Simanim 67-69: More Laws of Keriat Shema

            The discussion in the MB centers around the ruling of the SA that one repeats the blessings.  The repetition of KS itself - in its entirety - is not mentioned.  Actually, as mentioned briefly in a previous shiur, there are many opinions regarding how much of KS itself is a Torah obligation.  There are two main sources for the different rulings:

 

            "Does the entire parsha require intention?  We learn [near the beginning of the first paragraph]: and THESE things which I command to you this day, shall be upon your heart - only up to here is intention required.  Thus says R. Eliezer.  R. Akiva said to him, does it not say 'which I command to you [meaning that the commandment is continuing].  From this we can learn that the entire [second] paragraph [also] requires intention.  ... 'Shema Yisrael ... - only thus far is intention required, thus says R. Meir." (Berakhot end of 13a and 13b.)

 

            "R. Yehuda said [in the name of Shmuel], if a person is in doubt if he recited KS he does not need to go back and             read, but if he is in doubt if he said 'emet ve-yatziv' he has to go back.  The reason is that KS is de-rabanan, and 'emet ve-yatziv' is de-oraita. ... R. Eliezer says, if one is in doubt if read KS he has to go back and          read." (Berakhot 21a)

 

            The opinions, as explained in the Pri Chadash to our siman, are as follows:

 

            ALL OF KS IS DE-RABANAN: The Rosh (Responsa kelal 4 at the end) and Tosafot in one place (Sota 32a) rule like Shmuel.  Talmidei Rabbenu Yona explain that even according to Shmuel, one needs to say words of Torah at rising and going to sleep, and ideally KS, so there is no dispute that one fulfills a Torah commandment by reading KS (see Sha'agat Aryeh 1).

 

            THE FIRST VERSE ALONE IS DE-ORAITA: This is the opinion of the Rashba, responsum 320.  The assumption is that only what requires intention - only the first verse, according to R. Meir - is really de-oraita.

 

            THE ENTIRE FIRST PARAGRAPH IS DE-ORAITA: This is the ruling of Rashi (very beginning of Berakhot).  This could follow from the Rashba's approach, if we held like the first opinion on Berakhot 13a that the first paragraph requires intention.

 

            FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS ARE DE-ORAITA: This seems to be the ruling of the Rambam, and this is the conclusion of the Pri Chadash himself.  Only R. Akiva says that one needs intention thus far, but even the first Tanna agrees that one needs to say the whole first two paragraphs.

 

            It is evident from the gemara that the recital of the third paragraph - regarding tzitzit - is not a Torah obligation, as we explained in a previous shiur.

 

MENTIONING THE EXODUS AT NIGHT

 

            Our siman - one of the shortest in the SA (but compare OC 142) - deals with one of the best-known "midrashei halakha" - legal inferences - in Judaism:

 

            "One mentions the Exodus from Egypt at night.  R. Elazar ben Azarya said: Here I am like a seventy year-old, yet I never merited [to infer from the text of the Torah] that the Exodus needs to be mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma taught thus: 'In order that you should remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life:' 'The DAYS of your life' means daytime, 'ALL the days of your life' adds nightime.  Whereas the Sages infer: 'The days of your LIFE' means this world, 'ALL the days of your life'       adds the time of Mashiach.  (Mishna, Berakhot 12b.)

 

            This mishna is recited as part of our people's most widely known "prayer book" - the Hagadda.  It apparently comes there to tell us that the story of the Exodus is so important that not only do we relate it on Pesach night, we need to mention it EVERY night.  (According to Ben Zoma.  According to some Acharonim, the Sages do not disagree.  The Hagadda Shelema of Rav Kasher elaborates on this point.)

 

            The halakha is according to Ben Zoma.  Is this a Torah obligation, as seems to be evident in the Mishna?  See what the MB writes at the end of s.k. 3.  How does this compare with the ruling of the MB on 235:11?

 

ks is a unified whole

 

            It was partially to fulfill the commandment of "zekher le-yetziat mitzrayim" that the sages instituted the recitation of the commandment of tzitzit as part of the performance of KS and inserted "mi-mitzrayim ge'altanu" (You redeemed us from Egypt) as part of the blessing "emet ve-yatziv" following KS.  (At night we say "va-yotzeh et amo yisrael mi-tokham" - Who took His people Israel from out of their [the Egyptians'] midst.)

 

            From the gemara Berakhot 21a above we learn, that just as Shemuel rules that the mitzva to recite words of Torah should be fulfilled specifically by saying KS (as we explained above in the name of Talmidei Rabbenu Yona), so the commandment to mention the exodus should be fulfilled by KS and its blessings.  This then is why one who is in doubt if he mentioned the Exodus should say emet ve-yatziv.  R. Eliezer presumably agrees with this.  This is so, even though there is no special mitzva to mention the Exodus together with KS, and as the MB points out (s.k. 3) this mitzva can be fulfilled even without mentioning any blessing or any verses from the Torah!

