Alternative Text: Some have the text 'That speaks with reference to K'ri'as Sh'ma, but not with regard to Tefilah

Source: Since Resh Lakish said in Pesachim (Daf 46.) 'For mixing and for Tefilah - four Milin'.

Refutation: It seems however, that one should not accept that text, since the same really will apply to Tefilah ('in order that the Z'man Tefilah should not pass'). So what is the difference between K'ri'as Sh'ma and Tefilah?

Proof: Moreover, we will learn later in Perek Mi she'Meiso (Daf 22.) that 'They negated washing the hands - like Rav Chisda,wo cursed whoever looks for water when the time to Daven arrives.

Proof (cont.): And since it does not mention K'ri'as Sh'ma, it seems that it speaks about all cases (even Tefilah).

Refutation of Initial Source: And as for the initial source (from Resh Lakish in Pesachim) Rashi there explains that Resh Lakish is speaking with reference to Davening with a Minyan.

Question: Then why is Rebbi Yehudah not mentioned in the Reisha?

Answer: It is obvious that since the Seifa goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Reisha goes according to him, too.

Question: Why does it not rather teach us the 'Ko'ach' of Rebbi Yehudah, seeing as we have a principle 'Ko'ach de'Heteira Adif'.

Answer: Since Rebbi Yehudah does not Darshen 'Hear with your ears', there would be no Chidush (in telling us that it is permitted even Lechatchilah), as it would be obvious. Since why would iteven enter our minds to forbid it? If it is permitted Bedi'eved, it is obviously permitted Lechatchilah too.

Question: I will tell you that the author is really Rebbi Yossi ...

Question (cont.): Only Birchas ha'Mazon is different, in that the Torah does not write "Sh'ma" in connection with it. It is fine with regard to Terumah (mentioned earlier) and Megilah (mentioned later), because since they are both de'Rabanan, the Chachamim instituted that one should hear what one is saying (and that one is otherwise not Yotzei), like K'ri'as Sh'ma.

Question (cont.): But Birchas ha'Mazon, which is mi'd'Oraysa, since the Torah does not write by it "Sh'ma", why should the Chachamim institute that someone who does not hear what he says should not be Yotzei, seeing as ,om ha'Torah he is Yotzei?

Answer: Since they instituted that, like K'ri'as Sh'ma, Lechatchilah, one should hear what one is saying, there is no longer any difference between K'ri'as Sh'ma and Birchas ha'Mazon, and one is not Yotzei even Bedi'eved.

Question: What sort of Katan are they referring to? If it is a Katan who has not yet reached the age of Chinuch, we say in Perek Ra'uhu Beis-Din (Rosh ha'Shanah 29.) that 'Whoever is not himself Chayav, cannot render the public Yotzei, so why does Rebbi Yehudah permit it here?

Question (cont.): And if, on the other hand, they are speaking about a Kayan who has reached the age of Chinuch, then why do the Rabbanan forbid it ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that K'ri'as Megilah is mi'de'Rabbanan, and we rule that a Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch is mi'de'Rabbanan, like a Gadol, and renders Yotzei mi'de'Rabbanan

Question (cont.): As we will learn later in Perek Mi she'Meiso (Daf 20:) 'A Katan renders Yotzei his father who only ate a k'Zayis - and whose obligation (to recite Birchas ha'Mazon) is therefore only mi'de'Rabbanan?

Answer #1: Birchas ha'Mazon is different, inasmuch as it is an additional Chumra over and above the Torah's obligation, and which thereforeeasilybe Yotzei; as we will learn later (Ibid.) 'And they took upon themselves (to Bensch) after just a k'Zayis or a k'Beitzah'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, there the Katan is only one de'Rabbanan,since it speaks where he ate enough tom make him satisfied, in which case, one de'Rabanan can be Motzi one de'Rabbanan ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas in our case, the Katan is a double de'Rabbanan, since Megilah itself is de'Rabbanan, and a Katan is de'Rabbanan too. Consequently, he cannot be Motzi a Gadol, whois only one de'Rabbanan.

Question #1: Nowhere do we find that the Gemara says 'Chasurei Mechs'ra in order to establish a Mishnah/Beraisa like a certain Tana?

Question #2: Moreover, why not rather establish the author as Rebbi Yossi, without having to say 'Chasurei Mechs'ra'?

Answer: Because we will establish the Halachah like Rebbi Yehudah, we therefore prefer to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah.

Question: But did we not say earlier that we learn the other Mitzvos, such as Terumah, Megilah and Birchas ha'Mazon, from K'ri'as Sh'ma?

Answer: Rav Yosef disagrees with the earlier Sugya.

Adendum #1: Rav Alfas adds "ve'Charah Af", which, unless one makes a break between the words, sounds like 've'Charaf ' (which means 'and he will blaspheme)...

Addendum #2: Likewise, he adds "u'Reisem Oso" and "u'Zechartem es", where one needs to makea break between the 'Mem' at the end of the one word and the 'Alef' at the beginning of the following one.

Addendum #3: And similarly, one needs to stress the 'Zayin' in "Tizk'ru', which will otherwise sound like a 'Siyn' ('Tisk'ru') - which will then mean 'in order that you will receive reward (for the Mitzvos)', when in reality, we are allowed to do Mitzvos in order to receive reward.