Berakhot

, or [where he said it] with a congregation and [is repeating it] with a congregation,  but when [one who has prayed] alone goes into a congregation, it is as if he had not prayed at all. Hence we are told that this is not so. And if we had been told only the second case, I might think that this ruling applies only because he had not commenced, but where he had commenced I might say that he should not [break off]. Therefore both are necessary. R. Huna said: If a man goes into a synagogue and finds the congregation saying the Tefillah, if he can commence and finish before the reader  reaches 'We give thanks',  he may say the Tefillah,  but otherwise he should not say it. R. Joshua b. Levi says: If he can commence and finish before the reader reaches the Sanctification,  he should say the Tefillah, but otherwise he should not say it. What is the ground of their difference? One authority held that a man praying by himself does say the Sanctification, while the other holds that he does not. So, too, R. Adda b. Abahah said: Whence do we know that a man praying by himself does not say the Sanctification? Because it says: I will be hallowed among the children of Israel;  for any manifestation of sanctification not less than ten are required. How is this derived? Rabinai the brother of R. Hiyya b. Abba taught: We draw an analogy between two occurrences of the word 'among'. It is written here, I will be hallowed among the children of Israel, and it is written elsewhere. Separate yourselves from among this congregation.  Just as in that case ten are implied,  so here ten are implied. Both authorities, however, agree that he does not interrupt [the Tefillah]. The question was asked: What is the rule about interrupting [the Tefillah] to respond. May His great name be blessed?  — When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said that R. Judah and R. Simeon  the disciples of R. Johanan say that one interrupts for nothing except 'May His great name be blessed', for even if he is engaged in studying the section of the work of [the Divine] Chariot,  he must interrupt [to make this response]. But the law is not in accordance with their view. R. JUDAH SAYS: HE SAYS THE GRACE BOTH BEFORE AND, AFTER. This would imply that R. Judah was of opinion that a ba'al keri is permitted to [occupy himself] with the words of the Torah. But has not R. Joshua b. Levi said: How do we know that a ba'al keri is forbidden to study the Torah? Because it says, Make them known unto thy children and thy children's children,  and immediately afterwards, The day that thou stoodest [before the Lord thy God in Horeb],  implying that just as on that occasion those who had a seminal issue were forbidden,  so here too those who have a seminal issue are forbidden? And should you say that R. Judah does not derive lessons from the juxtaposition of texts, [this does not matter] since R. Joseph has said: Even those who do not derive lessons from the juxtaposition of texts in all the rest of the Torah, do so in Deuteronomy; for R. Judah does not derive such lessons in all the rest of the Torah, and in Deuteronomy he does. And how do we know that in all the rest of the Torah he does not derive such lessons? — As it has been taught; Ben 'Azzai says: Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.  and it says [immediately afterwards], Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.  The two statements were juxtaposed to tell you that just as one that lieth with a beast is put to death by stoning, so a sorceress also is put to death by stoning. Said R. Judah to him: Because the two statements are juxtaposed, are we to take this one out to be stoned? Rather [we learn it as follows]: They that divine by a ghost or a familiar spirit come under the head of sorceress. Why then were they mentioned separately?  To serve as a basis for comparison: just as they that divine by a ghost or familiar spirit are to be stoned, so a sorceress is to be stoned. And how do we know that he derives lessons from juxtaposition in Deuteronomy? — As it has been taught: R. Eliezer said, A man may marry a woman who has been raped by his father or seduced by his father, one who has been raped by his son, or one who has been seduced by his son. R. Judah prohibits one who has been raped by his father or seduced by his father. And R. Giddal said with reference to this: What is the reason of R. Judah? Because it is written: A man shall not take his father's wife and shall not uncover his father's skirt;  which implies, he shall not uncover the skirt which his father saw. And how do we know that the text is speaking of one raped by his father? — Because just before it are the words, Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the father, etc.!  — They replied: Yes, in Deuteronomy he does draw such lessons, but this juxtaposition he requires for the other statement of R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: If any man teaches his son Torah, the Scripture accounts it to him as if he had received it from Mount Horeb, as it says, 'And thou shalt make them known unto thy children and thy children's children', and immediately afterwards it is written, 'The day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb. We have learnt: A sufferer from gonorrhoea who had an emission, a niddah from whom semen has escaped and a woman who became niddah during sexual intercourse require ritual ablution;  R. Judah, however, exempts them.  Now R. Judah's exemption extends only to a gonorrhoeic person who had an emission, because ritual ablution in his first condition  is useless for him,  but an ordinary person who has an emission requires ritual ablution!  And should you maintain that R. Judah exempts an ordinary ba'al keri also, and the reason why he and the Rabbis joined issue over the gonorrhoeic person was to show how far the Rabbis are prepared to go, then look then at the next clause: 'A woman who became niddah during sexual intercourse requires a ritual ablution'. Whose opinion is here stated? Shall I say it is the Rabbis? Surely this is self-evident! Seeing that a gonorrhoeic person who has an emission, although a ritual ablution is useless in his first condition, was yet required by the Rabbis to take one, how much more so a woman who becomes niddah during sexual intercourse, for whom in her first condition a ritual ablution was efficacious!  We must say therefore that it states the opinion of R. Judah, and he meant exemption to apply only to this case.