 

            The bottom line is that KS is a unit.  If we are in doubt if we fulfilled the mitzva of KS, we recite the entire KS with its blessings, and this is so even according to the opinions that only the first verse or the first paragraph is a Torah requirement.  If  we are in doubt as to whether we mentioned the Exodus, we fulfill this mitzva by saying KS, and if we did not say any other KS we say the berakhot, if it is still during the appropriate time period (MB 3).  Even if we DID fulfill the mitzva of KS, some say that we fulfill the mitzva of remembering the Exodus by reciting the appropriate part of KS and the berakha too (MB 4).

 

 

SIMAN 68 - PI'UTIM (LITURGICAL POEMS) IN THE BLESSINGS OF KS

************************************************************

 

            Even though the rules of prayer are themselves meant to create an atmosphere conducive to proper intention, there can be a tension between rigid adherence to the rules and praying with the right spirit.  We mentioned this before in connection with the time of tefilla - some people just can't summon the proper frame of mind if they are davening "vatikin" at five in the morning, and they are better off finding a time which may be "be-di'avad" according to the strict ruling of the Shulchan Arukh but is "le-khathila" regarding their ability to stand before God and enunciate their prayers.

 

            A similar tension surrounds the saying of pi'utim - poems which have been introduced into the liturgy after the time of the gemara.  On the one hand, if chanted adeptly they contribute tremendously to the experience of the prayer service.  People look forward to going to synagogue to hear the chazan chant "Akdamut" (at Shavu'ot) or "Af Bri" (at Shemini Atzeret) - not to mention Kol Nidrei!  On the other hand, they can constitute a problematic interruption: many communities used to recite Akdamut between the recital of the blessings on and the actual reading of the Torah (MB 494:2).  Af Bri could conceivably be considered an interruption in "mechayeh ha-metim."

 

            We learned in a previous shiur that in a long berakha, one's obligation is fulfilled even if the wording is changed somewhat (BH on 59:4).  But the more significant change of a piyut is the subject of a dispute between the SA and the Rema in our siman.

 

            Another common source of tension occurs when the figurative expression of the poet leads to an expression whose plain sense is religiously problematic.  Igrot Rambam 207 contains a famous tirade.

 

            See Chatam Sofer OH I:166 for a balanced discussion regarding the Selicha prayer "Makhnisei Rachamim" - which the Maharal thought considered heretical since the prayer is directed to the angels, and not to God Himself.

 

NUSACH HA-TEFILLA

 

            The Ari z"l (Rav Yitzchak Luria) had an Ashkenazi father; his mother was Sefardit.  The prayer nusach which he used as the basis of his recorded mystical meditations is a kind of compromise between the nusach of the Ashkenazim and that of the Sefaradim, and it is approximately the same as what we call today "nusach Sefarad," which is the nusach of the Chasidim.  Its introduction into Ashkenazi Europe by congregations influenced by the Ari caused an uproar, even before the Chasidic movement adopted it.

 

            Innumerable responsa have been written on the permissibility of changing one's nusach of prayer; a prominent one is Chatam Sofer I:15.  Note that the MB takes sides in this dispute - s.k. 4.

 

 

SIMAN 69 - PORES AL SHEMA

*************************

 

            "One does not 'pores' on Shema ... with  less than ten."    (Mishna Megilla 23b)

 

            What does the word "pores" mean?

 

*)  Rashi (there) relates it to the word "peras" - a half.  One says only half of the section of the order of prayer involving KS.  This is the explanation of the Shulhan Arukh.

*)  The Arukh (peras 8) explains that the word "pores" means "to say a blessing," as this is the word used in Targum Yonatan to Shemuel I, 9:13 to translate the word "bless."

*) The Geonim say that the word "pores" means to start: don't start saying the Shema unless ten are already present.  (I don't know how they construe "pores" this way.)

*) Jastrow suggests that "pores" has its usual meaning of "spread," and means to put the tallit on top of ones head, as it certainly means in Berakhot 51a in a similar context.  It is a common custom today to wait until just before "barkhu" to put ones tallit over ones head.  (I was once present at a convention of Roshei Yeshiva and observed that most of them did not cover their heads with their tallitot until just before or after yishtabakh.)

 

            Halakhically, "pores al shema" refers to any case where a part of the service requiring ten is said out of order because some or all present did not have a minyan when that part of the service was reached.  Commonly, someone who arrives late for Mincha may recite the first three blessings of the Amida, including the kedusha of the tzibur, before the minyan disperses, or at Shacharit or Ma'ariv a late arrival will want to hear barkhu.

 

            Since prisa al shema by its very nature comes at the end of the regular davening, members of the dispersing minyan may be reluctant to stay, even though they will enable the latecomer to hear barkhu and/or kedusha if they remain. Do they have to?  The book Tefilla Ke-Hilkhata 10:62 brings several opinions that the latecomer can not compel those present to remain.