Berakhot 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Akiva said to him: For it says

Exact page location")

“which I command you today upon your heart.”

But if your statement is correct—that intention is required only up to this point—it should have said in the past tense, “which I commanded you.” It necessarily follows:

from this you learn that

also

the entire passage requires intention,

for “upon your heart” is stated with regard to all of it.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

that the entire first passage requires intention .

Some teach it

in connection with the statement of Rabba bar bar Hana,

with regard to the following beraita:

One who recites the Shema must direct his heart

to understanding the words in the first two passages.

Rabbi Aha said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Once he has directed his heart in the first chapter, he need not do so again.

And concerning this,

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Aha, who said in the name of Rabbi

Yehuda,

that intention in the first chapter alone is sufficient .

It was taught in another beraita: “Vehayu,”

teaches

that one may not recite it retroactively.

“Upon your heart”—

Rabbi Zutra says:

the verse comes to teach that

up to here,

up to the words “upon your heart,”

there is a mitzva of intention. From this point onward, there is a mitzva of recitation

alone, and he need not have intention.

Rabbi Yoshiyya says:

“Upon your heart” comes to teach the opposite:

up to here,

until the end of the first passage, there is also

a mitzva of recitation.

But

from this point onward,

in the second passage, there is only

a mitzva of intention

alone.

The Gemara discusses their statements and explains their intention:

The Gemara assumed that according to Rabbi Zutra, the first passage contains only “a mitzva of intention,” and not a mitzva of recitation. His words are seemingly difficult.

For

what is the difference with regard to “from this point onward,”

the second passage, which contains

a mitzva of recitation,

because

it is written

in it

“to speak of them,”

when

here too,

the first passage contains a mitzva of recitation, because

it is written

in it as well

“and you shall speak of them”!?

The Gemara explains:

This is what

Rabbi Zutra

is saying:

until the end of the first passage, there are

a mitzva of intention and

also a mitzva of

recitation.

But

from this point onward, in the second passage, there is only a mitzva of

recitation, without intention.

recitation, without intention.

The Gemara still discusses Rabbi Zutra’s words:

And what is the difference

with regard to the first passage , about which he said

“up to here there are a mitzva of intention and a mitzva of recitation,”

because

it is written

in it

“upon your heart,”

to teach about the mitzva of intention, and it also says in it

“and you shall speak of them”

to teach about the mitzva of recitation?

There too,

in the second passage,

is it not

written “upon your hearts,”

and it also says in it

“to speak of them”? If so, why does it not also contain a mitzva of intention!?

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Zutra holds that

that

“upon your hearts,” stated in the second passage, was not stated at all with regard to intention. Rather,

it is needed to

teach

in accordance with Rabbi Yitzhak, who said: “And you shall place these words of Mine

upon your hearts”—the verse teaches that

there must be a placing,

the placement of the arm tefillin,

opposite the heart.

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Yoshiyya’s words:

The Master said: Rabbi Yoshiyya says, “Up to here there is a mitzva of recitation. From this point onward there is a mitzva of intention.”

The Gemara asks:

What is the difference with regard to “from this point onward,”

in the second passage, which contains

a mitzva of intention because it is written “upon your hearts”? Here too,

in the first passage,

is it not written “upon your heart”?

The Gemara explains:

This is what

Rabbi Yoshiyya

is saying:

up to here, in the first passage, there are also

a mitzva of recitation

and

also a mitzva of

intention.

But

from this point onward,

in the second passage, there is only a mitzva of

intention, without recitation.

The Gemara still discusses Rabbi Yoshiyya’s words:

And what is the difference

with regard to the first passage, about which he said

“up to here there are mitzvot of recitation and intention,”

because

it is written

in it

“upon your heart”

to teach about the mitzva of intention, and it also says in it

“and you shall speak of them”

to teach about the mitzva of recitation?

There too,

in the second passage,

is it not written “upon your hearts,”

and it also says in it

“to speak of them,”

so why does it not also contain a mitzva of recitation?

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoshiyya holds that

that

“to speak of them” was not stated at all with regard to the recitation of the Shema , but

it is written with regard to words of Torah.

For it says there, “And you shall teach them to your children, to speak of them.”

And this is what the Merciful One is saying: Teach your children

Torah, so that they may be well versed in it.

