לעולם ר' יהודה ואפי' לכתחילה ולא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה
The Gemara answers: Actually, you can indeed say that the baraita about teruma was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that Rabbi Yehuda permits a deaf person to read even ab initio, while Rabbi Yosei disqualifies a deaf person even after the fact. And the baraita that teaches that one should not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, but if he did he has fulfilled his obligation, is not difficult, as that baraita was taught by Rabbi Yehuda as well. The explanation for this is that in this baraita, about teruma, he was teaching his own opinion, that it is permitted even ab initio, whereas in that baraita, concerning the Grace after Meals, he was teaching the opinion of his master, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, that one is required to hear what he is saying when he recites blessings.
דתניא ר' יהודה אומר משום ר"א בן עזריה הקורא את שמע צריך שישמיע לאזנו שנאמר (דברים ו, ד) שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד השמע לאזניך מה שאתה מוציא מפיך ר"מ אומר (דברים ו, ו) אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך אחר כוונת הלב הן הן הדברים
As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites the Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God; the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4), the word “hear” indicating that you should allow your ears to hear the words you are expressing with your mouth. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: This is not necessary, as it is also stated there: “And these words, which I command you this day shall be in your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that “these words,” the words of the Shema, go after the intent of the heart, as it is unnecessary to pronounce them out loud. We see that according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as cited by Rabbi Yehuda, the words must be audible to one’s ears ab initio.
השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כרביה סבירא ליה והא דתני יהודה בריה דר' שמעון בן פזי ר"מ היא:
The Gemara proposes a second solution: Now that you have arrived at this point and cited this baraita, you can even say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with his teacher, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, that a deaf person is disqualified ab initio, and it is only after the fact that his reading is valid. And as for that baraita that Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught stating that a deaf person may set aside teruma even ab initio, this was taught in accordance with the other opinion cited in the baraita, i.e., that of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that everything depends on the intent of one’s heart, and that it is not necessary to pronounce words audibly, even ab initio.
ר' יהודה מכשיר בקטן: (דתניא) א"ר יהודה קטן הייתי וקריתיה למעלה מרבי טרפון וזקנים בלוד אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן הקטן
§ It was taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says that a minor is fit to read the Megilla. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: I can offer proof to my opinion, as when I was a minor I myself read the Megilla before Rabbi Tarfon and the other Elders in Lod. They said to him in response: One cannot bring a proof from the testimony of a minor. Since at the time of the supposed incident you were a minor, you are not qualified now to testify about it.
תניא אמר רבי קטן הייתי וקריתיה למעלה מרבי יהודה אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן המתיר
It is taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I was a minor I read the Megilla before Rabbi Yehuda. They said to him: One cannot bring a proof that an act is permitted from the behavior of the very one who permits it. We know that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a minor is fit to read the Megilla, and the fact that he acted in accordance with his own opinion does not prove that this is the accepted halakha.
ולימרו ליה אין מביאין ראיה מן הקטן חדא ועוד קאמרו ליה חדא דקטן היית ועוד אפילו גדול היית אין מביאין ראיה מן המתיר:
The Gemara asks: And let them say to him, as the Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda in the previous baraita, that one cannot bring a proof from the testimony of a minor. The Gemara answers: They said one thing to him and then another; i.e., they rejected him with a twofold argument: One objection is that you were a minor at that time, and therefore your testimony is disqualified. And furthermore, even if you had been an adult at that time and you had testified that you saw some other minor read the Megilla before Rabbi Yehuda, one cannot bring a proof that an act is permitted from the behavior of the very one who permits it.
מתני׳ אין קורין את המגילה ולא מלין ולא טובלין ולא מזין וכן שומרת יום כנגד יום לא תטבול עד שתנץ החמה וכולן שעשו משעלה עמוד השחר כשר:
MISHNA: One may not read the Megilla, nor perform a circumcision, nor immerse himself in a ritual bath, nor sprinkle water of purification to purify people and objects that had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse until after sunrise. And also a woman who observes a clean day for each day she experiences a discharge, i.e., a woman who experienced one or two days of non-menstrual bleeding, and must now wait until a day has passed without any discharge of blood before regaining ritual purity, she too may not immerse herself until the sun has risen. And with regard to all these activities that are supposed to be performed during the day, if one did them after daybreak, i.e., after the appearance of the first light of the sun, even before sunrise, they are valid, as at this point it is already considered daytime.
