Text: This is what is stated in the Sefarim.

Question: Rashi asks, why doesn't he fulfill his obligation? We concluded earlier that two voices from two men can be heard.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the correct text, as stated in the Tosefta, is that if someone hears from nine different people at once he fulfills his obligation, even if he hears them one after the other.

Opinion #2: It appears that the text of our Sefarim is correct. If he hears from nine people at once he does not fulfill his obligation since the Teruah does not have a Tekiah before and after it, since he is hearing everything at once.

Opinion #2 (cont.): The text is now understandable. The text is, "If he hears a Tekiah from one and a Teruah from the other, he fulfills his obligation." This means that he first hears a Tekiah from one and then hears a Teruah from the other.

Opinion #2 (cont.): "One after the other" means that there are many breaks in between sounds. Someone blows Shofar, stops, and only an hour later blows a Teruah.

Explanation: This means that Rebbi Yochanan did not hold that he had to go back to the beginning of Kriyas Shema just because he waited long enough to finish the entire Shema. He also did not hold that he had to stop saying Kriyas Shema when he arrived at the dirty alleyways. Rather, he held he could put his hand over his mouth and read Kriyas Shema, as is his opinion in Berachos (24b).

Opinion #1: It appears that we rule this way. When one interrupts long enough to finish the entire Kriyas Shema, he does not have to start over.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rav and Shmuel argue on his opinion in Megilah (18b). (Shouldn't we rule like Rav and Shmuel?)

Answer: We rule like Rebbi Yochanan over Rav and Shmuel, as is apparent from the Gemara in Eruvin (47b).

Opinion #2: However, since Rebbi Avahu argues it would seem that we should rule like him, as he is from a later generation of Amoraim.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we find that Rav Yosef says in Megilah (18b) that you should take Rav Bibi's statement, that Rav says the law does not follow Rebbi Muna while Shmuel says it does. (This seems to imply the law should follow Rav, as we rule like Rav regarding matters of Issur!)

Answer: This is not because the law follows Rav regarding Issur, but rather he is stating the truth that Shmuel rules this way because he suspects that minority opinions can be correct. (Rav Yosef is merely saying that Shmuel must hold of Rebbi Muna because he would be the one to do so, and he is not coming to state that the law follows Rav. However, see the Yom Teruah who asks many questions on Tosfos, among them that Rav Yosef clearly states in Megilah that the law follows Rebbi Muna. Accordingly, Tosfos should not have given this answer, and instead should have said that Rav Yosef clearly rules like Shmuel!)

Proof: Similarly, in Berachos (22b) the Gemara discusses a person who was saying Shemoneh Esrei and simultaneously urinating (accidentally). Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna argue regarding the law in that case. Rav Ashi concludes that they both agree that if he stopped praying long enough to have said the entire Shemoneh Esrei, he starts over. They argue in a case where he did not stop for this long. (This indicates that Rav Ashi rules like Rebbi Avahu.)

Question: However, it is very difficult that a congregation in Shul says Emes v'Yatziv and wait for the Chazan, and they are quiet until he finishes the "Zulasos" ("Ein Elokim Zulasecha") and "Mi Chamocha" (etc.) that is said while praying for redemption (before Shemoneh Esrei). (They are quiet long enough that they have enough time to say everything again. If, as I have stated, one must go back, how can this be the common custom?)

Observation: However, in Shuls where they do not have to wait long enough that they can say everything again, there is no problem.

Proof: This is as Abaye states in Megilah (18b) that this does not refer to long enough for them to finish from where they are holding, as if so you will have made this amount of interruption dependent on where they are holding! (It is difficult to say that if one has only a few words left his level of interruption for starting over is a few seconds!)

Observation: One must be careful regarding the Tekios. This is as Rav Kahana says in Sukah (53b) that there is nothing (no time the length of a set that is allowed) between a Tekiah and Teruah and Tekiah. This is as Rebbi Yehudah says that they are all one Mitzvah, meaning in the middle of a Tekiah - Teruah - Tekiah. However, between a Tekiah - Teruah - Tekiah and another such set he can wait less than an amount of blowing another such set. According to the Rabbanan who consider the Tekiah to be separate and the Teruah to be separate, one should wait between them more than the amount of blowing a Tekiah or Teruah.

Opinion #1: Our Gemara is the source of the Bahag's ruling that if an individual made a mistake and did not mention Rosh Chodesh, he should intend to fulfill his obligation of Tefilah by listening from the beginning to the end of Chazaras ha'Shatz. He fulfills his obligation in this fashion, even though he is an expert. (The Pnei Yehoshua explains that the Bahag is saying that just as we find in our Gemara that the people can fulfill their entire Shemoneh Esrei from Chazaras ha'Shatz, so too if a person misses something he can listed to Chazaras ha'Shatz and fulfill his obligation.)

Question: There is no proof from here, as we conclude that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that the Chazan only causes the people in the fields to fulfill their obligation as they are forced to work, and they cannot arrange their prayers. (Therefore, they are able to fulfill their obligation through the Shatz, even without hearing the Chazaras ha'Shatz.) However, he does not cause the people in the city to fulfill their obligation. (Since the fulfillment is in a specific situation and is not even due to listening, there is no proof that one can fulfill his obligation if he missed something by listening to the entire Chazaras ha'Shatz.)

Answer: Rashi later implies that the case is where the person merely did not come to shul and therefore did not hear the Davening (and now he wants to fulfill his obligation by listening to Chazaras ha'Shatz).

Proof: This is indeed the implication of the case, as it is then similar to the case of Birkas Kohanim.

Answer (cont.): According to this explanation we can say that in public, if they heard the Davening, they fulfill their obligation (and there is therefore a proof to the Bahag's law).

Proof: This is also implied in Berachos (29a). Rav Asi says that if he made a mistake and did not mention Gevuros Geshamim in Techiyas ha'Meisim, he must start over. If he did not ask for rain in Birkas ha'Shanim, he does not go back etc. The Gemara asks that if a person made a mistake and did not mention etc. asking for rain in Birkas ha'Shanim he must go back. (This contradicts the previous statement.) The Gemara answers, one case is regarding an individual and one is regarding the public.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara asks, if so, Rav Asi should say he does not have to go back because he hears it from the Shliach Tzibur! The Gemara concludes that both of them are regarding an indivdual. One case is when he remembers he omitted it before Shomeia Tefilah, and one case is when he did not remember he omitted it before Shomeia Tefilah. This implies that if he would be hearing the Chazaras ha'Shatz, he could fulfill his obligation by hearing Chazaras ha'Shatz.

Observation: Even according to this explanation that if the people in the field hear the Chazaras ha'Shatz they fulfill their obligation, and the people in the city do not, one can still differentiate between where one already Davened and omitted something in his Davening and where he did not Daven at all. [See Tosfos in Berachos (29b, DH "Ta'ah.").]