initio

Who is the authority for the teaching : [The Terumah separated by] a deaf man who speaks but cannot hear is post factum valid, but not ab initio?

But how [do we know that the teaching in the quoted Mishnah] is R. Jose's? Perhaps it is R. Judah's, and he means to say with reference also to the reading of the Shema' that having read it inaudibly he has complied with the requirements of the law, but ab initio he should not read it so ? Thou mayest find proof for this in the fact that he states Who reads [the Shema' without making it audible], i.e. post factum it is valid, but not ab initio !

But how [do we know that the teaching in the quoted Mishnah] is R. Jose's? Perhaps it is R. Judah's, and he means to say with reference also to the reading of the Shema' that having read it inaudibly he has complied with the requirements of the law, but ab initio he should not read it so ? Thou mayest find proof for this in the fact that he states Who reads [the Shema' without making it audible], i.e. post factum it is valid, but not ab initio !

They answer that the fact that our Mishnah states Who reads is intended to show how extreme is the view of R. Jose, for he means to say that even post factum it is not valid; since were it R. Judah, even ab initio it would still be valid.

It can be neither R. Jose's nor R. Judah's. For were it R. Judah's, if the man had said [Grace inaudibly] ab initio he would also have fulfilled his duty ; if R. Jose's, even post factum it cannot be considered that he has done so. How is it then?

It must be R. Judah's, and [his opinion is] post factum it is allowed, but not ab initio.

What, however, of the following? R. Judah, the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi, taught : A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may separate the Terumah ab initio. In accordance with whose view is this ?

It can be neither R. Judah's nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, he permits it post factum, but not ab initio; if R. Jose's, he does not allow it even post factum.

It is certainly in agreement with R. Judah, even though it be ab initio ; and there is no contradiction. The latter is his own opinion, the other the opinion of his teacher. For there is a teaching : R. Judah says in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah : When one reads the Shema' he must make it audible to his ear ; as it is said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. vi. 4). R. Meir said to him : Behold the Scriptures state, "And these words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy heart" (ibid. v. 6), i.e. the words depend on the Kawwanah of the heart. Since thou hast reached so far, thou mayest even suppose that

perhaps it is R. Judah's view and ab initio it is not permitted, but post factum it is valid ?

But perhaps the whole of it is R. Judah's view, there being two kinds of "minor," and [the wording of the Mishnah] is defective and should read thus : "All are fit and proper persons to read the Megillah except a deaf person, a mentally defective person and a minor. Of whom does this speak ? Of a minor who has not yet reached Initiation; but a minor who has reached Initiation is fit to read it even ab initio. These are the words of R. Judah, for R. Judah permits a minor to read."

Having demonstrated that [the Mishnah about the reading of the Megillah] is in accord with R. Judah and post factum it is permissible, but not ab initio, what, however, of the teaching of R. Judah, the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi : A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear may separate the Terumah ab initio ? Whose view is that?

Having demonstrated that [the Mishnah about the reading of the Megillah] is in accord with R. Judah and post factum it is permissible, but not ab initio, what, however, of the teaching of R. Judah, the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi : A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear may separate the Terumah ab initio ? Whose view is that?

It cannot be R. Judah's, nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, post factum it should be allowed, but not ab initio; if R. Jose's, even post factum it should be invalid. Whose view is it then ?

R. Judah's and even ab initio it is permissible. What, however, of the following ? There is a teaching : A man must not say Grace after meals in his heart ; but if he has done so, he has complied with the requirements of the law. Whose view is that ?

It is not R. Judah's, nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, he would allow that to act thus ab initio likewise complies with the requirements of the law ; if R. Jose's, even post factum it is not valid.

It is certainly R. Judah's view, and even ab initio it is valid. Nor is there any contradiction ; the latter being R. Judah's own opinion, the other that of his teacher. For there is a teaching : R. Judah says in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah : He who reads the Shema' must make it audible to his ear ; as it is said, "Hear O Israel." R. Meir said to him : Behold the Scriptures state, "And these words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy heart," i.e. the words depend upon the Kawwanah of the heart.

It is necessary [to state it in this way] ; for if he had informed us only that the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah, I might have supposed [the Shema' need not be read audibly] ab initio ; therefore he tells us that the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah's view which he reported in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah.

And if he had informed us only that the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah's view which he reported in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, I might have supposed that it is essential [for the Shema' to be read audibly ab initio] and there was no rectification [if this had not been done]. Therefore he informs us that the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah.

Now to what case does this refer? Now to what case does this refer? If I say where he did not interweave them, then behold he joins the invalid covering to the valid one? Rather it refers to a case where one did interweave them; and we learn from here that we don't decree against this?What might you have thought? That [this is permissible] only ex post facto but not ab initio, hence we were informed

Does not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel here say the same thing as the First Tanna? R. Papa said: They differ on the question of the special portions: the First Tanna holds that these should ab initio be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, it is sufficient, except for the reading of the Megillah, which even though it has been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose

on the other hand held that even the Megillah may be read ab initio in the first [Adar]; And R. Shimon b. Gamaliel held that even the special portions, if they have been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second.

But perhaps the whole [of the Mishnah] is R. Judah, and he teaches of two kinds of minors, and the Mishnah is lacking and it should teach this: All are qualified to read the Megillah, except a deaf man, an imbecile and a minor. What is this speaking of? Of a minor who is not old enough to be educated in the mitzvot. But a minor who is old enough to be educated in the mitzvot may read even ab initio, since R. Judah declares a minor qualified!

Then that which was taught by R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi: One who can speak but not hear may set aside terumah ab initio. Whose view is this? If you say, R. Judah, he holds that this is only ex post facto, but not ab initio. If you say R. Yose, he invalidates the action even ex post facto.

Then that which was taught by R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi: One who can speak but not hear may set aside terumah ab initio. Whose view is this? If you say, R. Judah, he holds that this is only ex post facto, but not ab initio. If you say R. Yose, he invalidates the action even ex post facto.

What then will you say? That it follows R. Judah, and that he allows it even ab initio? What about this which has been taught: One should not bless birkat hamazon in his heart, but if he does do so, he has fulfilled his obligation. Whose opinion is this? It is neither that of R. Judah nor that of R. Yose. For if it were R. Judah, it would allow this even ab initio, and if R. Yose, it would disallow it even ex post facto.

What then will you say? That it follows R. Judah, and that he allows it even ab initio? What about this which has been taught: One should not bless birkat hamazon in his heart, but if he does do so, he has fulfilled his obligation. Whose opinion is this? It is neither that of R. Judah nor that of R. Yose. For if it were R. Judah, it would allow this even ab initio, and if R. Yose, it would disallow it even ex post facto.

In fact it follows R. Judah, and he holds that the deaf person can read even ab initio, and there is no difficulty: in the first quotation he is giving his own opinion, in the second that of his teacher,