Kri'at Shema - Chapter Four

Berachot 20b relates: A woman’s exemption from Kri’at Shema is obvious. It is a time-oriented commandment [i.e., the Shema must be recited at specific times and is thus classified as “time-oriented”, and women are exempt from all such commandments. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 70:1 rules that although women have no obligation, even Rabbinic, to recite the Shema, it is proper that they do so in order to accept upon themselves the yoke of the sovereignty of Heaven.

This refers to Canaanite slaves who have been sold to a Jewish owner and are obligated by all the commandments that women are obligated to perform. A halachic comparison between the two is found in Chaggigah 4a and Kiddushin 23a.
The Jerusalem Caro quotes a separate source for the exemption of slaves: “Hear O Israel, God our Lord, God is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). He who has no master other than the Almighty [is obligated to recite the Shema], thus exempting the slave, who has another master.

I.e., boys under the age of 13 years and one day. They are minors and exempt from all the Torah’s commandments.

The latter point represents a difference in opinion between Rashi and the Rambam. The Mishnah, Berachot 20a, states that children are free from the obligation to recite the Shema. Rashi states that they are entirely free of obligation even according to Rabbinic Law because their parents may not be available at the specific times at which the Shema must be recited.
The Rambam and Rabbenu Tam differ and maintain that the Mishnah is only referring to the obligations according to Scriptural Law, but according to Rabbinic decree they are obligated. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 70:2 rules in accordance with the Rambam and Rabbenu Tam.

According to Rashi (Berachot 48a) and the Ramban (Milchamot Hashem, Berachot 20b), there is no obligation incumbent on the child himself. Rather, the child’s father is obligated to educate him. If he has no father, the obligation falls on his mother and on the local Rabbinic court (Terumat Hadeshen 99).
Tosafot (Berachot 48a) differs and explains that the Sages placed the obligation on the minor himself. Support for this premise can be derived from the Rambam’s decision in Hilchot Berachot 5:15-16, which states that an adult who ate a small meal can fulfill his obligation to recite grace by listening to a child reciting those blessings (for both are obligated by virtue of Rabbinic decree). Though others object on the grounds that the child himself is not obligated in the mitzvah, the Rambam states that such a practice is acceptable. Thus it appears that he accepts the concept that the obligation for a Rabbinic commandment falls on the child himself.

Berachot 16b differentiates between a bridegroom, who is exempt because of his involvement in a mitzvah, and one whose ship is sinking in the sea. Though the latter individual is also anxious, he is obligated to recite the Shema, because his preoccupation is not with regard to a commandment.

This is based on the principle “One who is involved in one commandment is exempt from another” (Sukkah 25a).

I.e., even though it contains an acceptance of the yoke of the sovereignty of Heaven, he is still exempt
The phrase, Deuteronomy 6:7, ובשבתך בביתך (and while you are sitting in your house) implies that the obligation is only incumbent on someone who is involved in his own personal affairs—“your house.” Thus, it excludes one who is involved in the performance of a mitzvah (Berachot 11a and 16a).

The Mishnah, Berachot 16a, explains the derivation of the bridegroom’s exemption. The phrase “and as you go on your way” implies that the obligation to recite the Shema only applies to someone going on “your way,” i.e., involved in his own personal affairs and not preoccupied with the fulfillment of a mitzvah as is a bridegroom. [In his commentary to that Mishnah, the Rambam mentions that the bridegroom is involved in the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying.]
Rashi explains that this concept could not be derived from the phrase “and while you are sitting in your house,” because if there were only one verse, one would have thought that only one who is actually involved in the performance of a commandment is exempted. Thus, an additional phrase is necessary to exempt a bridegroom, who though not immediately involved in the performance of the mitzvah is in an anxious state, because of the possible problems inherent in the overall situation.

As explained above. Rabbenu Manoach writes in the name of the Ra’avad that the bridegroom is exempt from Kri’at Shema only if he is able to have relations with his wife. However, if she is menstruating or sick, he is obligated to recite the Shema.
Rabbenu Manoach also discusses the different views regarding the bridegroom’s obligation to recite the Shema during the day if he does not engage in relations the first night. He concludes that he should be obligated since “the Jews are a holy people and the bridegroom will be able to divert his thoughts from his wife and concentrate on reciting the Shema.”

This is dependent on the Talmudic custom (Ketubot 2a), which relates that virgins would marry on Wednesday night.

