gemara

GEMARA What authority has the Tanna [that the Shema' is to be read at all] that he raises the question: From what time?

R. Levi b. Hamma also said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : What means that which is written, "And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them" (Exod. xxiv. 12)? "Tables of stone," i.e. the Decalogue: "law," i.e. the Pentateuch; "commandment," i.e. the Mishnah ; "which I have written," i.e. the Prophets and Hagiographa; "that thou mayest teach them," i.e. the Gemara. The verse teaches that all of them were given to Moses on Sinai.

GEMARA What is to be understood by "between blue and white"? Is it to be supposed between a lump of white wool and a lump of blue wool ? That can be distinguished also at night ! But it means, between the blueness in it and the whiteness in it.

GEMARA It is all very well that Bet Hillel explain their reasons and the reason of Bet Shammai ; but why do not Bet Shammai agree with Bet Hillel?

GEMARA Which benedictions does one say [in the morning]?

GEMARA There is a teaching : Ben Zoma said to the Sages : Will the exodus from Egypt be mentioned in the days of the Messiah ? Has it not long ago been declared, "Therefore behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say. As the Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt ; but, as the Lord liveth, that brought up and that led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them" (Jer. xxiii. 7f.)?

GEMARA Is the conclusion to be drawn [from the opening sentence of the Mishnah] that the performance of the commandments requires Kawwanah?

GEMARA What is R. Jose's reason [for declaring that unless the Shema' is read audibly the requirements of the law have not been fulfilled]? Because it is written, "Hear O Israel," i.e. let thine ear hear what thou issuest from thy mouth. And the first Tanna ? He holds that "Hear" [means that the Shema' may be read] in any language which thou hearest.

GEMARA Our Rabbis have taught : Workmen may read [the Shema'] on the top of a tree or on the top of scaffolding. They may likewise say the Tefillah on top of an olive-tree or fig-tree ; but with all other trees they must descend to the ground to say the Tefillah. The employer must in every instance descend to the ground to say the Tefillah, because his mind is not settled.

GEMARA What was Rabban Gamaliel's reason? He was of the opinion that the application of the laws of mourning in the night is a Rabbinical injunction; for it is written, "And the end thereof as a bitter day" (Amos viii. 10); and in the case of a person in delicate health, the Rabbis do not so decree.

GEMARA When the body is lying before him, he is exempt; [it is consequently to be inferred that] when it is not lying before him, he is not exempt !

GEMARA Why are the reading of the Shema' and Tefillin different [from the others] ? Because they are commands the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class. Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals, being commands the observance of which does not depend upon a certain point of time, are obligatory upon women. That the reading of the Shema' [is not obligatory upon women] is self-evident, because it is a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class!

GEMARA Rabina said : [The statement of the Mishnah] means to say that meditation is the equivalent of speech ; for if it enter thy mind that it is not the equivalent of speech,

GEMARA Our Rabbis have taught : If a man was standing in the Tefillah and recollects that he is a Ba'al Keri, he should not interrupt [his prayer] but shorten it. If he was reading in the Torah and recollects that he is a Ba'al Keri, he should not interrupt and go away, but should continue reading with hurried pronunciation of the words. R. Meir says : A Ba'al Keri is not permitted to read more than three verses in the Torah.

GEMARA The question was asked : If a Ba'al Keri sees a flow, how is it according to R. Judah's view ? For although R. Judah there [in the Mishnah] exempts the man with a running issue who experienced emission — and such a man originally did not require immersion — but a Ba'al Keri who experiences a flow — and such a man originally did require immersion — does he compel to have immersion ? Or perhaps there is no difference ?

GEMARA I quote against the Mishnah : The obligation [of the Shema'] is at sunrise, so as to unite the Ge'ullah and the Tefillah, and consequently one says the Tefillah in the day-time!

GEMARA Our Rabbis have taught : What used he to say on entering ? "May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that no offence occur through me ; that I stumble not in the matter of Halakah ; that my colleagues have occasion to rejoice in me ; that I pronounce not anything clean that is unclean, or unclean that is clean; that my colleagues stumble not through me in the matter of Halakah ; and that I may have occasion to rejoice in them."

