This teaching reached its fullest flowering in the teachings of the prophet Ezekiel:

And the prophet then continues throughout the whole chapter to elaborate and explain how this new doctrine is different from the former one.

87:
The second parashah of the Shema espouses the earlier concept, that of collective responsibility. This is noticeable immediately in the Hebrew text: whereas the first parashah of the Shema addresses each person individually (using the second person singular) the second parashah addresses the people of Israel collectively (using the second person plural) - "all of you". The parashah proposes a simple thesis: Israel's weal or woe will be a direct result of Israel's obedience (or disobedience) to the mitzvot of the Torah:

This we see that the fate of Israel is dependent on the collective behaviour of the whole people and that that collective behaviour determines whether there will be a plenteous harvest or drought and misery.

To be continued.

In Tefillah 043, paragraph 79 I described the concept of pores al Shema as 'splitting the Shema'. Hayyim Halpern writes:

This is not the only theory nor was it the preferred interpretation by Prof. Shalom Spiegel, our teacher at JTS. He told us that the theories about its meaning ranged from a) begin b) repeat c) bless to d) proclaim e) split (break off?) f) display (citing S. Lieberman). He favored the last explanation and said that the leader would stretch out a scroll of the Torah where the Shma was exposed. Here he also cited Levi Ginzberg. The reasoning had to do with the prohibition vs. reciting from the Torah by heart. Use of the word "al" following the verb "pores" also points in that direction. What a dramatic moment such a practice would be during tefillah!

I respond:

Certainly all these suggestions have been made, and some of them are very convincing - expecially when they come from a source such as Spiegel. It is unlikely that we shall ever know for certain which explanation is the 'correct' one. I would just like to add a few words to explain why I still think that the explanation I gave in Tefillah 043, paragraph 79, is to be preferred.

Firstly, there is the well-known comparison between the way that the congregations in ancient and medieval Eretz-Israel would recite the Shema and the way that they would recite Hallel. While in the case of the Shema the procedure would be as I described it, in the case of Hallel it is said to be different: the cantor would recite out loud the first part of a verse and the congregation, instead of repeating it with him, would respond "Hallelujah". Then the cantor would recite the latter part of a verse and the congregation once again would respond "Hallelujah". This procedure was followed throughout the recitation of Hallel. Thus the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Shabbat 79b] counts 123 times that the congregation would respond in this manner during Hallel. The Babylonian Talmud [Sukkah 38b] calls this method Minhaga de-Haleyla, 'the Hallel Custom' (whereas when reciting the Shema the congregation would only be prompted by the cantor but would recite each verse in its entirety).

Secondly, is the fact that the format called pores al Shema is compared with another method called korekh et Shema. According to the Gemara [Pesaĥim 56a] this method was developed in the city of Jericho. The cantor would read out loud the whole of the Shema, word for word, without stopping, and the congregation would whisper the words with him, his recitation out loud being their prompt. Most importantly for our present discussion, the Gemara there notes that because the people of Jericho adopted this method of reciting the Shema there was never an opportunity to add the doxology Barukh shem kevod malkhuto le'olam va'ed after the first verse.

I do not know why Rabbi Spiegel's reasoning had to do with a prohibition againt reciting from the Torah by heart because today there is no prohibition against reciting the Shema by heart and to the best of my knowledge there never has been. I agree with Hayyim that the method that Rabbi Spiegel described would have been most impressive; but I feel that the method of pores al Shema that I described would also have been impressive. Indeed, often I feel that the fact that the customs of ancient and medieval Eretz-Israel were superceded by the rituals of Babylonian Jewry has deprived us of some very impressive forms of service.