On daf 19b, I learned the Gemara that R'Yehuda holds like R' Meir that even lchatchilah, he would be yotzai. This was before the words in the Gemara of Hashta Dasis Lhachi. From this point on, it seems that R'Yehuda holds like his Rebbe that lchatchila he would not be yotzai, only Bideved he would be yotzai.
Does this mean that in the Mascana, there are two ways to learn this Gemara?
1. R' Yehuda is not the Tanna of our Mishna, R'Yosi is - like the Gemara seems to be saying before the words Hashta.
2. R' Yehuda is/can be the Tanna of our Mishna since he holds that Mishna only means that he wouls not be yotzai lchatchila but would be yotzai bideved.
Or perhaps the Gemara throws out our original assumption before the words Hashta and holds that R Yehuda holds he would only be Yotzai bideved?
a nafka mina between the two different ways to learn the gemara may be whether a katan who has reached the age of chinuch would be able to matzai another. If the Gemara after Hashta seems to be the mascana, I believe that it would follow that since R'Yehuda is the Tanna of our Mishna then even lchatchila a katan who reached the age of chinuch could read for others.
Is this the correct way of learning the gemara?
Thank you in advance
Shmuel Feldman Dirshu Kollel Silver Spring MD
The Gemara considers two possibilities: either that the Reisha is Rebbi Yosi and the Katan is Pasul even b'Di'eved, or that the Reisha is Rebbi Yehudah and then we must say that the Pesul is only l'Chatchilah. In order to say that the Reisha is Rebbi Yehudah, though, we must say that there are two types of Ketanim.
The Gemara is then faced with a problem: if we now say that Rebbi Yehudah holds that a Cheresh is valid only b'Di'eved, and Rebbi Yosi holds that a Cheresh is Pasul even b'Di'eved, then who will be the Tana who says that a Cheresh can be Torem l'Chatchilah? However, if we say that the Mishnah is Rebbi Yose, and thus Rebbi Yehudah is the one who holds that a Cheresh is valid even l'Chathcilah, then we are faced with another problem: who will be the Tana of the Halacah of Birkas ha'Mazon who says that one is Yotzei only b'Di'eved if he was not "Hishmi'a l'Ozno."
The Gemara has two answers. It says that either the Tana who differentiates between l'Chatchila and b'Di'evad is Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, but not Rebbi Yehudah, and therefore the Mishnah is Rebbi Yosi and we need not differentiate between the two types of Ketanim, or, alternatively, the Halachah of Cheresh Torem is Rebbi Meir and the tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah if we differentiate between l'Chathcilah and b'Di'eved, in which case we will again have to differentiate between the two Ketanim.
The Kollel dealt with some of the points in the Sugya that concern you in our Insights to Megilah 20:1. Here is what we wrote on the matter, in case it sheds more light on the matter.
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 CHAYUS)
(a) 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)