The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 70:3, mentions that bridegrooms were originally exempt from Kri’at Shema for the first three days (i.e., days and nights) after the wedding. However, today, because of the general lack of intention that everyone has regarding Kri’at Shema, even such a bridegroom is obligated to recite the Shema.

On his wedding night.

The mitzvah of procreation.

For there is no question of the woman’s virginity.

Leviticus 21:2-3 mentions the six relatives for whom a person is obligated to mourn: a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister. The Rabbis also added the obligation to mourn for one’s wife or husband. See Hilchot Evel 2:1.

And all the other mitzvot of the Torah (Hilchot Evel 4:6).

The Mishnah, Berachot 17b, states that one who has his dead one “lying in front of him” is exempt from Kri’at Shema. The Talmud (ibid. 18a) explains that any relative waiting to be buried is considered to be “lying in front of him.” This is derived from Abraham’s characterization of Sarah as being in front of him (Genesis 23:4), even though her body was not physically present.

I.e., even if he is not necessarily involved in dealing with the arrangements for the burial or the burial itself, he is exempt, because his mind is distracted (Kessef Mishneh).
The Jerusalem Caro (Berachot 3:1) derives this halachah from Deuteronomy 16:3: “to remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life.” This implies “days that you are involved with the living and not days in which you are involved with the dead.” Since the obligation to remember the Exodus (an integral part of Kri’at Shema—see Chapter 1, Halachot 2 and 3) does not apply on those days when one is involved in dealing with the burial of one’s loved ones, one is also exempted from reciting the Shema at that time.
Sukkah 25a explains that the exemption of a mourner cannot be derived from that of a bridegroom mentioned in Halachah 1. A bridegroom’s lack of concentration stems from his involvement with a mitzvah. In contrast, the mourner’s inability to concentrate is a personal matter. Rashi elaborates: Though mourning is a mitzvah, the pain associated with mourning is not.
The Jerusalem Caro notes that a mourner should not voluntarily recite the Shema. It is a sign of disrespect to the departed for their relatives to recite the Shema before they have been buried.

I.e., guarding the body from an animal or other damage. (See Berachot 18a.)

Since a person involved in one commandment is exempt from another. (See the notes to Halachah 1.)

As opposed to the actual mourners, the watchmen are obligated to recite the Shema if they are able to. Their exemption is not based on their distracted condition, but on their involvement in the commandment. Therefore, if another is able to guard the body for a few moments, the guard must recite the Shema. However, if there is no one to relieve the guard, he is not allowed to recite the Shema (Mishnah Berurah 71:12).
The watchers must remove themselves in order not to recite the Shema within 6 feet of the dead person. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and notes.)

See Berachot 14b. His exemption is also based on the principle that one involved in a commandment is exempt from another. The Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim 71: 13) points out that even while he is resting for a few moments, the gravedigger is still exempt, because his resting is also part of the mitzvah, since by resting he gains strength to continue his task.

Rashi, Berachot 19a, explains that doing so will prevent many people from reciting the Shema.

Berachot, ibid., questions the above statement, noting that when Rav Yosef died, his body was taken out for burial close to the time of Kri’at Shema. The Caro answers that a great man is different—i.e., for a man of Rav Yosef’s stature, even Kri’at Shema is postponed in order to honor his greatness.
Neither Rav Yitzchak Alfasi nor Rabbenu Asher mention this passage, indicating that they do not feel that it is halachically relevant. The Tur (Orach Chayim 72) mentions the Rambam’s view, but adds that his father, Rabbenu Asher, did not differentiate between important and normal people.
The Beit Yosef explains that, at present, there is no person of a stature that we would not delay his burial in order to recite the Shema at its proper time. Therefore, the halachah is not in force. The Shulchan Aruch also omits reference to it.
The Magen Avraham mentions that the prohibition against burying someone close to the time of Kri’at Shema relates only to Kri’at Shema in the morning. However, in the early evening, one should first bury the body and then recite the Shema, or recite the Shema early enough to allow the burial to take place before nightfall, so that the person will be buried as close to the day of his death as possible.

I.e., they have yet to carry it.

I.e., they have already carried it. It is customary for several people to carry the coffin, in order to involve themselves in the mitzvah.

