what of that which R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi taught, that a deaf person who can speak but not hear may set aside terumah in the first instance-which authority does this follow? It is neither R. Judah nor R. Jose! For if it is R. Judah, he says that the act is valid only if done, but it may not be done in the first instance; and if R. Jose, he says that even if done it is not valid! — What then do you say, that the authority is R. Judah and that the act may be done even in the first instance? What then of this which has been taught: A man should not say the grace after meals mentally, but if he does so he has performed his obligation? Whose opinion is this? It can be neither R. Judah's nor R. Jose's. For as to R. Judah, he has said that it may be done even in the first instance, and as to R. Jose, he has said that even if done it is not valid! — In truth it is the opinion of R. Judah, and the act may be done even in the first instance, and there is no contradiction between his two statements; in one case he is giving his own view, in the other that of his teacher, as it has been taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah: One who recites the Shema' must let his ear hear what he says, as it says, 'Hear, O Israel'. Said R. Meir to him: 'Which I command thee this day upon thy heart', indicating that the words derive their validity from the attention of the heart. Now that you have come so far, you may even say that R. Judah was of the same opinion as his teacher, and still there is no contradiction: one statement gives the view of R. Judah, the other that of R. Meir.

R. Hisda said in the name of R. Shila: The halachah is as laid down by R. Judah in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and the halachah is as laid down by R. Judah. Both these statements are necessary. For if we had been told only that the halachah is as stated by R. Judah I might have thought that the act may be done even in the first instance. We are therefore informed that the halachah is as laid down by R. Judah in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. And if we had been told that the halachah is as laid down by R. Judah in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, I might have thought that the act must [be performed thus] and if not there is no remedy.⁵  We are therefore informed that the halachah is as stated by R. Judah.

R. Joseph said: The difference of opinion relates only to the recital of the Shema', but in the case of other religious acts all agree that he has not performed his obligation [if he says the formula inaudibly], as it is written, attend and hear, O Israel.⁶  An objection was raised: A man should not say grace after meals mentally, but if he does he has performed his obligation! — Rather, if this statement was made it was as follows: R. Joseph said: The difference of opinion relates only to the Shema', since it is written, 'Hear O Israel'; but in regard to all the other religious acts, all are agreed that he performs his obligation. But it is written, 'Attend and hear, O Israel'? — That [text] applies only to words of Torah.⁷

IF ONE RECITED WITHOUT PRONOUNCING THE LETTERS DISTINCTLY. R. Tabi said in the name of R. Josiah: The halachah in both cases follows the more lenient authority.⁸

R. Tabi further said in the name of R. Josiah: What is meant by the text, There are three things which are never satisfied, … the grave and the barren womb?⁹  How comes the grave next to the womb? It is to teach you that just as the womb takes in and gives forth again, so the grave takes in and will give forth again. And have we not here a conclusion a fortiori: if the womb which takes in silently gives forth with loud noise,¹⁰  does it not stand to reason that the grave which takes in with loud noise¹¹  will give forth with loud noise? Here is a refutation of those who deny that resurrection is taught in the Torah.¹²

R. Oshaia taught in the presence of Raba: And thou shalt write them:¹³  the whole section must be written [in the mezuzah¹⁴  and tefillin], even the commands.¹⁵  He said to him: From whom do you learn this?¹⁶  This is the opinion of R. Judah, who said with reference to the sotah:¹⁷  He writes the imprecation but not the commands. [And you argue that] this is the rule in that case, since it is written, And he shall write these curses,¹⁸  but here, since it is written, 'and thou shalt write them', even the commands are included. But is R. Judah's reason because it is written, 'and he shall write'? [Surely] R. Judah's reason is because it is written, 'curses', which implies, curses he is to write but not commands!¹⁹  — It was still necessary.²⁰  You might have thought that we should draw an analogy between the 'writing' mentioned here and the 'writing' mentioned there, and that just as there he writes curses but not commands, so here he should not write commands. Therefore the All-Merciful wrote 'and thou shalt write them', implying, commands also.

R. Obadiah recited in the presence of Raba: 'And ye shall teach them':²¹  as much as to say thy teaching must be faultless²²  by making a pause 'between the joints'.²³  For instance, said Raba, supplementing his words 'Al lebabeka [upon thy heart], 'al lebabekem [upon your heart], Bekol lebabeka [with all thy heart], bekol lebabekem [with all your heart], 'eseb be-sadeka [grass in thy field], wa-'abaddetem meherah [and ye shall perish speedily], ha-kanaf pesil [the corner a thread], etthkem me-erez [you from the land]. R. Hama b. Hanina said: If one in reciting the Shema' pronounces the letters distinctly, hell is cooled for him, as it says, When the Almighty scattereth kings therein, it snoweth in Zalmon.²⁴  Read not be-fares [when he scattereth] but befaresh [when one pronounces distinctly], and read not be-zalmon [in Zalmon] but be-zalmaweth [in the shadow of death].

R. Hama b. Hanina further said: Why are 'tents' mentioned

1. This is deduced in respect of a minor from the fact that he is mentioned in conjunction with an imbecile.
2. I.e., we do not put a deaf-mute on the same footing as an imbecile, although they are mentioned in conjunction.
3. In the passage cited from Meg.
4. I.e., up to nine or ten years old; v. Yoma 82a.
5. I.e., even if done, it is not valid.
6. Deut. XXVII, 9. E.V. 'Keep silence and hear'.
7. As explained infra 63b.
8. I.e., R. Judah in the matter of audibility, and R. Jose in the matter of pronouncing distinctly.
9. Prov. XXX, 15, 16.
10. The crying of the child.
11. The wailing of the mourners.
12. V. Sanh. 92a.
13. Deut. VI, 9.
14. V. Glos.
15. I.e., the words 'and thou shalt write them, and thou shalt bind them'. This is derived from [H] being interpreted as [H], a complete writing.
16. That o special text is required to include the writing of the commands.
17. The woman suspected of adultery, v. Num. V, 11ff.
18. Num. V, 23.
19. And but for that implied limitation the expression 'he shall write' by itself would have included commands.
20. To appeal to the exposition based on [H]
21. Deut. XI, 19.
22. We-limmadetem (and you shall train them) is read as we-limmud tam (and the teaching shall be perfect); cf. p. 91, n. 10.
23. I.e., not running together two words of which the first ends and the second begins with the same letter. The expression is from 1 Kings XXII, 34.
24. Ps. LXVIII, 15.