Berakhot 061

5:
It would appear that the Tanna of the reisha [first section] of our mishnah accepts the takkanah [halakhic innovation] of Ezra (which was abrogated in Amoraic times, as we saw in the previous shiur.) For our mishnah states that a man who has had an ejaculation (and has not yet bathed in a mikveh) may not recite the Shema out loud, but may only "sight read" it – thinking the words but not uttering them. Obviously, if he had accepted the rule attributed to Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah that "Torah cannot contract impurity" he would not have stated the halakhah as he does.

6:
However, the view of the Tanna of our Mishnah is not as easily dismissed as all that: it seems far more precarious than just a disagreement between two Tannaïm – our Tanna and Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah. We must ask ourselves – as does the Gemara [Berakhot 20b-21a] – why the reisha of our mishnah distinguishes between the Shema itself (which must be read but not spoken by someone in a state of ritual impurity) and the berakhot that accompany the Shema (which may not even be read). One suggested answer is that it would look bad if the whole congregation were "accepting the sovereignty of Heaven" and our unfortunate ejaculator did not. That suggestion is easily dismissed by the Gemara: he could just pretend that he was reading the Shema by reading something else. A second suggestion is made: that what was meant was not that it would look bad but that it would be bad if he were engaged in something different from the rest of the congregation. This suggestion too is easily dismissed: in the very next mishnah it will become apparent that the Tanna holds that our ejaculator may not recite the Amidah – which is something that the rest of the congregation is engaged in! A third attempt is made by pointing out that the Amidah does not celebrate [the glorification of] God's Name, which the first verse of the Shema most certainly does. This is dismissed by pointing out that our present mishnah does require our ejaculator to recite Grace After Meals, which is no different in this regard from the Amidah. This only leaves one possibility: both the Shema and Grace After Meals are ordained by the Torah [mi-de-orayta], and our Tanna did not feel that the takkanah of Ezra could abrogate the duty to recite these liturgical items. However, the berakhot that accompany the Shema and Grace Before Meals – the berakhah ha-motzi leĥem min ha-aretz – in common with all the berakhot – are ordained by the sages [mi-de-rabbanan]. He felt that he could require that someone who had had a seminal emission should refrain from uttering these latter liturgical items according to the takkanah of Ezra.

7:
The Rabbi Yehudah of the seifa [last section] of our mishnah is Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai. The Gemara [Berakhot 21b] assumes that his opinion, differing as it does from that of Tanna Kamma, must reflect the view of Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah, that "Torah cannot contract impurity". Indeed, eventually in the discussion [Berakhot 22a] the Gemara virtually admits that we have a curious situation in our mishnah in that the halakhah now followed is not according to Tanna Kamma but according to Rabbi Yehudah!

This is unusual, since there is a halakhic premise that a takkanah made by one Bet Din can only be abolished by a Bet Din that is greater in numbers and halakhic standing – and what subsequent Bet Din could be considered of greater halakhic standing than Ezra's? Presumably the answer would be the same as that given on a similar occasion [Avodah Zarah 36a] when Rabbi (the compiler of the Mishnah) abolished a takkanah prohibiting Jews from purchasing oil from non-Jews: