Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Megilah, 20

1) RECITING PRAYERS INAUDIBLY

QUESTION: The Mishnah (20b) states that a deaf person cannot read the Megilah, even b'Di'eved. In the Gemara, Rav Masnah attributes the Mishnah to Rebbi Yosi. Rebbi Yosi's opinion appears in Berachos (15a), where he says that one who reads the Shema without hearing it has not fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Yehudah there argues with Rebbi Yosi and says that one does fulfill his obligation (even l'Chatchilah, it seems) without hearing what he says. We see that Rebbi Yosi maintains that one must hear what he says, even b'Di'eved, and therefore a deaf person cannot read the Megilah.

The Gemara goes into a lengthy discussion, citing several Mishnayos and Beraisos that deal with reciting a prayer or blessing inaudibly, and proposing which Tana is the author of each one. In the end of the discussion, the Gemara introduces a third Tana -- Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. He maintains that if someone reads the Shema without hearing what he says, he fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved. The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, that one fulfills his obligation only b'Di'eved when he does not hear what he says.

In the first stage of the Sugya, when the Gemara assumes that Rebbi Yehudah does not agree with Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, RASHI (DH l'Olam Rebbi Yehudah) writes that the Tana of our Mishnah is indeed Rebbi Yosi, as Rav Masnah originally suggested, and a deaf person cannot read the Megilah even b'Di'eved.

In the end of the Sugya, when the Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, RASHI (DH Afilu Teima Rebbi Yehudah) says that the author of our Mishnah is *not* Rebbi Yosi, but Rebbi Yehudah, and the Mishnah is saying that a deaf person cannot read the Megilah l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved he may read it. Hence, Rav Masnah's original suggestion was incorrect.

Why does Rashi change this point from the first stage of the Sugya to the second stage? Even in the second stage of the Gemara, our Mishnah could be Rebbi Yosi! (MAHARSHA; see MAHARATZ CHAYOS)

ANSWER: The Gemara is trying to defend the statement of Rav Masnah. Rashi understood that when the Gemara introduces Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah (who says that one fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved without hearing what he says), the Gemara's intention was to defend Rav Masnah. What is the defense?

The Gemara at first asserts that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah of the Beraisa is the only Tana who maintains that one fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved when he does not hear what he says. By showing us that there is no Tana in any *Mishnah* that is of that opinion -- other than Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah -- it must be that the Tana of the Mishnah in Terumos, which the Gemara cites, that says that one fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved, is none other than Rebbi Yosi. It is unlikely that the Tana of the Mishnah in Terumos is a Tana that is not mentioned elsewhere in a Mishnah (but only in a Beraisa, such as Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah). Similarly, the Gemara defends Rav Masnah by showing that Rebbi Yosi is the only Tana in a Mishnah who is of the opinion that one fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved. If so, our Mishnah is likely to be Rebbi Yosi (and the Mishnah is teaching that a deaf person cannot read the Megilah even b'Di'eved).

In the end, when the Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Rashi understood that the Gemara was refuting Rav Masnah for good. That is, each of the Mishnayos cited by the Gemara could be either Rebbi Yehudah or Rebbi Yosi, and if so, why did Rav Masnah say that they could *only* be Rebbi Yosi? There is no longer any reason that compels us to say that our Mishnah is Rebbi Yosi! (See Maharsha in Berachos)

(b) Suggesting that the Mishnah holds like Rebbi Yehudah, and that one is Yotzei b'Di'eved when he does not hear what he reads, seems to be somewhat forced. After all, if the Mishnah holds that a Cheresh is Yotzei b'Di'eved, one must differentiate between three parties that are listed and grouped together in the Mishnah (Cheresh, Shotah, and Katan), as the Gemara said earlier ("Ha k'd'Isa..."). Why, then, did the Gemara go out of its way to argue with Rav Masnah and attempt to establish the Mishnah like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah?

TOSFOS (19b DH v'Dilma) explains that the Gemara preferred to have the Mishnah express the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, since there was a Mesorah that the Halachah is in accordance with Rebbi Yehudah of the Mishnah in Berachos (15a).

However, at this stage of the Gemara, we are suggesting that Rebbi Yehudah of the Mishnah in Berachos allows a Cheresh to read *l'Chatchilah*. It is only his Rebbi, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, his rebbi, who does not allow it l'Chatchilah but allows it b'Di'eved. There is no reason to "force" our Mishnah to conform to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, since that is not the Halachic view. That is why Rashi here does not entertain the possibility that our Mishnah is Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Rather, Rav Masnah was correct; our Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbi Yosi. (M. Kornfeld)

20b

QUESTIONS: The first Mishnah (20a) lists five Mitzvos that may only be done after sunrise. These include Mikra Megilah, Milah, Tevilah, Haza'ah, and Tevilah of a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom. The next Mishnah (20b) says that any Mitzvah which must be done during the day may be done at any time during the day. The Mishnah mentions the Mitzvah of Mikra Megilah, like it did in the previous Mishnah, and then it proceeds to list twenty Mitzvos, none of which were mentioned in the first Mishnah.

