Berachot 15b; 16a; in defense of Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet

First, in Berachot 15b:

אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת בק"ש אבל בשאר מצות דברי הכל לא יצא דכתיב (דברים כז, ט) הסכת ושמע ישראל מיתיבי לא יברך אדם ברכת המזון בלבו ואם בירך יצא אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת בק"ש דכתיב שמע ישראל אבל בשאר מצות דברי הכל יצא והכתיב הסכת ושמע ישראל ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב:

Or, in English:

R. Joseph said: The difference of opinion relates only to the recital of the Shema', but in the case of other religious acts all agree that he has not performed his obligation [if he says the formula inaudibly], as it is written, attend and hear, O Israel.⁶  An objection was raised: A man should not say grace after meals mentally, but if he does he has performed his obligation! — Rather, if this statement was made it was as follows: R. Joseph said: The difference of opinion relates only to the Shema', since it is written, 'Hear O Israel'; but in regard to all the other religious acts, all are agreed that he performs his obligation. But it is written, 'Attend and hear, O Israel'? — That [text] applies only to words of Torah.⁷

This is a fairly radical emendation performed by the setama degemara, in which Rav Yosef ends up saying the precise opposite of what he initially says, and where his prooftext is eliminated and used for a completely separate purpose.

To come to Rav Yosef's defense, all we need to say is that by מחלוקת בק"ש אבל בשאר מצות דברי הכל לא יצא, he was speaking in particular in the context of our sugya, and of the dispute between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda, and that is what is meant by מחלוקת. But of course, other Tannaim can weigh in in the general case and disagree!

In particular, the Birkat Hamazon source the gemara brings was already attributed by the gemara to Rabbi Meir; and so both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi are in agreement.

Maintaining Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda and Rav Yosef suggests may require a readjustment of all the various mishnayot and braytot of our sugya, but it should be possible.

On the next amud, Berachot 16a, the following:

ת"ר הפועלים שהיו עושין מלאכה אצל בעל הבית קורין ק"ש ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה ואוכלין פתן ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה ומתפללין תפלה של שמונה עשרה אבל אין יורדין לפני התיבה ואין נושאין כפיהם והתניא מעין י"ח אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא ר"ג הא ר' יהושע אי ר' יהושע מאי איריא פועלים אפילו כל אדם נמי אלא אידי ואידי ר"ג ולא קשיא כאן בעושין בשכרן כאן בעושין בסעודתן והתניא הפועלים שהיו עושים מלאכה אצל בעל הבית קורין ק"ש ומתפללין ואוכלין פתן ואין מברכים לפניה אבל מברכין לאחריה שתים כיצד ברכה ראשונה כתקונה שניה פותח בברכת הארץ וכוללין בונה ירושלים בברכת הארץ במה דברים אמורים בעושין בשכרן אבל עושין בסעודתן או שהיה בעל הבית מיסב עמהן מברכין כתיקונה:

Or, in English:

Our Rabbis taught: Labourers working for an employer recite the Shema' and say blessings before it and after it and eat their crust and say blessings before it and after it, and say the tefillah of eighteen benedictions, but they do not go down before the ark¹⁶  nor do they raise their hands [to give the priestly benediction].¹⁷  But it has been taught: [They say] a resume of the eighteen benedictions?¹⁸  — Said R. Shesheth: There is no contradiction: one statement gives the view of R. Gamaliel, the other of R. Joshua.¹⁹  But if R. Joshua is the authority, why does it say 'labourers'? The same applies to anyone! — In fact, both statements represent the view of R. Gamaliel, and still there is no contradiction: one refers to [labourers] working for a wage, and the other to [those] working for their keep;²⁰  and so it has been taught: Labourers working for an employer recite the Shema' and say the tefillah and eat their crust without saying a blessing before it, but they say two blessings after it, namely, [he says] the first blessing²¹  right through²²  and the second blessing he begins with the blessing for the land, including 'who buildest Jerusalem' in the blessing²³  for the land. When does this hold good? For those who work for a wage. But those who work for their keep or who eat in the company of the employer say the grace right through.²¹

Here, it seems that the setama degemara does not reinterpret Rav Sheshet so much as dismiss him outright! (I've seen approaches in which it is Rav Sheshet, or whatever named Amora, who is cast as offering the next suggestion. But this is not so.)

