דִּילְמָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וּלְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא דְּלָא, הָא דִיעֲבַד — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and although ab initio a deaf-mute may not read, after the fact his reading is valid?

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי, חֵרֵשׁ דּוּמְיָא דְּשׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. מָה שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא — אַף חֵרֵשׁ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא.

The Gemara responds: This could not enter your mind, as it was taught: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, in one phrase in our mishna; to teach that a deaf-mute is similar to an imbecile and a minor. Just as in the case of an imbecile and a minor, even after the fact, their reading is not valid, so too the reading of a deaf-mute, even after the fact, is not valid.

וְדִילְמָא הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

The Gemara rejects this assertion based on their appearance in a common list: And perhaps this case is as it is and that case is as it is; although listed together, the circumstances of each case may be different, and no definite proof can be drawn from their juxtaposition.

וּמִי מָצֵית לְאוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר בְּקָטָן, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא?!

The Gemara objects from a different perspective: And can you really establish that the first clause in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But from what was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit to read the Megilla, this proves by inference that the beginning of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

וְדִילְמָא כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא וּתְרֵי גַוְונֵי קָטָן, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִקְרוֹת אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּקָטָן שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְחִנּוּךְ, אֲבָל קָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְחִנּוּךְ — אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה כָּשֵׁר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר בְּקָטָן.

The Gemara rejects this challenge as well: And perhaps the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there are two types of minors, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches as follows: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. In what case is this said? With regard to a minor who has not yet reached the age of training to fulfill the mitzvot. However in the case of a minor who has reached the age of training, even ab initio he is fit to read the Megilla. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, and his statement here comes to elucidate and not to dispute.

בְּמַאי אוֹקִימְתָּא, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — וְדִיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא? אֶלָּא הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, חֵרֵשׁ הַמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ — תּוֹרֵם לְכַתְּחִלָּה,

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did you establish the mishna? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that after the fact, yes, his reading is valid, but ab initio, no, he may not read? However, that baraita which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who speaks but does not hear may, ab initio, separate teruma.

מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּיעֲבַד אִין לְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא. אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא!

In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As, if you say that it is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, didn’t he say that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but ab initio, no, he may not fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, didn’t he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

אֶלָּא מַאי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — וַאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי? אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יְבָרֵךְ אָדָם בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן בְּלִבּוֹ, וְאִם בֵּירֵךְ — יָצָא, מַנִּי?

This Gemara rejects this objection: But rather, what, will you explain the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a deaf-mute is also fit to fulfill his obligation even ab initio? However, that which was taught in a baraita:

One may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation, in accordance with whose opinion is that baraita?

לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי, וְאִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא!

It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, didn’t he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא הָא — דִידֵיהּ, הָא — דְרַבֵּיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: הַקּוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּשְׁמִיעַ לְאׇזְנוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל״. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם עַל לְבָבֶךָ״, אַחַר כַּוָּנַת הַלֵּב הֵן הֵן הַדְּבָרִים.

The Gemara responds: Actually, we can explain that the baraita: A deaf person may, ab initio, separate teruma, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, according to whom a deaf-mute is also permitted to do so even ab initio. With regard to the opinion expressed that he is prohibited to recite Shema and Grace after Meals ab initio, there is no difficulty, as this is his own opinion and that is his teacher’s opinion. As it was taught in a baraita:

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “ Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. ” The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: But it says: “ Which I command you this day, upon your heart”; meaning that the significance of the words follows the intention of the heart and even ab initio one need not recite Shema audibly. The opinion that after the fact, a deaf person fulfilled his obligation to recite Shema is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּרַבֵּיהּ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא — רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this point and the entire baraita has been cited, even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, it is, nevertheless, not difficult. As this baraita that holds that he may not recite Grace after Meals ab initio but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while this baraita permitting a deaf person to separate teruma ab initio is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁילָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Sheila said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as cited in our mishna.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה.

The Gemara explains: And although that may seem redundant, both statements are necessary, as had Rav Ḥisda only taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said, as was suggested in the Gemara above, that Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so even ab initio. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of his teacher, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya; ab initio one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ears.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא צָרִיךְ וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה. קָמַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

And had Rav Ḥisda only taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, I would have said that the phrase: Must make it audible, means not only must he recite it that way ab initio, but also after the fact he has no remedy if he failed to do so. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; ab initio one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ears, but if he failed to do so, after the fact his recitation is valid.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא יָצָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַסְכֵּת וּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל״.

