Siman 64-65: Errors in Reading Keriat Shema

"One who read Shema inaudibly has fulfilled his obligation; R. Yosi says, he has not fulfilled.

If he read without being precise in the letters, R. Yosi says he has fulfilled his obligation; R. Yehuda says he has not fulfilled.

One who reads out of order has not fulfilled his obligation; if he erred, he returns to the place where he erred." (Mishna Berakhot 15a)

 

The reason that reading in order is required is given in a beraita Berakhot 13a, mentioned in MB s.k. 1.

 

            The mishna only refers to mixing up a particular parsha, but the order of the paragraphs is not vital.  If so, what is the basis for the customary order?

 

The mishna Berakhot 13a explains:

"VE-AHAVTA" comes first to teach that accepting the yoke of God's kingship (the verse "Shema Yisrael") precedes the yoke of the commandments.

"VE-HAYA" precedes "VA-YEDABER" since learning Torah (mentioned in "ve-haya") is obligatory day and night, whereas tzitzit (mentioned in "va-yedaber") are obligatory only during the day.

 

The gemara 14b explains:

"Ve-ahavta" contains learning (ve-dibarta bam), teaching (ve-shinantam le-vanekha) and doing (tefillin and mezuza).

"Ve-haya" contains teaching (ve-limadtem otam le-vaneikhem) and doing (tefillin and mezuza).

"Va-yEdaber" contains only doing (tzitzit).

 

            Perhaps we can reconcile these explanations as follows: the paragraph which teaches us the precedence of God's kingship must tell us that this is prior to ALL aspects of the commandments: learning, teaching, and doing.  And the mitzva of learning Torah, mentioned in "VE-HAYA", is obligatory day and night not merely by decree - as we could say of tefillin, which according to one opinion in the gemara is obligatory only in the daytime - but by its very nature.  Learning Torah is not merely incumbent on us in the daytime and in the nighttime, but ALL the time! (See Menachot 99b)

 

            Here is another complementary explanation:

            It is logical that va-yedaber comes last, since it is not really part of KS at all but merely appended to it to fulfill the commandment to mention the Exodus from Egypt, and to mention other important principles of faith (Berakhot 12b).  The order of the first two paragraphs is also logical, since they appear in the order of mention in the Torah (see Tosafot Berakhot 14b s.v. Lama), and also because according to many opinions only the first paragraph is a Torah commandment (Berakhot end of 13a and start of 13b, see MB 63:16).

 

DO WE RULE LIKE THE SHULCHAN ARUKH?

 

The BH s.v Af al pi is a bit cryptic if one has not seen the Gra and the Tosefta.  The Tosefta says that if one entered Beit Kenesset in the middle of KS, one reads with the congregation until the end, then starts over and reads FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END - it is not enough to go up only to the place where one started.  This seems to contradict our siman, which says that mixing up the order of paragraphs is not a fatal error.  Some Acharonim rule like the Tosefta.

 

            The BH does not resolve this contradiction.  Could the principle mentioned in MB s.k. 4 be a possible solution?

 

WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ERROR?

 

            This siman tells us what to do if we made an error, but it does not tell us what is considered an error, except as regards the order of the portions.  Evidently, the criteria are the same as those for reading the Torah: all letters must be read (MB 62:1), but if the vocalization or accent is incorrect, the reading is valid as long as the meaning is not altered by the mistake (Rema OC 142:1).

 

 

SIMAN 65 - INTERRUPTIONS IN RECITING KRIAT SHEMA

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

 

            The Rabbis taught: If one was in the middle of praying [the Amida] and he felt water running down his leg [due to incontinence] one should stop until the water stops and then go back and pray.  Where does he go back to?  Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna [disputed this]: one says he goes back to the beginning, and the other says, he goes back to where he left off. ...  Everyone agrees that if the interruption was so long that he could have finished the whole [Amida], he has to start over, and the disagreement occurs if he did not wait [so long].  One holds that one in such a state [one who started praying when he would imminently experience incontinence] is not fit to pray at all and his prayer is not considered prayer at all, and one holds that such a one is fit and his prayer is valid.  (End of Berakhot 22b.)

 

            R. Abahu was once following R. Yochanan and reading KS.  When he reached a filthy alleyway he stopped.  He then asked R. Yochanan, where should I start over from?  He replied: if you interrupted for a time long enough to read it all, start from the beginning. (Berakhot 24b, Rosh HaShana 34b)

 

            The gemara then points out that this contradicts R. Yochanan's view that one may say KS in a filthy alley (Berakhot) or his view that one need not start over (Rosh HaShana) and concludes that R. Yochanan was only telling R. Abahu how he should apply his own customary ruling, but he himself rules that one need not start over.  This accords with R. Yochanan's opinion regarding shofar: one may hear the different shofar blasts over an extended period of time.