InAvi Ezri he brought in the name of the Gra of Vilna that they instituted to lengthen in "Echad" and not in "Hashem Elokeinu", because "Hashem Elokeinu" corresponds to "Anochi Hashem" and that is His essence, blessed be He, in which there is no concept of up and down and four directions is not fitting to be given bounds. Only in "Echad" which corresponds to "Lo yihiyeh lecha" it suffices that he accepts the Kingdom of Heaven within these bounds, for all possibility to make other gods is only within these bounds. See further in Ba'adras Eliyahu and in Nefesh HaChaim and in Hilchot Shlomo . Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: andthis is specifically when he lengthensinthe utterance of theDalet —that is, the letter Dalet of "Echad", by which he intends to enthrone Hashem over the four directions— and not when he lengthens in the letter Het. Rashi explained "that he should make in his heart 'unique in the heavens and the earth and to its four winds'" and the Gra scrutinized that he intends everything in the Dalet, and not like the words of Rabbenu Yonah that in the Dalet he intends only the four directions, whereas in the Het he intends the heavens and the earth, and in Shulchan Aruch he ruled like Rabbenu Yonah. And the Beit Yosef wrote that one should not emphasize the Dalet overly, Vayikra Bechorot? wrote that he should stress it in the breath of air he expels from his mouth, and not lengthen the Dalet as an axial point, and VehaShelah warned that by the emphasis it appears as a point in vain, and in Shulchan Aruch of the Gra he wrote that he should not lengthen except in his thought, and he can continue his intent after finishing the utterance, and its source is from Terumat HaDeshen and Magen Avraham that he should intend adjacent to the utterance, and see also "nearby". For as long as he has not pronounced the Dalet there is no meaning to the word "Echad" and what purpose is served by lengthening it Rashi. And theRosh wrote that he should not lengthen the Alef so that it will not look like saying "ei chad", and Beit Yosef wrote that its source is in the Jerusalem Talmud. And Magen Avraham brought in the name of the Geonim that in the Alef they almost stutter, and they lengthen the Het by a third and the Dalet by two thirds. Rav Ashi said: provided that he does not stutter inthe utterance of theHet the letter Het of "Echad". That he should not speed through the Het because in his haste he will read it as a sheva instead of a kamatz, and it will be as if he did not say "Echad" at all Rashi, see Ma'adanei Yom Tov]. And Rabbenu Yonah wrote that from here it implies that one must lengthen slightly in the Het so that he will enthrone Him in heaven and earth, for which reason the little tuft on the roof of the Het hints, as explained in Menachot . But from Rashi above it implies that he should not lengthen nor intend in the Het at all but only in the Dalet [see Mishnah Berurah there]. And possibly in this matter the later authorities differed, whether one must lengthen in the utterance of the Dalet such that the length is relative to the Het, or that the length is in thought and entirely in the Dalet alone. Rabbi Yirmeya sat before Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba; he saw Rabbi Chiyya to Rabbi Yirmeya that he would lengthen greatly in the utterance of "Echad", he said to him: since that lengthening is for a measure in which you enthrone Him acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, with your intent that Hashem is One above and below and for the four winds of the heavens, you need not lengthen further. InShulchan Aruch he wrote "provided that he does not lengthen more", and Pri Chadash remarked that in that style it implies that he simply does not need to lengthen, but there is no prohibition in doing so. And it is possible to explain according to the words of the Gra at the end of the writings of the Gaon Ch that "one must lengthen" is not the legal demand of the intent required in saying "Echad", for there is no fixed measure to intent, rather it is a measure fixed to the length of the utterance, and on that account it was ruled that one should not lengthen more. But Rabbi Chiyya told Rabbi Yirmeya that one need not intend further [and thereby will shorten the measure of the utterance]. And it is possible that the source of the Shulchan Aruch to limit the length is because it is not counted among the matters that one lengthens for [see below ], for it is not like other matters whose virtue is in the very lengthening, whereas in the Kriat Shema the bound of length is according to the intent required. And see in Igrot Moshe . Rav Natan bar Mar Ukva said in the name of Rav Yehuda that one who reads the Shema while walking must stop his walking in order to say "al libbecha" standing so that he will intend in it more than during his walking. The Gemara wondered: is it specifically the words "al libbecha" that you think he should say standing, while the rest of the passage he may say while walking? Thus explained Rashi , and so is it in Tanchuma . But Tosafot took the position that it is only a preferred practice to stand. And in Mishnah Berurah he wrote that one who reads while walking b'deavar hadin is exempt. And the Gemara explains: Rather say from the beginning of the passage up to "al libbecha" he should say standing for until here the commandment of intent applies, from here onwards it does not. Thus explained Rashi , and that is that Rav Yehuda holds like Rabbi Eliezer that the commandment of intent extends to "al libbecha." And so too is implied from the words of Tosafot that according to the halakha it suffices to stand for the first verse because only in it does intent delay [i.e., only in it is intent required]. But the Ra'ash brought that the Ra'avad explained in the name of the Gaon that the requirement to stand is so that it not be considered a cursory reading, [and even if the commandment of intent is only in the first verse, one must stand until "al libbecha"]. And what one need not stand for throughout the passage is because in the next verse it says "and when you go on your way". And Rabbi Yohanan said: the entire passage in standing. And thus Rabbi Yohanan proved his reasoning above, that Rabba bar bar Ḥanah said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: the halakha is like Rabbi Acha who said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that the entire first passage requires intent, and therefore it must be said entirely standing. the Rif brought that there are those who prove that the halakha is like Rabbi Natan that one must stand until "al libbecha" from what Rava ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir that only the first verse requires intent, and they rejected their objection that Rava's ruling also contradicts Rabbi Natan, and wrote that one need stand only for the first verse. Yet according to the Ra'avad it is possible that Rabbi Natan's reason was because of an "arayi" (cursory) reading, and Rava's words do not contradict that, but Rabbi Yohanan's reason that one must stand in the whole passage is because of intent, and therefore he did not learn from "and when you go on your way" later in the passage that one may walk, because in walking one cannot intend, and it is not like Rava's words that intent is only in the first verse. [See Ma'adanei Yom Tov, and and in the Gra's explanation.] InNachalat David he challenged the Ra'avad's explanation that standing is required so that one will read in an established manner: how is it proven that "Rabbi Yohanan to his reasoning" when perhaps the standing in the whole passage is required only that it be established and not for intent? And Ma'adanei Yom Tov , and in the Gra's commentary objected to his explanation, asking what will help Rabbi Yohanan's reasoning that intent is required in the entire passage when "and when you go on your way" teaches that intent is not needed. It has been explained in the previous note that Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Natan differed; and since Rabbi Yohanan holds that standing is for intent, the permission from "" does not help him because one cannot intend while walking, therefore they said that "Rabbi Yohanan to his reasoning". Tannaim taught: "Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad" — this is the Shema of Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi. the Rashba [nearby, and in his responsa vol. 1 he] took the position that the obligation of Shema from the Torah is only on the first verse, and therefore Rabbi read only the first verse; and similarly he wrote in [Shabbat] that Rabbi's Torah is his craft and therefore he stopped after only the first verse whose obligation is de-oraita. [So also took Rabbenu Chananel and the Ramban in Milchamot Hashem Rosh Hashana there]. And Pri Chadash rejected his proof according to the words of the Ra'ash that one who teaches many does not interrupt, and even if each whole passage is de-oraita he read only the first verse which is short and he can say it without interrupting his teaching [and he noted above in that the Rashba held that every first passage is de-oraita; and see Piskei Magid ]. And Rabbenu Yonah wrote that Rabbi read the entire first chapter, for he thought that from the Torah one must read it in its entirety. And it might be puzzling, for nearby they said he read while passing his hands over his eyes, and one only needs to pass his hand over his eyes in the first verse. And in Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all Avi Ezri he explained that even if all