The Mishnah, Berachot 17b, states:
The bearers of the coffin, their replacements and those who in turn will relieve the replacements, the ones
before the coffin and the ones after the coffin—the ones who are before it and are required to [carry] the coffin
are exempt. Those who are after it, even if they are required to [carry] the coffin, are obligated [to recite the
Shema].
This certainly seems to differentiate between those before and after the coffin and indicates clearly that those who have already carried the coffin are indeed obligated to recite the Shema, unlike the halachah written by the Rambam.
Rashi explains that those who have already carried the coffin are obligated to recite the Shema, even though they may be needed to carry it again, because they have already fulfilled their obligation.
There is, however, another version of the Mishnah. See Tosafot in Berachot 17b and most printed versions of the Mishnah (Rabbinic edition, Kahati, Mossad Harav Kook edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah). It states:
The bearers of the coffin and their replacements and those who in turn will relieve the replacements, the ones
before the coffin and the ones after the coffin—the ones who are required to [carry] the coffin—are exempt.
And those who are not required to [carry] the coffin are obligated to recite the Shema.
The Mishnah in this form can serve as the source for the Rambam’s halachah. The “are exempt” term in the halachah refers back to all the cases written before it, including “the ones after the coffin.”

Because, as stated in the Mishnah: “And those who are not required to [carry] the coffin are obligated to recite the Shema.” The people are accompanying the body simply as a token of honor for the dead person, but are not so preoccupied in the performance of a mitzvah such that they would be exempt from Kri’at Shema. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 72:1 and Yoreh De’ah 358:1 quote the Rambam’s opinion.

See Berachot 19a.

In order not to recite the Shema in his presence, for doing so is considered as mocking the deceased, as it were.

But not all at once, because this is lacking in respect for the deceased.

I.e., there is then no problem of embarrassing the dead by performing commandments.

This halachah also underscores the fact that the exception for mourners is not conditional on their involvement in the care for the deceased. In our case, the deceased is not present and the mourner is sitting silent, and yet he is still not obligated because of his distracted state (see Halachah 3).

The people form a שורה—a line (or lines) around the mourners. Afterwards, they offer their condolences one by one, as they pass before the mourners (Hilchot Evel 13:1, 2). Others interpret the שורה as two lines facing each other. The mourners then walk between these two lines, and as they pass, the people offer their condolences.
The people are generally accustomed to say: “May God comfort you among the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.”

Directly before the mourners.

The recitation of the Shema.
The above is conditional upon there being enough time afterwards to recite the Shema. However, if the third hour is passing, the Shema should be recited immediately (Kessef Mishneh).

Rabbenu Yonah explains that not only the burial of the dead, but also the consoling of the mourners is part of the commandment of גמילות חסדים (acts of loving-kindness). In his Commentary to the Mishnah Pe’ah 1:1, the Rambam divides acts of loving-kindness into two categories: a) those one does with his money, such as charity, b) those one does with his body—e.g., comforting mourners and accompanying the dead to burial.
Rabbenu Yonah states explicitly that this is a Torah commandment. The Rambam, however, is of the opinion that burying the dead, comforting the mourners, and all acts of lovingkindness are Rabbinic commandments. In Hilchot Eivel 14:1, he writes:
It is a positive commandment of Rabbinic origin to visit the sick, comfort those mourning, take out the dead,
bring in the bride, accompany guests [from your house] and to involve oneself in those things necessary for
burial—i.e., to carry [the coffin] on his shoulders, to walk before him, to eulogize him, to dig [the grave] and to
bury him.
The Rambam’s classification of these commandments as of Rabbinic origin creates a problem for us. How are we to understand the halachot we have just learned?
The Rambam has taught us that those involved in the burial of the dead and the comforting of the mourners are exempt from reciting the Shema, based on the principle that those involved in the performance of one commandment are exempt from another. According to Rabbenu Yonah, who understands גמילות חסד (acts of lovingkindness) to be Torah commandments, this is easily comprehended. However, according to the Rambam, how can involvement in a Rabbinic commandment exempt one from the fulfillment of a Torah obligation, especially one as central as Kri’at Shema?
The answer to this question depends on the continuation of Hilchot Eivel, ibid.:
Even though all these commandments are of Rabbinic origin, they are included [in the command] ואהבת לרעך
כמוך (“Love your fellow as yourself,” Leviticus 19:18). All those things that you would want others to do for you
in the realm of Torah and commandments, you should do for your colleague.
Thus, the Rabbinic commandments regarding acts of loving-kindness are the specific ways established by the sages to express the Torah commandment of “Love your fellow as yourself.” Accordingly, although these commandments are Rabbinic in origin, since their ultimate source is found in a Torah commandment, the rule that “one performing one commandment is exempt from another” applies to them as well.

This is in accordance with the beraita quoted in Berachot 19b. The Ra’avad understands, however, that the words “inner line” in the beraita refer to the inner circle—i.e., the family of the mourners. It is the Rambam’s position which is most widely accepted.