All of the Mitzvos mentioned in the second Mishnah could have been mentioned in the first Mishnah, which lists the Mitzvos which must be done after sunrise, since that Halachah applies to all of the Mitzvos in the second Mishnah as well! Similarly, all of the Mitzvos mentioned in the first Mishnah could have been mentioned in the second Mishnah, since all of the Mitzvos in the first Mishnah may also be done all day long! Why are these Mishnayos split into two? (RASHBA, citing Rabeinu Tam; TUREI EVEN)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHBA and RITVA answer why the first Mishnah leaves out the laws mentioned in the second by explaining that the Mishnah only mentioned laws which contain some unique Chidush. It is a Chidush that the morning reading of the Megilah may not be started until daybreak, since the other reading of the Megilah is done at night l'Chatchilah. It is a Chidush the even Milah *she'Lo bi'Zemanah* (on the ninth day from birth or later) may not be done at night -- Tana'im debate this issue. It is a Chidush that even the dipping of the Ezov into the water ("Tovlim," according to Tosfos and these Rishonim) may not be done by night -- even when the sprinkling is done by day. Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom involves a Chidush, as the Gemara itself points out.

As for why the second Mishnah does not list the cases in the first, the RITVA explains that by mentioning "Korin ha'Megilah," the first of the cases in the earlier Mishnah, it means "Korin ha'Megilah *etc.*," -- that is, Megilah as well as all the other cases mentioned with it in the first Mishnah.

(b) A simple answer may be suggested to explain why the laws mentioned in the first Mishnah do not appear in the second Mishnah, among the list of actions that "are done during the day and are valid the entire day." The first Mishnah only includes five cases: Megilah, Milah, Tevilah v'Haza'ah, and Tevilas Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom. Let us put aside Megilah for the moment. The other cases mentioned in the first Mishnah are *not actions that are done during the day* at all! Milah is referring to Milah on the eighth day (according to Tosfos DH di'Kesiv); it may not be performed before sunrise of the eighth day. However, after that sunrise, it may be performed both by day *and by night*, since Milah she'Lo bi'Zemano (i.e. on the ninth day or later) may be performed even at night (according some Tana'im). Similarly, Tevilah may be performed *anytime after sunrise*, both by day and by night (RASHI DH v'Lo Tovlin), and the same applies to Tevilas Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom. (Haza'ah may never be performed at night. However, it is not mentioned in the Mishnah to teach the laws of Haza'ah, but to disclose the source of the Halachah that *Tevilah* must wait until sunrise, as the Gemara explains.) If so, it is clear that the Mishnah could not have listed these laws among those that "are performed by day and are valid the entire day." (Based on PNEI YEHOSHUA)

The first Mishnah, however, could certainly have included all the Mitzvos of the second one, and taught that all of them should be performed only after sunrise. Why did it only list the few above-mentioned laws? The answer is that it found a shorter way of teaching that all the laws of the second Mishnah must be performed after sunrise; by simply listing *one* of the laws in the first Mishnah (i.e. Megilah) and then repeating it again in the second Mishnah. By doing so, it alludes that all the other cases in the second Mishnah may be compared to Megilah, which we already know is valid only from sunrise and on. It therefore does not have to list them each specifically in the first Mishnah.

Why did it choose to repeat specifically the case of Megilah in both Mishnayos? It could have chosen *any* of the cases in the second Mishnah and listed it in the first Mishnah as well! The answer is that Megilah is the subject of our Maseches, so it is most appropriate to be more clear when discussing its laws than when discussing the other laws that are mentioned in the Mishnah as an aside. (Based on TUREI EVEN)

This answer, however, is only valid according to Rashi. According to Tosfos and the other Rishonim, the Tevilah of the first Mishnah is referring to Tevilas Ezov, dipping a hyssop into the Mei Chatas, which can *never* be done at night. If so, our answer as to why it was not mentioned in the second Mishnah will not suffice; it certainly *must* be done only by day. Similarly, according to the RASHBA and RITVA, when the first Mishnah says that Milah is only after sunrise, it is referring to Milah *she'Lo bi'Zemano*, and it holds like the Tana who permits it *only* by day. If so, it should have been listed in the second Mishnah as well, since it indeed is a Mitzvah that is performed only by day.

(c) The first Mishnah is *limiting* the time during which a Mitzvah may be performed; it may *only* be performed after sunrise and not earlier. The second Mishnah is *extending* the amount of time during which a Mitzvah may be performed; it may be performed *anytime* during the day, and not just early in the day (Rashi DH Kol ha'Yom).

If so, perhaps each Mishnah lists only the cases which are more of a Chidush. The first Mishnah only lists Mitzvos which have an extended time during which they may be performed, in order to teach that even so, their time is limited somewhat; they may only be performed after sunrise. That is why it lists Milah, Tevilah (whether Tevilah of a person or of an Ezov), Haza'ah, and Tevilas Shomeres Yom. All of these may be performed by day on *any* day following the first day during which they are valid, and are not limited to one specific day. Megilah, as well, may be read on a number of days, depending on where the person is located, and is not limited to one specific day. (Although it is true that each city or village may only read the Megilah on one specific day, nevertheless it has an extended time in the sense that the Anshei Knesses ha'Gedolah reserved five days for the performance of the same Mitzvah of Megilah.) That is why these Mitzvos, and only these, are included in the first Mishnah.

The second Mishnah, which *extends* the time allowed for the Mitzvah, only lists those Mitzvos that would seem to be more limited, in order to teach that even so, they are not limited to a specific time during the day but may be performed *all day*. That is why it lists Hallel, Shofar, Lulav, Musaf, etc., which must be performed only on a *specific* day, and not just on any day. If one takes a Lulav, for instance, only on one day of Sukos, he has transgressed the Mitzvah of taking it on the other days; each day has its own Mitzvah which may not be "made up for" any day other than that day. That it why it lists only these Mitzvos in the second Mishnah.

Megilah is included in the second Mishnah as well as the first since, in a certain sense, it too is a limited Mitzvah. Each specific city or village must read on one and only one day of the year. Therefore I might have thought that its reading is limited to a specific time of the day as well. (M. Kornfeld)