ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBerachos 14
(a) On the one hand, Hallel and Megilah are only mi'de'Rabbanan, so if one
may interrupt in the middle of Shema, which is d'Oraysa, how much more so
for *them*; But on the other, Hallel and Megilah constitute 'Pirsumei Nisa'
(publicizing the miracle) which possibly makes them more stringent than the
Shema, and it will be forbidden to interrupt at all, whilst reciting them.
(b) The Gemara rules that one may interrupt Hallel and Megilah in the same
way as one interrupts the Shema.
(c) Raba maintains that, on the twenty-one days on which Hallel is
completed (and on which its recital is obligatory), one may interrupt only
in between paragraphs, but not in the middle of one. Whereas on the days
when one recites half-Hallel, it is permitted to interrupt, even in the
middle of a paragraph.
(d) When one is holding in the middle of a paragraph, it is only permitted
to greet someone whom one holds in high esteem, and Ravina did not consider
Rav bar Sheva in such a light.
(a) The Gemara asks whether someone who undertakes to fast privately,
confines his undertaking to fasting, or is the deriving of benefit from the
food included in his undertaking.
(b) The Gemara rules that tasting is permitted.
(c) Someone who tastes without swallowing is not required to recite a
(d) One is permitted to taste a maximum of a Revi'is (one and a half
(a) Rav changes the word "Ba'meh" to "Bamah", so that the Pasuk now means
that if someone greets another Jew - using a name of Hashem (of which
'Shalom' is one) before he has Davened, it is as if he has made him into a
Bamah (an altar other than the one in the Beis Hamikdash, which became
prohibited from the moment the Beis'Hamikdash was built).
(b) Shmuel explains the Pasuk to mean "How could you give this person
importance, and not to Hashem?"
(c) Our Mishnah permits greeting or answering someone's greeting if they
come to him whilst he is Davening. What the Pasuk objects to is for the
person to go to their house before he has Davened to greet them.
(d) The Gemara learns from the Pasuk "Tzedek Lefanav Yehalech, ve'Yasem
la'Derech Pe'amav" that it is forbidden to see to one's own personal needs
before having Davened.
And also that Hashem will see to the needs of someone who Davens first
before going on his way.
(a) In the Pasuk "ve'Savei'a Yalin Bal Yipakeid Ra", Rebbi Yonah changes
"ve'Savei'a" to "ve'Sheva" (he also changes the comma to after the word
"Yipakeid"), to explain that if someone is not visited (by the Ba'al
ha'Chalomos) for seven days, he is called 'bad'.
(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba explains the Pasuk to mean that someone who goes to
bed satisfied with Divrei Torah, will be spared from bad foreboding dreams.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah forbids any interruption between 'Elokeichem' and 'Emes',
because of the Pasuk in Yirmiyah, which writes "va'Hashem Elokim Emes".
(b) Raba is of the opinion that one does not repeat 'Emes'. Consequently,
when he heard a certain Chazan say 'Emes' twice, he remarked that he had
this obsession to say 'Emes'.
(a) Having begun 'Daber El Benei Yisrael', and certainly if one has also
continued 've'Amarta Aleihem', one is obligated to complete the entire
paragraph. So how could they break in the middle and continue 'Ani Hashem
According to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, 'Shema' takes precedence over
've'Haya Im Shamo'a', because it contains both learning, teaching and doing
Mitzvos, whereas 've'Haya' contains contains only teaching and doing
Mitzvos, but not learning. And 've'Haya' takes precedence over 'va'Yomer',
because 've'Haya' contains teaching as well as doing, whereas 'va'Yomer'
contains only doing.
(b) In Bavel they would begin 'Daber etc., until ve'Amarta Aleihem' like
they did in Eretz Yisrael. However, since they had begun the paragraph,
*they* maintained that they were obligated to finish it.
In Eretz Yisrael they would break after the words 've'Amarta Aleihem',
because in their opinion, that does not constitute a beginning (presumably,
because the phrase itself, is meaningless), in which case, it is permitted
to break there, and to conclude 'Ani Hashem Elokeichem Emes'.
(c) Someone who did not say 'Ani Hashem Elokeichem Emes' at Ma'ariv, would
say: 'Modim Anachnu Lach, Hashem Elokeinu, she'Hotzeisanu mei'Eretz
Mitzrayim, u'Fedisanu mi'Beis Avadim, ve'Asisa Lanu Nisim u'Gevuros Al
ha'Yam, ve'Sharnu Lach ...Mi Chamocha' etc.
(a) The Beraisa of 'ha'Chofer Kuch le'Meis' rules that the order of the
morning Seider is washing the hands, putting on Tefilin, reciting the Shema
and Tefilah - in that order. In that case, why did Rav invert the order,
and recite the Shema first and then put on his Tefilin?
(b)&(c) The Reisha of the Beraisa speaks when there is only one digger, who
is Patur from the Shema and from all the Mitzvos, because of the principle
that we learnt above: 'ha'Osek be'Mitzvah, Patur Min ha'Mitzvah'. And the
Seifa speaks when there are two diggers (but only room for one of them to
dig), in which case, one continues to dig whilst the other one washes his
(a) The Gemara wants to explain that Rav holds like Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Korchah, who says in our Mishnah that Ol Malchus Shamayim comes before Ol
Mitzvos. For that reason, one first recites the Shema, and then puts on
(b) This answer is not acceptable; firstly, because Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Korchah is talking about the order of priorities regarding reciting, not
about which Mitzvah comes first (i.e. he will also agree that the actual
Mitzvah of Tefilin comes before the reading of the Shema). And secondly,
Rav Chiya bar Ashi testified that Rav often used to put on his Tefilin
first, and then recite the Shema, so why should he once have inverted the
(c) If the testimony of Rav Chiya bar Ashi referred to the early morning,
before the time to recite the Shema had arrived (but otherwise, he would
have recited the Shema first, to conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua
ben Korchah), then what is Rav Chiya bar Ashi coming to tell us? There is
no Chidush in his statement?
However, the Gemara concludes that *this* is no reason to refute that
contention - what Rav Chiya bar Ashi is telling us, is that one is
obligated to recite Birchas ha'Torah even over the study of Mishnah (unlike
those who held above, that one is not).
(a) Ula compares someone who reads the Shema without Tefilin to someone who
gives false testimony on himself (i.e. he reads about Tefilin and about his
obligation to wear them, in the Shema, but he does not even wear them as he
reads about them).
(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba quotes Rebbi Yochanan, who says that it is like
bringing a burnt-offering without the accompanying flour-offering, or a
peace-offering without the accompanying drink-offering (and one is not even
Yotze - Gra).
(c) A total acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim comprises having a clean body
(i.e. relieving oneself) washing one's hands, putting on Tefilin, reciting
the Shema and saying the Amidah.