The Mishnah (Berachot 16b) records a difference of opinion whether a bridegroom may recite the Shema on the first night or not.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel states: “Not everyone who wants to take the name may take it,” (i.e., not everyone may pronounce God’s name whenever he pleases). The Sages differ and allow the Shema’s recitation.

The Sages maintain that a person has the potential to compose himself to the extent that he can recite the Shema with proper intention. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that this is not possible for most people. Indeed, a person who does so is considered to be acting haughtily, implying that he has the power to concentrate when most people cannot.

If he cannot compose himself, even the Sages agree that the Shema should not be recited.
The Rambam follows the majority position of the Sages. Rabbenu Asher accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. However, Tosafot (ibid. 17b) explains that at present, our level of concentration has changed and all bridegrooms should recite the Shema. Any bridegroom who does not recite the Shema would be acting haughtily by intimating that usually he has a very high level of concentration. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 70:3 accepts Tosafot’s position. (See also the notes to Halachah 2.)
As mentioned above, a mourner should not recite the Shema for it is disrespectful to the deceased to imply that one could still concentrate on the Shema despite their passing. (See Shulchan Aruch 71:1 and commentaries.)

By immersing in the mikveh.

Before the time for the Shema passes. It is not necessary to make that effort and the person may recite the Shema in an impure state.

Leviticus 11:39 deems such a person as ritually impure.

Leviticus 15:19 states that not only a woman in the nidah state, but anyone or anything she touches contracts ritual impurity.

The term refers to a woman who experiences uterine bleeding for three consecutive days at a time other than the days when she usually menstruates (Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 1:6). Leviticus 15:25 equates the ritual impurity of such a woman with that of a woman in the nidah state.

See Leviticus 15:10 which explains that even a surface that someone which such impurity sat upon imparts impurity.

E.g., one who touches either a man with zav discharges or someone who contracts ritual impurity by contact with a corpse.

Leviticus 15:16 deems such a person as ritually impure. However, as above, that would not affect his ability to read the Shema.

This decree was one of 10 decrees issued by Ezra’s court (Bava Kama 82a).
Berachot 22a explains that the decree mentioned in our halachah was designed to restrain somewhat the physical relationships of the Torah scholars with their wives.

Berachot 22a relates that since this was only a Rabbinic decree, certain leniencies could be observed regarding this immersion.

See also Hilchot Tefillah 4:4-6 and notes.
It must be emphasized that though there is no need to immerse oneself in a mikveh, it is necessary to wash for it is forbidden to recite words of Torah with any traces of semen on his body. See Rama, Orach Chayim 76:4.

I.e., because of the inability of the Jewish people to maintain this very high level of purity, the decree was never really accepted as law.

Berachot 22a relates that once one of Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira’s students was mumbling his words. When asked by Rabbi Yehudah to explain his behavior, he stated that he not been able to immerse himself after having a seminal emission. Rabbi Yehudah told him to speak up without embarrassment for the words of Torah cannot contract ritual impurity.

I.e., even one in a state of ritual impurity may involve himself in Torah study and prayer, because the Torah is unaffected by his impurity (Berachot, ibid.).
The Kessef Mishneh differentiates between physical filth, which renders the recitation of the Shema impossible (as we learned in Chapter 3), and ritual impurity, which does not affect it.
Our awareness of the presence of physical filth produces a subjective response to its somewhat disgusting nature. This response, in turn, has ramifications regarding the honor of the Torah studied in such a place.
Ritual impurity is, however, a wholly metaphysical reality, and that particular reality has no ability to affect the Torah.

Thus, the differentiation made above has its basis, not on human logic, but on Divine decree. Deuteronomy 23:13 teaches: “And your camp shall be holy,” forbidding the recitation of the Shema in the presence of physical filth. In contrast, the verse from Jeremiah quoted above clearly implies the inability of ritual impurity to exert its influence over the words of Torah (Kessef Mishneh).

This decision alludes to a fundamental concept regarding the nature of Torah study. On one hand, we see Torah study as being associated with the student, as obvious from the law, Hilchot Caro Torah 5:11, that allows a Torah scholar to forgo the honor due him. Although that honor is not being paid to him personally, but to the Torah knowledge he possesses, that Torah is considered his to the extent that he can forego the honor. Nevertheless, even while Torah is associated with the person studying it, its essential Godly nature remains intact to the extent that it cannot contract ritual impurity.