ברכות דף טו עמוד א

¹If we assume that our mishna's use of "Hakorah" (a bdi-avad) is to show the "strength of rabbi Yossi, than no one takes a intermediate position. (Rabbi Yosi then takes an intermediate position by teruma since it is Bracha Derabanan). All this assumes that Birchat Hamazon and Shema have the same rules

²This qestion means "maybe by megilla, it's only asur Bdi-avad, and that could be Rabbi Yehuda."

³But for a pre-hinuch katan, lchatchila no, but bdi-avad yes

⁴As opposed to the megilla, which is only OK bdi avad. If the teruma and the shma is ok even l'chatchila, and megilla is not ok lchatchila, how can Rabbi yehuda be the author of the mishna in megilla

⁵This creates a contradiction between Birchat Hamazon, which requires someone (Rabbi Yehuda, since it can't be Rabbi Yossi) to distinguish between lichatchila (no) and bdieved (yes). So how can Rabbi Yehuda also say the truma deal which seemed to contradict Rabbi Yehuda as the sole author of the Megilla mishna

⁶Teruma is lie Rabbi yehuda all alone, and lchitchala it is also OK. Birchat Hamazon is like Rabbi Yehuda's teacher, which says only bdieved is OK, and Megilla can be like Rabbi Yehuda in the name of his teacher. BUT rashi says that it must be rabbi yossi since rabbi yehuda cannot say this on his own accord

⁷And now teruma is like rabbi meir, rabbi yehuda always agrees with his teacher in differing lichsachila and bdiavad and can therefore be the author of the megilla mishna and birchat hamazon

⁸Since only his teacher made it explicit that lichatchila no, with the word "Tzarich."

⁹ But "Tzarich" by itself only carries a lichatchila connotation when we know that it must also agree with Rabbi Yehuda who says bdieved it's OK. By itself, "tzarich" might even disallow bedieved silent hearings

¹⁰This, "I tink should be connected with the hunchback story in Helek

¹¹i.e. instead of starting the writing after the words "write this..." we must write "we must write..."

¹²Even the Rabbi Yehuda says the key word for exclusing the commend section by Sota is "Alot" and not "Katav", the change in Shema to "Ikhtavtem" was necessary to avoid equation of Shema to Sota, which would in turn resulted in not writing the command to write, rather than "katav" whoich whould have created a pralel and forced us not to include the comment section in the written shema.