GEMARA To what do these eighteen benedictions correspond ?

GEMARA R. Judah is identical with the first Tanna's view ! There is a difference between them, viz. : an individual who lives in a place where there is no local Congregation. The first Tanna holds that he is exempt [from the additional Tefillah], but R. Judah holds that he is under the obligation.

GEMARA Whence is this teaching derived? R. Eleazar said : For the Scriptures state, "She was in bitterness of soul and prayed unto the Lord" (I Sam. i. 10).

GEMARA We refer to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead." Why ?

GEMARA It is right that we silence him who says, "We give thanks, we give thanks," because he makes it appear as though there were two Powers; and likewise him who says, "For the good be Thy name remembered," the inference being that for the good [may it be remembered] but not for the bad ; and we have a Mishnaic teaching : A man is in duty bound to utter a benediction for the bad even as he utters one for the good. But why [do we silence him who says], "To a bird's nest do Thy mercies extend"?

GEMARA Our Rabbis have taught : [If one is invited] to step before the Ark, he should first decline; should he not do so, he is like cooking without salt. But if he decline unduly, he is like cooking spoilt by over-salting. How should he act ? The first time [of asking] he declines ; the second time he wavers ; the third time he stretches his legs and descends [before the Ark].

GEMARA To which?

GEMARA Whence is this derived ? For our Rabbis have taught: "The fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise [hillulim] unto the Lord" (Lev. xix. 24) — this teaches that they require a benediction before and after partaking of them. Hence said R. 'Akiba : A man is forbidden to taste anything without previously saying a benediction. But is the phrase "holy for giving praise" intended to teach that ?

GEMARA Who is it that teaches that the main feature about the tree is the earth? Rab Nahman b. Isaac said: It is R. Judah ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching: If the water-supply dried up or the tree was cut down, one brings [the first-fruits to Jerusalem] but does not make the declaration. R. Judah says: He both brings [the first-fruits] and makes the declaration.

GEMARA Our Rabbis have taught : Over anything whose growth is not food the earth, e.g. the flesh of cattle, beasts, birds and fish, one says "...By Whose word all things exist." Over milk, eggs and cheese, one says "...By Whose word." Over bread which has become mouldy, wine over which a film has formed, and cooked food which has gone bad, one says "...By Whose word." Over salt, brine, morils and truffles, one says "...By Whose word." That is to say that morils and truffles are not grown from the soil. There is, however, a teaching : He who vows not to eat fruits grown from the earth is forbidden to eat the fruits of the earth but is allowed morils and truffles; if he declares, "All that is grown from the earth shall be forbidden me," he is also prohibited from eating morils and truffles !

GEMARA Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan : The teaching applies only to Sabbaths and Festivals, for then a man arranges his meal with wine; but on other days of the year, a benediction is to be said over each cup of wine.

GEMARA Is there any salted food which is the principal thing and the bread, accessory ? Rab Aha b. Rab 'Awira said in the name of Rab Ashe : They refer to one who eats the fruits of Gennesareth.

GEMARA What is Rabban Gamaliel's reason? Because it is written, "A land of wheat and barley and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates" (Deut. viii. 8), and it is written, "A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness" (ibid. v. 9), and it is written "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord thy God" (ibid. v. lO).

GEMARA Whence is this derived? Rab Assi said : Because the Scriptures state, "O magnify ye the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together" (Ps. xxxiv. 4). R. Abbahu said : From the following, "For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe ye greatness unto our God" (Deut. xxxii. 3).

GEMARA Samuel said : A man should never exclude himself from the general body.

GEMARA What does he wish to tell us? We have already learnt in the Mishnah : Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun!

GEMARA Our Rabbis have taught : The points of variance between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in connection with the meal are : Bet Shammai say : [On a Sabbath or Festival] one pronounces the benediction over the day and then over the wine, because the day causes the wine to be brought and because he has already hallowed the day before the wine was brought.

"And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you ; and they answered him. The Lord bless thee" (Ruth ii. 4); and it is said, "The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour" (Judges vi. 12); and it is said, "And despise not thy mother when she is old" (Prov. xxiii. 22); and it is said, "It is time for the Lord to work ; they have made void Thy law" (Ps. cxix. 126). R. Nathan says : [This means,] They have made void Thy law, because it is time for the Lord to work. GEMARA Whence have we this?