Rav Yosef said: The dispute as to whether or not a deaf person fulfills his obligation is only in the case of the recitation of Shema , but with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, everyone agrees that he does not fulfill his obligation if he does not hear his recitation, as it is written: “ Pay attention, and hear, Israel” (Deuteronomy 27:9); meaning that one is required to listen and hear.

מֵיתִיבִי: לֹא יְבָרֵךְ אָדָם בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן בְּלִבּוֹ, וְאִם בֵּירֵךְ — יָצָא. אֶלָּא אִי אִתְּמַר — הָכִי אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, דִּכְתִיב ״שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל״, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יָצָא.

The Gemara objects based on what was taught in a baraita:

One may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation. In this example of the rest of the mitzvot, the obligation to hear the recitation of the blessing is only ab initio. Rather, Rav Yosef’s statement must be emended. If this was said, it was said as follows; Rav Yosef said: The dispute as to whether or not a deaf person fulfills his obligation is only in the case of the recitation of Shema , as it is written: “ Hear, Israel. ” But regarding the rest of the mitzvot, all agree that a deaf-mute fulfills his obligation.

וְהָכְתִיב ״הַסְכֵּת וּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל״!

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “ Pay attention, and hear, Israel”?

הַהוּא בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה כְּתִיב.

The Gemara responds: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah; one must pay close attention to what is written in the Torah.

״קָרָא וְלֹא דִּקְדֵּק בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתֶיהָ״.

We learned in the mishna: One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, there is a dispute whether or not one who recites Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears fulfilled his obligation; the anonymous first tanna says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.

אָמַר רַבִּי טָבִי אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם לְהָקֵל.

Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: The halakha is in accordance with the statements in both disputes that rule leniently.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי טָבִי אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״שָׁלוֹשׁ הֵנָּה לֹא תִשְׂבַּעְנָה. שְׁאוֹל וְעֹצֶר רָחַם״. וְכִי מָה עִנְיַן שְׁאוֹל אֵצֶל רֶחֶם? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה רֶחֶם מַכְנִיס וּמוֹצִיא, אַף שְׁאוֹל מַכְנִיס וּמוֹצִיא.

Incidental to citing one statement by this combination of Sages, the Gemara cites another statement in their name: And Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: What is meant by that which is written: “ There are three that are never satisfied…the grave and the barren womb” (Proverbs 30: 15–16)? We have to ask: What does a grave have to do with a womb? Rather, this juxtaposition comes to tell you: Just as a womb takes in and gives forth, so too a grave takes in and gives forth with the resurrection of the dead.

וַהֲלֹא דְבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה רֶחֶם שֶׁמַּכְנִיסִין בּוֹ בַּחֲשַׁאי, מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקוֹלֵי קוֹלוֹת. שְׁאוֹל שֶׁמַּכְנִיסִין בּוֹ בְּקוֹלֵי קוֹלוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקוֹלֵי קוֹלוֹת? מִכָּאן תְּשׁוּבָה לָאוֹמְרִים אֵין תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

And is this not an a fortiori inference: Just as the fetus is placed into the womb in private, and the baby is removed from it with loud cries at childbirth; the grave into which the deceased is placed with loud cries of mourning at burial, is it not right that the body should be removed with loud cries? From this verse there is a refutation to those who say that there is no Torah source for the resurrection of the dead.

תָּנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ — הַכֹּל בִּכְתָב, אֲפִילּוּ צַוָּאוֹת.

Rabbi Oshaya taught the following baraita before Rava: The verse,“ And you shall write them [ukhtavtam] on the door posts of your house and your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9), should be understood as though it were written: “ And you shall write them completely [ukhtav tam], ” i. e., in their entirety. Everything must be in writing in the mezuza or phylacteries, even the commands to write mezuzot and phylacteries.

אָמַר לֵיהּ: דַּאֲמַר לָךְ מַנִּי — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר גַּבֵּי סוֹטָה — אָלוֹת כּוֹתֵב, צַוָּאוֹת אֵינוֹ כּוֹתֵב. וְהָתָם הוּא דִכְתִיב: ״וְכָתַב אֶת הָאָלוֹת הָאֵלֶּה״, אֲבָל הָכָא דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ — אֲפִילּוּ צַוָּאוֹת נָמֵי.

