פירוש על ברכות 29:29

"The cleansing here has nothing to do with priestly ablution; it means simply to prepare oneself in such a way as to be able to concentrate all one's mind during the prayer without any disturbance"; Schechter, Aspect of Rabbinic Theology, p. 66 n. 1. On the practice of the Essenes, see Schurer, n. ii. p. 199.

So M. correctly; edd. Raba. Cf. Hyman, II. p. 437 a.

"His whole body" added by M.

Implying that he is totally clean.

M.: Raba to Rafram b. Pappa.

There is a similar law among the Muhammadans : "But if... ye find no water, take fine clean sand and rub your faces and your hands therewith"; Koran iv. 46, v. 9; Lane, p. 72.

M.: "At the time of the reading of the Shema'." He feared that the right time would pass during the search for water.

The time for Tefillah is not so strictly defined.

Some authorities insert here : "These are the words of R. Judah."

Who allows it to be read inaudibly, how does he explain "Hear"? See fol 13 a, p. 83.

Because the act was accompanied by the saying of a benediction which the deaf man would not be able to hear.

In Rabbinic law a distinction is often drawn between the validity of an act which one contemplates doing and its validity after it has been performed; and it is sometimes decided that though the former (לְכַתְּחִלָּה "as at the beginning," ab initio) is illegitimate, nevertheless the accomplished fact דִיעֲבַד = דְּאִיעֲבַד "that which has been done," post factum) may be considered as complying with the requirements of the law. See Mielziner, p. 197 ; Bacher, Terminologie, ii. p. 232.

Omitted by M. in conformity with the wording of the Mishnah.

R. Jose's objection to inaudibility does not apply to the benediction of Terumah, because it is not so essential a feature of the act, that without it the whole would be illegitimate.

This is the equivalent of "who has read"; therefore the first Tanna (i.e. R. Judah) agrees with the Mishnah about Terumah, not R. Jose.

Because the Grace after meals is a Pentateuchal ordinance (see fol. 21a, p. 135), and therefore parallel to the case of the Shema' where R. Jose does not admit as valid even the post factum reading, if inaudible.

No contradiction in R. Judah agreeing with R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi, although in the matter of the inaudible Grace after meals it was concluded that he allows it only post factum.

That even ab initio it is permissible for a deaf man to separate Terumah.

That only post factum is the inaudible Grace after meals valid.

So M.; not "there is a Mishnaic teaching" as in edd.

Not on their audibility.

As to introduce R. Meir's teaching into the discussion.

The teaching of R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi, viz. the deaf person may separate the Terumah ab initio, is in agreement with R. Meir's view that the Shema' may be read inaudibly ab initio.

R. Judah's view that the act of the deaf person is only allowed post factum agrees with the statement of his teacher, R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, that post factum only is the inaudible reading of the Shema' permissible.

A boy under the age of 13 years.

The point at issue is the fact that such a recital must be inaudible to the reader.