Berakhot 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

in Genesis 17:5:

there:

there:

there, in Genesis 46:2:

Mishna:

One who was reading

the passage of the Shema

in the Torah

while reading it in order to proofread the scroll,

and the time for reciting the Shema arrived ,

[the time for reciting the Shema],

if he directed his heart

to read it, and not merely to proofread it,

he has fulfilled

his obligation to recite the Shema.

The Mishna specifies the circumstances in which it is permissible to interrupt by speaking in the middle of the recitation of the Shema, and where one may interrupt:

between sections,

between one “section” and the next [and shortly it will be explained what a “section” is],

he asks

— he offers a greeting —

out of respect,

to a distinguished person whom he ought to greet first,

and

also

he responds

to the greeting of a distinguished person who greeted him first .

And in the middle

of a section,

he asks

after the welfare only

out of fear,

of a person whom he fears might kill him if he does not greet him first ,

and

also

he responds

to his greeting [but he does not ask or respond out of respect],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says,

the law governing one who asks differs from the law governing one who responds:

in the middle

of a section,

he asks out of fear and responds

even

out of respect, and

if

between sections he asks out of respect, and

when someone has greeted him first,

he responds to the greeting of anyone.

These are the points between sections:

Between the first blessing, “

Yotzer Or” in the morning and “Ma’ariv Aravim” in the evening,

and the second, “Ahava Rabba” in the morning and “Ahavat Olam” in the evening.

“With abundant love” in the morning service and “An eternal love” in the evening service.

Between

the blessing

and “Shema” .

Between

the end of the passage

“Shema” and

the beginning of the passage

“Vehaya im shamoa.”

Between

the end of the passage

“Vehaya im shamoa” and

the beginning of the passage

“Vayomer.”

Between

the end of the passage

“Vayomer” [

that is, after the words “the Lord your God”]

and “Emet veyatziv.”

Rabbi Judah says: Between “Vayomer” and “Emet veyatziv”

one may not interrupt, [

and the Gemara will explain what their disagreement concerns].

Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: Why does the passage of “Shema” precede “Vehaya im shamoa”

in the order in which they are recited in the “recitation of the Shema”?

So that he first accepts upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven

when he says, “The Lord our God,”

and afterward accepts upon himself the yoke of the mitzvot,

when he says, “And it shall be, if you surely heed My mitzvot.” And why does the recitation of

“Vehaya im shamoa” precede “Vayomer”?

Because

“Vehaya im shamoa”

contains the words “And you shall teach them,” referring to Torah study, which

applies both by day and by night,

whereas in

“Vayomer”

the passage of tzitzit is stated , and its obligation

applies only during the day.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from what we learned, that specifically “if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation”:

we may conclude

in accordance with the view stated [Rosh Hashana 28a] that

mitzvot require intention —

that he must intend to perform the act in order to fulfill his obligation through it .

The Gemara rejects this:

What does “if he directed his heart”

to read

mean? To read from the Torah in the ordinary sense; he need not intend it as a mitzva.

The Gemara challenges this: why must it add that he intended

“to read,” for he is reading

— how could it be that he is reading without intending to read?

And it explains: this refers

to

a person who is

reading in order to proofread

a Torah scroll for errors. His reading is not considered “recitation of the Shema” unless he intended to read [even though he need not intend to fulfill a mitzva through his reading] .

The Sages taught in a baraita: The recitation of the Shema

must be recited

according to its written form,

that is, specifically in the Hebrew language,

the words of Rabbi. And the Sages say,

one may recite it

in every

language.

The Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi’s reason?

The verse says, “And they shall be,”

and its meaning is

they shall remain as they are,

that they must be recited as they were written, in the Hebrew language.

And the Sages, what is their reason?

It says in the verse, “Shema,”

and its meaning is,

“in every language that you hear.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well, is it not written “Shema”!?

And it explains:

That

“Shema”

is needed

to teach one reciting the Shema:

“Make your ear hear what you utter with your mouth!”

But

on the other hand,

the Sages,

who learned from this verse that one may recite it in every language, did not need to learn this from it as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did, because

they hold in accordance with the one who says

that one reciting the Shema, even if he

did not make it heard to his ear, has fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But according to the Sages as well, is it not written “vehayu,”

which implies: they shall be as they are written!?

And it explains:

That is needed

to teach one reciting the Shema that he must recite the words in their proper order,

and not recite them retroactively

—from the end to the beginning—.

But, on the other hand, this is difficult:

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,

who derives from “vehayu” that the Shema must be read exactly as written, specifically in the Holy Tongue—where does he derive

“not to recite it retroactively”?

The Gemara explains:

He derives it from “devarim

—had devarim,”

for it would have been appropriate to say, “And these words shall be,” and the letter heh in the word “the words” is superfluous. It comes to teach that one must say the words in the order in which they are written, and not retroactively.

The Gemara explains:

And the Sages,

who needed to exclude retroactive reading by means of “vehayu,” do not expound the superfluous heh of

“devarim

—had devarim.”

The Gemara infers from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi needed to expound the verse “vehayu” that the Shema must be read specifically as written:

This is to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the entire Torah may be recited in every language,

and there is no need to read the Torah specifically in the Holy Tongue.

If it would enter your mind

that it was stated

specifically in the Holy Tongue,

then the exclusion derived from

“vehayu, which the Merciful One wrote”

with regard to the reading of the Shema—

why do I need it?

After all, the law governing its reading is no less stringent than that governing the reading of the Torah!?

The Gemara rejects this: Even if the entire Torah is read specifically in the Holy Tongue,

it is necessary

to derive from “vehayu” that the Shema too is recited specifically in the Holy Tongue.

Because it is written

in it

“Shema,”

and without the exclusion derived from “vehayu,” we would have said that the meaning of “Shema” is: in every language that you hear. [It is only because of the exclusion derived from “vehayu” that we say that “Shema” is expounded to mean that one must make it heard to his ear.]

The Gemara draws the opposite inference:

This is to say that the Sages hold that the entire Torah was stated in the Holy Tongue,

and the Torah reading must be conducted specifically in the Holy Tongue.

For if it would enter your mind that it was stated in every language, “Shema,” which the Merciful One wrote

to teach that the Shema may be recited in every language that one hears,

why do I need it?

The Gemara rejects this: Even if the entire Torah is read specifically in every language,

it is necessary

to derive from “Shema” that the Shema too may be recited in every language,

because it is written

in it “vehayu,” and without the meaning of “Shema” it would be possible to expound it as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does: that it must be read specifically as written in the Holy Tongue. [Now that “Shema” is written, the Sages expound “vehayu” to teach that it may not be read retroactively.]

The Sages taught: “Vehayu”—that one may not recite it retroactively.

“These words shall be upon your heart.” Could it be that the entire passage requires intention?

The verse states “these,”

to teach that only

up to here,

up to “upon your heart” ,

requires intention,

and if he did not have intention, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

From this point onward, it does not require intention

as an essential condition,

these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.