Berakhot 036

1:
Marriages – at least first marriages – in ancient Israel usually took place on Wednesday nights. The reason is terribly unromantic: if the blushing bride was not found to be virgo intacta the courts would be sitting on Thursday morning and the new husband would be able to immediately press charges against his wife's father [Deuteronomy 22:13-21. (The courts sat in the major towns on Mondays and Thursdays, which were market days.)

2:
Our mishnah assumes that the new husband would not be able to summon up the necessary concentration to recite the Shema properly. I bring here Rambam's commentary on this part of our mishnah:

3:
We, today, must find many aspects of Rambam's explanation worrying, but let us assume that he is reflecting the mores of his age – and probably those of the Talmudic age as well. Firstly, while it is true that what we would consider today to be an undue (and unhealthy) over-emphasis of virginity was considered in earlier times to be de rigeur. Secondly, the mitzvah does not have to be seen only as 'procreation'; even halakhically speaking there is another aspect to sexual intercourse within the bond of marriage – what is referred to in the last of the Seven Marriage Blessings as "love, companionship, peace and friendship". Thirdly, as Rambam had to admit, the bridegroom's lack of concentration might just as easily be attributed to normal healthy sexual excitement and apprehension as to a possibly psychotic obsession with his bride's virginity. And fourthly, only one half of the partnership has been discussed here. (Perhaps there are more 'problems' with Rambam's explanation, but these seem to me to be the main ones.)

To be continued.

I bring here a question sent by Elizabeth Weinberg, because of its relevance to today's mishnah:

Given that it is not clear if women are expected to say the Shema at all, how many of these rules about how to say it would be binding on women? What could be considered a normative expectation for a religious Jewish woman?

I respond:

I wickedly beg indulgence. This issue is the topic of the third mishnah of the next chapter. Please let us not anticipate yet. I promise to post the question again then.

---

Hillel Gray has sent the following, which is prompted by the following excerpt from mishnah 2:3 If one does not let one's ear hear one has fulfilled the duty; Rabbi Yosé says otherwise.

Our Havurah has been working on accessibility issues and recently had a guest talk by a Jewish deaf activist. Consider the case of a Jew who cannot "let one's ear hear" their own recitation of the Shema. How does the Mishnah's interpretation of Shema as "hear", and not just "understand", fit in the context of historic Rabbinic rules about the deaf? And how would this fit in a modern (e.g. Conservative) halakhic analysis?

The halakhah in the mishnah referred to follows Tanna Kamma on this issue and not Rabbi Yosé. Therefore, while it is preferable to physically let one's ear hear what one's mouth is saying, if one has not done so the duty has nevertheless been performed. This is another instance of the le-khatĥilah and be-di-avad dichotomy that I explained in an earlier shiur. A deaf person therefore may fulfill their duty of reciting the Shema by mouthing the words (or even by sight-only reading) without actually hearing the words.

Next Shiur