GEMARA. We have learned elsewhere : [The crossbeam] of an alley [whose entrance] is more than twenty cubits high should be lowered. Rabbi Judah says: this is unnecessary.

Gemara. What is Beth Shammai's reasoning?... Scripture says, "The festival of Sukkot, for seven days unto the Lord" (Leviticus 23:34) we require a Sukkah made expressly for the sake of the festival.

Gemara. Rava said: [Our mishnah] was taught only in respect of’ a tree whose shade is greater than the sun [shining through its branches] but if the sun is more than its shade, it is valid.

Gemara. R. Hisda stated: [Our mishnah] speaks only [of a sheet spread] because of falling [leaves], but if [it was spread] in order to beautify [the sukkah], it is valid But is not this obvious! For did we not learn in the mishnah, "because of falling [leaves]? One might have said that the law is the same even [where the sheet was intended] to beautify [the sukkah] and that the reason why it was stated, because of falling [leaves], is that he mentions what is the common practice, therefore he [R. Hisda] teaches us this.

GEMARA. R. Joseph sat before R. Huna, and he sat and he stated: "Or if he cut them it is valid. And Rav said: He must shake them.

GEMARA. R. Yaakov said: I heard from R. Yohanan [the explanation of] two things, this one, and the following: If one hollows out a haystack to make of it a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

GEMARA. It is well according to Bet Hillel; their reason is that ‘You shall make’, but not from that which is [already] made. If he loosens [the planks] he performs an action, and if he removes one from between two he performs an action. But what is the reason of Beth Shammai? If it is ‘You shall make’ but not from that which is [already] made, one act only should be sufficient; if it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, it should suffice if he removes one from between two?

Gemara: Can we say that this is a refutation of R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, since it was stated: If the breach is equal to that which is standing, R. Papa says it is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua says it is forbidden?

Gemara. What do they argue about? One master holds the opinion that a hanging partition renders [the Sukkah] valid, and the other Master holds the opinion that a hanging partition does not render it valid.

Gemara. Why are all these [rulings] needed? It is necessary [to state them all]. For if he had only informed us of [the roof of] a house which had been opened, [one would have said that the validity applied to this case only] because the partitions are made for the house, but in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns, where the partitions are not made for the walls are not made for the columns it does not apply.

GEMARA. It has been taught: R. Eliezer agrees that if he raised it one handbreadth from the ground, or if he separated it one handbreadth from the wall, it is valid.

GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, if made for reclining upon is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for skhakh.

GEMARA. But there are not ten [handbreadths in the height of the bed]? Shmuel interpreted, [that it refers to] a bed which is ten [handbreadths high].

GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Judah? R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree. One says, It is because the Sukkah has no permanence, and the other says, It is because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

Gemara. What is meant by "disarranged? Ravs said: a poor sukkah; And Shmuel said, one whose reeds are not all on the same level.

GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? According to R. Akiva, as it has been taught, He who builds his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva

Gemara. R. Aha b. Jacob said, a partition which is unable to withstand a normal wind is not a valid partition.

Gemara: From where are these words? As our rabbis taught: (Deuteronomy 6:7) "in your sitting in your house" exempts one involved in a mitzvah. "and in your going in the road" exempts a groom. From here they said: One who brings in a maiden is exempt. And a widow, he is obligated.

GEMARA. Does the case come to serve as a contradiction! Rather, there is something missing in the mishnah, and it should be taught thus: But if he wishes to be strict with himself, he may do so, and it does not constitute presumption and so it also happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel

GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Eliezer? You shall dwell [in Sukkot for seven days]"--this implies just as you normally dwell. Just as in a [normal] dwelling, [one has] one [meal] by day and one by night, so too in the Sukkah [he must have] one meal by day and one by night.

Gemara. From where do we know this? For our Rabbis taught: [If Scripture had said] "Homeborn" [it would have included] every homeborn [Jew], [but since it says] "the homeborn" it excludes women. "Every" includes minors.

GEMARA. Our rabbis taught, All seven days, one should make the Sukkah his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he had beautiful vessels, he brings them up into the Sukkah, beautiful coverings, he brings them up into the Sukkah. He eats and drinks and spends his leisure time in the Sukkah. From where do we know this? As our rabbis have taught: You shall dwell" in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell. From here they said, "All seven days one should make his Sukkah his permanent dwelling, and his house his temporary dwelling." How so? If he had beautiful vessels, he brings them up into the Sukkah, beautiful coverings, he brings them up into the Sukkah. He eats and drinks and spends his leisure time in the Sukkah.; he should study in the Sukkah.

As was the case of Rava and Rami b. Hama when they were standing before R. Hisda, [first] they ran through the gemara together, and then they investigated the reasons.

Gemara: The mishnah states the law clearly. It does not make a difference [if the case arises] on the first day of the holiday, and it does not make a difference [if the case arises] on the second day of the holiday.

(Mishnah:) [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or of a wayward city is invalid. (Gemara:) And that of a worshipped tree is invalid? But didn't Rava say, "A Lulav of idol worship should not be taken [for the Mitzvah], but if it was taken, it is valid [as opposed to the Mishnah's ruling]?"

Gemara. Our Rabbis taught, "Branches of a thick tree" [means] [the kind of tree] whose branches completely cover its trunk Now what [tree] is this? You must say that it is the myrtle (hadas). But perhaps it is the olive? It must be wreathed, but [the olive] is not.

Gemara. Our Rabbis taught: "willows of the brook" means those which grow by a brook. Another interpretation: "willows of the brook" one whose leaf is elongated as a brook.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. Rava stated: A lulav may be bound even with sinew [of a palm], or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm. Rava further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species.

GEMARA. Waving? Who mentioned this ? It refers to there: A lulav which has a length of three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid, and our mishnah says, And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]?

GEMARA. You said that he should take it [even if he is] at his table. That is to say that he must interrupt [his meal]. But there is a contraction: If they have begun they need not interrupt [it]? R. Safra replied: There is no contradiction: here is refers to where there is still time [to perform the commandment] during the day, while the former refers to where there is [otherwise] no time.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: They truly stated that a [minor] son may recite [Birkat Hamazon] for his father, a slave may recite it for his master, and a wife for her husband; but the Sages said, May a curse come upon that man whose wife and [minor] sons have to recite the benediction for him.

GEMARA. What happens if he doesn't want to give it to him as a gift? R. Huna said: He should include the price of the etrog in that of the lulav. But why should he not pay him directly?

GEMARA. Is not this obvious? I might have said that, since a woman does not come under the obligation [of lulab] she may not take it, therefore he informs us [that she may].

GEMARA. But why [should it be forbidden to take the lulav on Shabbat]? It involves only a mere movement, why then should it not override the Shabbat? Rabbah said: It is a restrictive decree, lest one take [the lulav] in his hand and go to an expert in order to learn [how to wave it]

GEMARA. It was taught, It was the place called Kolonia. Then why does our Tanna call it Moza? Since it was exempt from the king’s tax, he calls it Moza

GEMARA. How do we know this? As our Rabbis taught, The verse], “And you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:15) includes the night of the last day of the Festival. But perhaps it only refers to [the night of] the first day of the Festival? When it says, “akh” it divides.

GEMARA. If he has no vessels to remove, what should he do? If he has no vessels! What then did he use when he was in [his Sukkah]? Rather say: If he had no place to put his vessels what shall he do? R. Hiyya b. Ashi said, He removes four handbreadths [of the roof], And R. Joshua b. Levi said, he should kindle a lamp in it.

GEMARA. From where do we know this? R. Ena said, As the verse says, “You shall draw water with rejoicing” (Isaiah 12:3).

Gemara: It was stated: Rav Judah and R. Ina: One of them taught Shoevah and the other taught Hashuvah Mar Zutra said: He who teaches, Shoevah is not in error, and he who teaches Hashuvah is not in error. He who teaches Shoevah is not in error, since it is written, “And you shall draw water in joy” (Isaiah 12:3) and he who teaches Hashuvah is not in error, since R. Nahman stated: It is an important mitzvah, dating from the very creation.