 

            The Rif reconciles these rulings by distinguishing between TEFILLA and OTHER COMMANDMENTS.  The degree of continuity required for tefilla is much greater, as we find in other areas such as the permissibility of interrupting in the middle for respect or awe; likewise, any long interruption requires starting over.  This is the consensus mentioned on Berakhot 22b-23a.  But for KS, shofar, etc, we always return to where we left off.

 

            Tosafot (Berakhot 22b, s.v. Ela) reconciles by distinguishing between VOLUNTARY and INVOLUNTARY interruptions:

 

            An INVOLUNTARY interruption, such as one who is experiencing incontinence, is a FUNDAMENTAL interruption.  If it persists the length of the entire recitation, then one must start over.

 

            A VOLUNTARY interruption, such as deciding to stretch out the shofar blasts, is INCIDENTAL and does not require starting over.  It follows that the two different rulings of R. Yochanan are connected: SINCE he rules that it is permissible to say KS in an alley, it follows that an interruption there is only INCIDENTAL.  THEREFORE, there is no need to start over.  But even R. Yochanan admits to the principle of Tosafot: A FUNDAMENTAL -that is, unavoidable - interruption lasting long enough to finish the recitation (of KS, prayer, Hallel, shofar, etc.) obligates starting over from the beginning.

 

            The Rambam agrees with the Rif, and so the Beit Yosef, and subsequently the Shulchan Arukh, concurs with this "majority" ruling - the Beit Yosef considers two out of three of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh to be a decisive majority.  (Obviously his rulings tend to be in accordance with Sefaradi custom, since the Rif and the Rambam came from Spain and North Africa, while the Rosh came from Ashkenaz but wrote most of his halakhic works in Spain.)

 

            The Rema rules in accordance with Ashkenazi custom, like the Tosafot and the Rosh.  This is also the view of the Rashba.

 

            Which side does the MB take?  See end of s.k. 2.  The ruling seems surprising, but is well explained by the MB in the reference which he gives here.

 

WHAT IS CONSIDERED "ONESS" - "DURESS?"

 

            Obviously if one is halakhically unable to continue then one's interruption is compulsory.  What about a purely practical duress?  This question is discussed in the Magen Avraham s.k. 2.  See what the MB rules in s.k. 2.  The Arukh Ha-Shulchan upholds the opposite view.

 

AN INTENTIONAL INTERRUPTION (MEZID)

 

            On the one hand, an intentional interruption is the ultimate VOLUNTARY interruption; therefore it should not be considered an interruption at all.

 

            On the other hand, we could say that the reason a voluntary interruption is not fatal is because in a sense it is no interruption at all - really I am just "taking my time."  Whereas an involuntary interruption imposes itself on me - even though I intend to continue, I can not ignore the fact that there has been a cessation.  According to this point of view, an intentional distraction is the worst of all, because I don't even intend to maintain continuity.

 

            The posekim dispute this case.  See the MB's point of view in s.k. 1 and his reasoning in BH s.v. Bein be-mezid.

 

MEASURING THE INTERRUPTION

 

            The definition of "enough to finish it all" is given by the Rema at the end of se'if 1 and the MB s.k. 3.

 

            What about many short interruptions?  See MB at the very end of s.k. 4.

 

BETWEEN THE PARSHIOT OF KS

 

            Since we learned in the previous siman that the order of the parshiot is not vital, it would seem that each one is a separate unit and that even a long interruption between parshiot should not be fatal.  This question is posed in the Yerushalmi (Berakhot 2:1):

 

            "R. Elazar says, he fulfilled his obligation; R. Yochanan   says, he has not fulfilled.  Their dispute is only by KS             since it is made up of separate sections, but regarding      Hallel and Megilla, even R. Elazar concedes [that if one             delayed long enough to finish that he must start over]."

 

            (Even though we just learned that  R. Yochanan rules that one never needs to start over, here R. Yochanan is transmitting the ruling of R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak - Rash Sirilio - or the Yerushalmi holds that R. Yochanan is lenient by Megilla, Hallel, shofar, etc. - but not by KS - Rashba.)

 

            The BH points out that this is identical to the question of how long the interruption must be: if each parsha is separate, then an interruption between parshiot may be of any length, but in the middle of a parsha one may not have an interruption longer than that specific parsha.  If KS is one unit, then even between parshiot is considered an interruption, but an interruption is relevant only if it is as long as the entire KS.

 

            The Derekh Ha-Chaim (KS 7) rules that KS is one unit.  What does the BH infer from the Rashba?  Is it possible to understand the Rashba differently?