Berakhot 047

It is noteworthy that Raved's logic stems directly from the Mishnah, and hence is saying nothing new. Be that as it may, the Mishnah differs slightly in that there the situation seems to be one who already is reading Torah, whereas here the case is that one is reading Shema "lishmah" [for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzvah] and not merely for studying, but would be considered as having studied even though his intent was not sufficient. It is a strange kettle of fish when one gets down to it. In the Mishnah it teaches that if one is reading Torah and reads Shema with proper intent [kavvanah], then one has fulfilled that Torah obligation. In his argument, Raved is suggesting not only that one should do it anyway, because Torah study is always appropriate, but a more sinister idea: the possibility of proper but insufficient intent. That last notion is a scary one. Think of its implications beyond our current problem. If, for example, it was a truly halakhic concept, (i.e. that it is not how something is done, or its intent, but the sufficiency of intent) then others can always make justifiable and yet false claims against those with whom they differ.

I respond:

Rambam had said that one should not recite the Shema unless one were sufficiently calm and collected to call forth the requisite concentration (which is not exactly "intent" here). Ra'ved says that there is another mitzvah involved here as well as the duty to recite the Shema: the mitzvah of accepting upon oneself the Sovereignty of Heaven, for which one does not need to be "calm and collected". In order to counteract a possible riposte that such a recitation would be taking the Divine Name in vain he adds that it would not be any different to simply quoting from the Torah, which is always permissible. We shall return to this in our study of Mishnah Three.

Mark Levenson has a question about my explanation (#3 of the shiur Berakhot 045) regarding the recitation of the first, single verse of the Shema as fully meeting the obligation to recite the Shema according to "Rabbi". Earlier, we learned
that the "night-time" Shema did not fulfill this obligation because it did not include the necessary berakhot before and after the Shema. Now, we seem to learn that the obligation can be met without reciting those berakhot. How are these two teachings resolved?

I respond:

As we have seen above and as we shall see in the next mishnah, there are two mitzvot involved here. The mitzvah of reciting the Shema and the (interconnected) mitzvah of "accepting the yoke of Divine Sovereignty". According to rabbinic interpretation, the Torah requires the recitation of all three paragraphs of the Shema in order to fulfill the mitzvah of Keri'at Shema; however the recitation of the first line is sufficient to fulfill the other mitzvah. I think that Mark has misunderstood something about the berakhot. All the sages would agree that someone who recites all three paragraphs of Keri'at Shema without the berakhot has fulfilled the Torah obligation – both in the evening and in the morning. The reciting of the associated berakhot is an institution of the rabbis (as are all the berakhot). Omitting them, therefore, would be an infringement of rabbinic law, but would not affect the Torah obligation.

The following message has been sent by Jack Lipinsky and it concerns the custom of the shurah that I mentioned in Berakhot 045 as still being the custom in Eretz-Israel. He writes:

This is perfectly true, and I would simply like to add the important caveat that this is the required practice today. It is cited by Lamm in his book on Jewish Mourning, and more to the point in our Conservative milieu, it is cited by our late musmakh Rabbi Isaac Klein. In his excellent Guide to Jewish religious practice, pg. 289, he cites Greenwald's Kol Bo Al Avelut to the effect that "the first act of condolence takes place when the mourners leave the grave, passing through an aisle formed by two rows of well wishers." Greenwald was a North American, and I have been to enough funerals to note that here in Toronto, in Galut, this is indeed the practice and should be universally observed, not merely in Eretz Yisrael.