GEMARA. Our rabbis taught: He who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life. He who has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor, has never seen a beautiful city in his life. He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life. Which Temple? Abaye, or if you want, R. Hisda said: This refers to the building of Herod.

GEMARA. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah, for it has been taught: R. Judah ruled, The minimum number of blasts is seven, and the maximum sixteen. What is the basis of their dispute? R. Judah holds that tekiah, teruah and tekia are counted as one, whereas the Rabbis hold that the tekiah and the teruah are separate and distinct notes.

Gemara. Shall we say that our mishnah represents the view of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], and not that of the other rabbis, since it has been taught: For the bull which is offered on the Eighth Day lots are cast as at first,the words of Rabbi. But the sages say: One of the two watches which did not have a third turn in the bulls offered it.

GEMARA. But are not the emurim the Most High's? R. Hisda said: [The meaning is], that which is said [amur], that which is said [amur]

Gemara. What is meant by before and what by after? If you say that before refers to the first day of the Festival and after to the last day of the festival, isn't this then the Shabbat of Hol Hamoed?

Gemara: What authority has the Tanna for the requirement of mentioning the rain at all that he inquires at what time it should begin?

Gemara: What is the order of procedure on the fast days? The ark is carried out, etc. Does this order of procedure apply also to the first six fasts? This would contradict a Baraita which reads: On the first three and the second three fast days the people go to the synagogue and pray in the same way as they do during the whole year, but on the seven last fast days the ark is carried into the open place of the town and ashes are strewn on it (on the head of the Nasi, and on the head of the Ab Bet Din, and everyone else takes ashes and puts on his head; R. Nathan said, it was wood-ashes that were used)! Said R. Papa: Our Mishnah also has reference to the last seven fasts only.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

Gemara. The Megillah is read on the eleventh. From where is this derived? “From where is this derived”? Surely it is as we teach further on, “The Sages made a leniency on the villages, allowing them to push the reading forward to the day of the gathering, so that they could supply food and water for their brothers in the large towns?”

Gemara. [Ten men of leisure]: A Tanna taught: The ten men of leisure who are in the synagogue.

GEMARA. This [last statement] implies that with regard to the special portions they are the same.

Gemara . [We can deduce] that in the matter of preliminaries for preparing food they are the same.

Gemara. [We can deduce] from this that in respect of compensation they are the same.

GEMARA. We can deduce from this that in the matter of utensils which are used for preparing food they are on the same footing.

GEMARA. It is to be inferred from this that in respect of ‘not delaying’ they are the same.

GEMARA. Behold we can deduce that in the matter of [defiling] a bed or a seat and counting seven days they are on the same footing.

GEMARA. Behold in the matter of being sent outside [the camp] and uncleanness they are the same.

GEMARA. [From this we infer] that for requiring [the sheets] to be stitched with sinews and for defiling the hands they are the same.

GEMARA. [Between the priest anointed etc.]. Behold in matter of the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah they are on the same footing.

GEMARA. The pesah sacrifice and nothing else? Rather we should say, things like the pesah.

GEMARA. R. Yitzchak said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered in the Temple of Onias at the present day. He was of opinion that the Temple of Onias is not an idolatrous shrine, and that the first holiness [of Jerusalem] sanctified it or its time but not for all time,

GEMARA. From where is the rule [not to read backward] derived? Rava said: As the text says, “According to their writing and according to their appointed time” (Esther 9:27): just as the appointed time cannot be backward, so too the writing must not be backward. But does the text speak here of reading?

GEMARA. Rava said: They taught this only if he intends to return on the night of the fourteenth; but if he does not mean to return on the night of the fourteenth, he reads with the rest. Rava said: From where do I derive this ruling? As it is written, “Therefore do the Jews of the villages who dwell in the unwalled towns” (Esther 9:19). Since it is written, “the Jews of the villages” why did it need to write, “who dwell in the unwalled towns”? This teaches us that one who is a villager for one day is called a villager.

GEMARA. Who is the Tanna that holds that [even if] the deaf person has read, it does not count? R. Matanah said: R. It is R. Yose, as we have learned: One who read the Shema but doesn’t make it heard to his ears, he has fulfilled his obligation. R. Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.