What could we say to defend Rav Sheshet? First, we should understand the machloket between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabban Gamliel says to always say Shemoneh Esrei, while Rabbi Yehoshua says that one may always say Havinenu (the shorter version of Shmoneh Esrei).

So Rav Sheshet wanted to say that source A:

הפועלים שהיו עושין מלאכה אצל בעל הבית קורין ק"ש ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה ואוכלין פתן ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה ומתפללין תפלה של שמונה עשרה אבל אין יורדין לפני התיבה ואין נושאין כפיהם

was Rabban Gamliel, since the only shortcut was אין יורדין לפני התיבה ואין נושאין כפיהם.

Meanwhile, source B, which perhaps read something like this:

הפועלים שהיו עושין מלאכה אצל בעל הבית קורין ק"ש ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה ואוכלין פתן ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה ומתפללין מעין י"ח אבל אין יורדין לפני התיבה ואין נושאין כפיהם

was Rabbi Yehoshua. If this were so, then the objection would not be an objection. The brayta is giving the chiddush that אין יורדין לפני התיבה ואין נושאין כפיהם, but Havinenu is just not a time-saver.

But that is unlikely. Rather, it was more likely source C, with a message something like:

הפועלים שהיו עושין מלאכה אצל בעל הבית קורין ק"ש ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה ואוכלין פתן ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה אבל מתפללין מעין י"ח ואין יורדין לפני התיבה ואין נושאין כפיהם

where this is cast as a time-saving device. If so, the objection the gemara puts to Rav Sheshet is a valid one.

However, consider the Mishnah on 28b, in which Rabban Gamliel vs. Rabbi Yehoshua is presented:

מתני' רבן גמליאל אומר בכל יום ויום מתפלל אדם שמנה עשרה רבי יהושע אומר מעין י"ח ר"ע אומר אם שגורה תפלתו בפיו מתפלל י"ח ואם לאו מעין י"ח 

MISHNAH. RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS: EVERY DAY A MAN SHOULD SAY THE EIGHTEEN BENEDICTIONS. R. JOSHUA SAYS: AN ABBREVIATED EIGHTEEN.¹²  R. AKIBA SAYS: IF HE KNOWS IT FLUENTLY HE SAYS THE ORIGINAL EIGHTEEN, AND IF NOT AN ABBREVIATED EIGHTEEN.

Does this mean that Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that someone may only say the abbreviated eighteen, or that he may say so if he wanted? I would assume the latter, that it is optional. If so, we have a ready answer to the gemara's objection, that

אי ר' יהושע מאי איריא פועלים אפילו כל אדם נמי

Namely, kol adam only is permitted to say it. But poalim are required to say it, in order not to steal their employer's time. So Rabbi Yehoshua. But Rabban Gamliel, who never permits, would not permit / require in this case either.

Or, if you cannot read this into Rabbi Yehoshua, you can certainly read it into Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna.

Or, we can read it into Rabban Gamliel, but as two Tannaim within Rabban Gamliel.

In terms of the setama degemara's resolution, what it has going for it is that it harnesses another explicit distinction provided by Tannaitic sources, between people working for their meal and people working for wages; and we see that the people in this brayta, as in the other brayta about those working for food, may bless before their food. And we can read meaning into the words אצל בעל הבית, to mean in the presence of their employer.

Even so, I don't think that, at the end of the day, the disproof of Rav Sheshet is complete. I think it could quite likely indeed reflect the position of Rabbi Yehoshua.