Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Berakhot

Berakhot 15 for kids: Did You Hear Yourself?

ברכות ט״ו

👂 This daf talks about washing your hands before prayer, even with just earth or a stone if there's no water. Then the Mishna asks a big question: if you say Shema so quietly that even you can't hear it, did you really do the mitzvah?

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Berakhot 15a in Daf QuestOpen Berakhot 15b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Berakhot 15

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Berakhot 15 in simple English

Rashi on Berakhot 15a, in English Tab translation (21)
  1. Yifneh — should relieve himself: referring to his bodily needs (defecation/urination).
  2. Dichtiv 'archatz b'nikayon' — it implies 'I will wash my entire body,' and it is not written 'I will wash my hands.' This comes homiletically to teach that he is credited with the merit of washing his hands as if he had immersed his whole body.
  3. Kesamit — a wood chip.
  4. L'Kri'at Shema — this leniency [not to seek water] applies specifically to the time of reciting Shema, whose time is fixed, lest the time pass. But for prayer, whose time extends the whole day, one must go out of his way to seek water.
  5. MISHNA, 'and was not precise in its letters' — meaning he did not enunciate them well with his lips.
  6. 'Derive two things' — for when you also expound 'Shema' to mean reciting it in any language one understands, learn from it as well that one must make it heard to his own ear.
  7. 'He may not separate teruma' — because he cannot hear the blessing that he recites over it.
  8. 'Who is the tanna... he did not fulfill his obligation' — meaning that even after the fact this is so, etc.
  9. 'The blessing is rabbinic' — for the Sages ruled that for all mitzvot one recites a blessing before performing them [and this blessing requirement is of rabbinic origin].
  10. 'And from where do we know that this is Rabbi Yosei's view' — the initial assumption was that this ruling is attributed to Rabbi Yosei, because we hold that Rabbi Yehuda validates it even ab initio.
  11. 'Perhaps it is Rabbi Yehuda's view' — and regarding Shema too, he holds that after the fact it is valid, but not ab initio. This is the correct reading, and we do not read the word 'even.'
  12. 'In the name of Rabbi Yosei' — to inform you of the strength of his opinion, that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation.
  13. 'In his heart' — meaning he did not make it audible to his own ear.
  14. 'And if according to Rabbi Yosei even after the fact it is invalid' — this is because Grace after Meals is a biblical obligation, as it is written, 'and you shall eat and be satisfied and bless.'
  15. 'Rather, what then — it is Rabbi Yehuda's view' — and regarding Shema, after the fact it is valid but not ab initio; and this ruling about teruma and Grace after Meals is also according to Rabbi Yehuda.
  16. 'Rather, Rabbi Yehuda means ab initio' — and the statement of Rabbi Yehuda the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi follows Rabbi Yehuda's view; the ruling about teruma follows Rabbi Yosei, who concedes that for rabbinic blessings, after the fact it is valid; and the ruling about Grace after Meals follows Rabbi Yehuda, citing his teacher Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says one must make it audible to his own ear — and the word 'must' implies ab initio, meaning that after the fact it is valid.
  17. 'After the intention of the heart, etc.' — meaning that even ab initio it is not necessary [to say it audibly].
  18. 'Now that you have come to this' — that is, you have taught us the dispute involving Rabbi Meir.
  19. 'Even if you say it is Rabbi Yehuda's view' — who holds that regarding Shema too, after the fact one fulfills the obligation but not ab initio; and this ruling about Grace after Meals and teruma follows Rabbi Yehuda. And as for your difficulty — whose view is that of Rabbi Yehuda the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi — it is Rabbi Meir's view, who validates it even ab initio.
  20. 'Who is the tanna who holds that a deaf person, even after the fact, did not fulfill his obligation' — as is taught regarding a deranged person.
  21. 'He did not fulfill his obligation' — this is stated with regard to after the fact.
Tosafot on Berakhot 15a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. One who seeks water at the time of Shema — Some texts read: this applies only to Shema, but not to prayer, since Reish Lakish said (Pesachim 46a) that for kneading dough and for prayer one goes four mil. It seems that we should not read it this way, for the same reasoning applies to prayer as well — that the time for prayer should not pass — so what difference is there between Shema and prayer? Also, later in the chapter 'Mi SheMeto' (Berakhot 22a) it says: they annulled the requirement of washing hands, in accordance with Rav Chisda who cursed one who went seeking water at the time of prayer. Since Shema is not mentioned there, it implies that in any case it is permitted. And that statement of Reish Lakish, who said 'and for prayer, four mil,' Rashi explained it to mean going there to pray with a minyan.
  2. Perhaps it is Rabbi Yehuda — If you ask: but Rabbi Yehuda is not mentioned in the first clause. The answer is: it is obvious that since the latter clause is Rabbi Yehuda's view, the first clause is also Rabbi Yehuda's, and the two clauses disagree about Rabbi Yehuda's own position.
  3. To inform you of the strength of Rabbi Yosei's opinion — If you ask: let it rather inform us of the strength of Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, since the strength of a lenient ruling is preferable [to highlight]. The answer is: since Rabbi Yehuda does not interpret 'Shema' as 'let your ear hear what you say,' there is no novelty in his view — it is obvious that it is valid even ab initio, for what reason would there be to forbid it? If it is valid after the fact, the same applies ab initio.
  4. If it is Rabbi Yosei, even after the fact it is also not valid — If you ask: I could still say it is Rabbi Yosei, and Grace after Meals is different, since the word 'Shema' is not written regarding it. Granted, with teruma above and Megillah below, which are rabbinic, one can compare them to Shema — the Sages instituted that one must make it heard to his own ear just as by Shema, and instituted literally that he does not fulfill his obligation [otherwise], just as by Shema. But regarding Grace after Meals, which is a biblical obligation, since 'Shema' is not written in connection with it, why should we institute that he fails to fulfill his obligation if he did not make it heard to his ear, given that biblically he fulfills it regardless? The answer is: since the Sages instituted that one must make it heard to his ear just as by Shema, since at least rabbinically he must make it heard, there is no reason to distinguish between Shema and Grace after Meals — even after the fact we must say he did not fulfill his obligation.
  5. And Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid in the case of a minor — If you ask: which minor is meant? If a minor who has not yet reached the age of training, didn't we say in the chapter 'Ro'uhu Beit Din' (Rosh Hashanah 29a) that anyone who is not himself obligated in a matter cannot discharge the obligation of the many? So what is Rabbi Yehuda's reasoning for deeming it valid? And if it refers to a minor who has reached the age of training, what is the reasoning of the Sages who forbid it? After all, the reading of the Megillah is rabbinic, and we say that a minor who has reached the age of training is, rabbinically, considered like an adult and can discharge a rabbinic obligation, as stated later in the chapter 'Mi SheMeto' (Berakhot 20b), that a minor can discharge his father's obligation even having eaten only an olive's-bulk, which is itself a rabbinic requirement. The answer is: Grace after Meals is different, since it is an extra stringency beyond the biblical requirement, and one is easily exempted from it, as stated later (ibid.), that they were stringent with themselves regarding either an olive's-bulk or an egg's-bulk. Alternatively, there, concerning the minor, there is only one rabbinic element — the case where the minor ate enough to be satiated — so the rabbinic level can come and discharge the rabbinic obligation. But here, regarding the minor [reading the Megillah], there are two rabbinic elements — the Megillah reading itself is rabbinic, and the minor's obligation is rabbinic — and one rabbinic level cannot discharge an obligation where there are two rabbinic elements involved.
Rashi on Berakhot 15b, in English Tab translation (30)
  1. Ulechatchila hu delo, ha de'eved shapir dami (Only ab initio he may not, but after the fact it is fine) — Regarding this one can say that even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that we do not learn he disputes regarding Shema except as to after the fact.
  2. Mideseifa Rabbi Yehuda (From the fact that the latter clause follows Rabbi Yehuda) — as it teaches that Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit.
  3. Vedilma kula Rabbi Yehuda hi vechisurei mechasra (And perhaps the whole mishna is Rabbi Yehuda's view and it is missing text) — and this is what it teaches: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor; this case is as it is and that case is as it is.
  4. Bema devarim amurim (In what case is this said) — that a minor may not read ab initio: with regard to a minor who has not yet reached the age of training. But one who has reached the age of training is permitted even ab initio. Reaching the age of training in mitzvot means, for example, a boy of nine or ten, as stated in tractate Yoma, the last chapter (82a).
  5. Bemai okimta (In accordance with whose opinion did you establish it) — referring to the mishna in Megilla.
  6. KeRabbi Yehuda (In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda) — and this teaches us that when Rabbi Yehuda said regarding Shema that one fulfills his obligation, he meant after the fact, not ab initio.
  7. Ela ha detani... torem (However, that which was taught... he may separate teruma) — even though he must recite a blessing and his ears do not hear; according to whom is this?
  8. Ela mai (But rather, what) — will you say it is Rabbi Yehuda's view that regarding Shema he meant even ab initio, so that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi would align with him, and that the dispute about 'after the fact' comes to teach you the strength of Rabbi Yosei's opinion?
  9. Ela ha detanya... (However, that which was taught...) — according to whom is it?
  10. Le'olam Rabbi Yehuda afilu lechatchila machshir (Actually, Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit even ab initio) — and the mishna of Megilla follows Rabbi Yosei, who disqualifies even after the fact. The case of separating teruma ab initio follows Rabbi Yehuda, while the case of Grace after Meals follows his teacher's view, as Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that one must make it audible to his own ears — this wording implies ab initio, but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation.