גמ׳ מנלן דאמר קרא (אסתר ט, כח) והימים האלה נזכרים ונעשים ביום אין בלילה לא לימא תיהוי תיובתא דר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר ריב"ל חייב אדם לקרות את המגילה בלילה ולשנותה ביום כי קתני אדיום:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the halakha taught in the mishna that the Megilla may be read only during the day? The Gemara answers: As the verse states: “And that these days should be remembered and kept” (Esther 9:28). The word “days” indicates during the day, yes, but at night, no. The Gemara asks: Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A person is obligated to read the Megilla at night and then repeat it during the day. The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from here, as when the mishna teaches that the Megilla may be read only during the day, it was referring to the daytime reading, but the nighttime reading is not considered here at all.
ולא מלין וכו': דכתיב (ויקרא יב, ג) וביום השמיני ימול:
§ The mishna continues: And one may not perform a circumcision until after sunrise, as it is written: “And on the eighth day he shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3). This indicates that the circumcision must be during the day, not at night.
ולא טובלין ולא מזין וכו': דכתיב (במדבר יט, יט) והזה הטהור על הטמא [וגו'] ביום השביעי ואיתקש טבילה להזיה:
§ It is further taught in the mishna: And one may not immerse himself in a ritual bath, or sprinkle waters of purification until after sunrise. This too is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be pure at evening” (Numbers 19:19), which teaches that the sprinkling must take place during the day and not at night. And immersion is likened to sprinkling, as it too is mentioned in the verse, “and bathe himself in water,” so that whatever is invalid with respect to sprinkling is also invalid with respect to immersion.
וכן שומרת יום כנגד יום לא תטבול עד שתנץ החמה וכו': פשיטא מ"ש שומרת יום כנגד יום מכל חייבי טבילות
§ The mishna states: And also a woman who observes a day for a day may not immerse herself until the sun has risen. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. What is different about a woman who observes a day for a day, who must immerse herself in a ritual bath, from all the others who are obligated to immerse themselves, as it was already taught that one may not immerse himself in a ritual bath until it is day?
איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא תיהוי כראיה ראשונה של זב וראיה ראשונה של זב איתקש לבעל קרי דכתיב (ויקרא טו, לב) זאת תורת הזב ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע מה בעל קרי טובל ביום האי נמי ליטבול ביומיה
The Gemara answers: It is nevertheless necessary to mention separately the case of a woman who observes a day for a day. As, it might enter your mind to say that this woman’s bleeding should be treated like the first emission of a zav, a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like secretion, in that just as a man attains the status of a full-fledged zav once he has three such emissions, so too, a woman attains the status of a full-fledged zava once she experiences three days of bleeding. And the first emission of a zav is likened to one who experienced a seminal discharge, as it is written: “This is the halakha of him that has an issue and of him whose semen goes from him” (Leviticus 15:32). From this it is learned: Just as one who experienced a seminal discharge immerses on the same day that he had the discharge, so too, that one, the zav, may immerse himself on the same day that he had the emission.
והא ביממא לא מצי טבלה דכתיב (ויקרא טו, כו) כל ימי זובה כמשכב נדתה יהיה לה בליליא מיהת ליעביד מקצת שימור ותיטבול קמ"ל כיון דבעיא ספירה
And although this one, i.e., a woman who observes a day for a day, cannot immerse on the same day that she experienced the bleeding, as it is written: “All the days of her issue shall be to her as the bed of her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:26), which teaches that she remains the entire day of her issue in her impure state and must wait until the day is over before she can immerse herself, nevertheless, one might have said that at least during the night following the day of her issue she should be able to perform a partial observation, i.e., she should verify that part of the night has gone by without bleeding, and then immerse herself at night, without waiting until morning. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that since she is required to count one day of purity after her day of impurity,