Rava said to him: Who said this baraita to you? It was Rabbi Yehuda, who said with regard to the scroll of the sota that one writes curses, but one does not write commands and instructions how to administer the potion to the sota. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of mezuzot and phylacteries the Torah taught that even the commands must be written in order to distinguish it from sota. There, in the case of the sota, it is written: “ And the priest shall write [vekhatav] these curses in a scroll” (Numbers 5:23); only the curses are recorded in the scroll, and nothing more. But here in the case of mezuza, where it is written: “ And you shall write them [ ukhtavtam ], ” even the commands must also be written.

אַטּוּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״וְכָתַב״? טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״אָלוֹת״. אָלוֹת אִין, צַוָּאוֹת — לָא.

The Gemara questions this: Is that to say Rabbi Yehuda’s reason for writing only the curses in the sota scroll is because the verse in the portion of sota says: “ And the priest shall write [vekhatav], ” as opposed to: “ And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]”? Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is because it is written in the portion of the sota: These curses, meaning curses, yes, they must be recorded; commands, no. If that is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning, there is no reason to derive the requirement to write the commands from the phrase: And you shall write them, in the case of the mitzva of mezuza. Derive it simply from the fact that the Torah did not distinguish between the various components of the portion.

אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נֵילַף ״כְּתִיבָה״ ״כְּתִיבָה״ מֵהָתָם: מָה הָתָם — אָלוֹת אִין, צַוָּאוֹת לָא. אַף הָכָא נָמֵי — צַוָּאוֹת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ — אֲפִילּוּ צַוָּאוֹת.

The Gemara responds: “ And you shall write them” was necessary, as otherwise it might have entered your mind to say: Let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy, writing mentioned here from writing mentioned there, that just as there curses, yes, commands, no; so too here, commands, no. Therefore, the Torah wrote: And you shall write them in their entirety, even the commands.

תָּנֵי רַב עוֹבַדְיָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״וְלִמַּדְתֶּם״ שֶׁיְּהֵא לִמּוּדְךָ תָּם — שֶׁיִּתֵּן רֶיוַח בֵּין הַדְּבָקִים.

On a similar note: Rav Ovadya taught a baraita before Rava: That which was stated:“ And you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your children” (Deuteronomy 11:19) teaches that your teaching must be complete [tam] that one should leave space between adjacent words, where the last letter of the first and the first letter of the second are identical. One must distinguish between the words and enunciate each one clearly.

עָנֵי רָבָא בָּתְרֵיהּ: כְּגוֹן ״עַל לְבָבֶךָ״, ״עַל לְבַבְכֶם״, ״בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ״, ״בְּכָל לְבַבְכֶם״, ״עֵשֶׂב בְּשָׂדְךָ״, ״וַאֲבַדְתֶּם מְהֵרָה״, ״הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל״, ״אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ״.

Rava responded after him by way of explanation: For example, one must enunciate al levavekha and not read them as one word. So too, al levavkhem, bekhol levavekha, bekhol levavkhem, esev besadkha, va’avadtem mehera, hakanaf petil, and etkhem me’eretz. Because the last letter of the first word and the first letter of the second are identical, the words are liable to be enunciated together and the correct meaning is liable to be obscured.

אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כָּל הַקּוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמְדַקְדֵּק בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתֶיהָ מְצַנְּנִין לוֹ גֵּיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּפָרֵשׂ שַׁדַּי מְלָכִים בָּהּ תַּשְׁלֵג בְּצַלְמוֹן״ — אַל תִּקְרֵי ״בְּפָרֵשׂ״ אֶלָּא ״בְּפָרֵשׁ״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״בְּצַלְמוֹן״ אֶלָּא ״בְּצַלְמָוֶת״.

On this same topic, Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Anyone who recites Shema and is punctilious in enunciating its letters, Gehenna is cooled for him, as it is stated: “ When the Almighty scatters [befares] kings over it, it will snow in Tzalmon” (Psalms 68:15). Do not read befares, When He scatters, but befaresh, When he enunciates. When one enunciates the name of God with precision, God will fulfill the verse: It will snow in Tzalmon, on his behalf. Do not read be Tzalmon , in Tzalmon, but betzalmavet, in the shadow of death, a reference to Gehenna. As reward for enunciating God’s name precisely, God will cool Gehenna for him.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לָמָּה נִסְמְכוּ

Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, also said: Why were