  11. Hashta de'atit lehachi (Now that you have arrived at this point) — that you have taught us this dispute of Rabbi Meir.
  12. Afilu teima Rabbi Yehuda (Even if you say it is Rabbi Yehuda's opinion) — who said that regarding Shema, after the fact yes but ab initio no, and the mishna of Megilla, which disqualifies a deaf person ab initio, is also Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, and the case of Grace after Meals is also Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. And that which troubled you — the statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi — according to whom is it? It is Rabbi Meir's opinion, who deems it fit even ab initio.
  13. Halakha keRabbi Yehuda (The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda) — that one who recited Shema without making it audible to his own ears has fulfilled his obligation.
  14. Hava amina (I would have said) — that Rabbi Yehuda said so even ab initio, and that he distinguished 'after the fact' only because of Rabbi Yosei.
  15. Ve'ein lo takkana (And he has no remedy) — even after the fact.
  16. Bishe'ar mitzvot (In other mitzvot) — in all the blessings.
  17. Hahu (That verse) — 'Be attentive (hasket) and hear' is said regarding matters of Torah, as stated in the chapter HaRo'eh (Berakhot 63b): 'Gather yourselves together for matters of Torah.'
  18. Velo dikdek (And did not articulate precisely) — meaning he stammers.
  19. Halakha kedivrei shneihem lehakel (The halakha follows the words of both, leniently) — the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda, that audibility is not required, and the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei, that precise articulation is not required.
  20. She'ol ve'otzer rechem (Sheol, and the womb that holds back) — this is a verse in Proverbs: 'Three things are never satisfied...'
  21. Rechem machnis (The womb takes in) — the seed, and brings forth the child.
  22. She'ol (Sheol) — the grave.
  23. Shemachnisin bo bekolei kolot (Into which they bring with loud voices) — of crying and wailing.
  24. Uchtavtam (And you shall write them) — that the writing should be complete and whole.
  25. Va'afilu tzavot (And even the commandments) — that are in the passage, such as 'and you shall bind them' and 'and you shall write them,' must be written in the tefillin and mezuzot.
  26. Whose opinion do you say this is — This is why a verse was needed to include the directive portions (not just the oaths) for writing in the Sotah scroll.
  27. It is Rabbi Yehuda's view — This is known from the law of writing the Sotah portion, because the verse does not say 'and you shall write' but 'and he shall write,' meaning that oaths are written but directives are not — for example, 'and the priest shall make her swear' and 'the priest shall say.' As we learned in the mishnah (Sotah 17a): Rabbi Yehuda says, he writes nothing except 'The Lord make you a curse and an oath.'
  28. It is because of the word 'curse' — [This exclusion] is implied by the word 'curse,' meaning that had the exclusion not been written, the entire passage would have been understood to be included in 'and he shall write.' But here, where there is no such exclusion, why would we need to include the directives through the word 'and you shall write'?
  29. Between connected words — Words that are joined to one another: if you do not separate them, when the second word begins with the same letter with which the preceding word ends, you will read those two letters as one, unless you take care to leave a space between them, as Rava explains.
  30. When you separate 'Shaddai' — If you separate and divide the words, distinguishing 'the kingdom of Heaven, kings therein' from 'it will snow in Tzalmon' — meaning: the Torah, through which kings will reign, will 'snow,' that is, cool for you, the shadow of death.
Tosafot on Berakhot 15b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Perhaps it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna is incomplete, etc. — This is difficult: nowhere else do we find that the Gemara says the mishna is incomplete merely in order to establish it according to a single tanna; moreover, it could have established it in accordance with Rabbi Yosei without resorting to saying the mishna is incomplete. The answer is: since later on the halakha is decided in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, it is therefore fitting here to establish the mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.
  2. But regarding other mitzvot he fulfilled his obligation — One might ask: didn't the Gemara say above that the law for other mitzvot (such as teruma, the Megilla reading, and Grace after Meals) is derived from the law of Shema? The answer is: Rav Yosef disagrees with the discussion presented above.
  3. Between the attached words — Rabbi Alfasi adds further examples, such as 've-chara af' (and His anger will burn), where if one does not pause there it sounds like 've-charaf' (and he blasphemed). He likewise adds 'u-reitem oto' (and you shall see it), 'u-zechartem et,' and 'va-asitem et,' where one must leave a pause between the final mem of one word and the initial alef of the next. Similarly, one must enunciate clearly the zayin of 'tizkeru' so that it not be mistaken for a shin — so that our performance of mitzvot earns its proper reward, for we should not perform mitzvot merely in order to receive a reward.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Berachot, Brachos, Berachos, Brachot 15.