the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill

the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill the Gra explained that Rav Nachman was ill

The Gemara supports his words:

Rav Naḥman said

to his slave,

if you see that I am dozing during the recitation of the Shema,

rouse me during the first verse

so that I will awaken and recite it with concentration, but

do not rouse me any further.

And similarly we find that

Rav Yosef said to Rav Yosef, son of Rabba: Your father

Rabba,

what would he do

when he would doze during the recitation of the Shema?

He said to him: During the first verse he would trouble himself

to recite it with concentration;

he would not trouble himself any further.

Rav Yosef said: A pirkedan,

a person lying on his back with his face upward,

may not recite the Shema

because he accepts the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in an arrogant manner.

The Gemara infers: It follows that only

the recitation

of the Shema

is what he may not recite

when he is lying on his back;

but sleeping

in this manner

is permitted.

And this is seemingly difficult:

But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi cursed

[that is, he cursed]

anyone who sleeps on his back?

The Gemara answers:

It says:

Sleeping, when he bends,

when he is inclined slightly on his side,

is entirely acceptable,

even though he is lying on his back; but

reciting

the Shema

is prohibited even when he bends,

because it is still considered an arrogant manner, and Rav Yosef was referring to this position; therefore, he prohibited only reciting the Shema.

The Gemara asks:

But Rabbi Yoḥanan

lay on his back and

bent

and inclined onto his side,

and recited

the Shema, demonstrating that this is not considered an arrogant manner.

The Gemara distinguishes:

Rabbi Yoḥanan is different

from other people, for he was permitted to recite it while lying on his back and slightly inclined onto his side, since

he was obese

and it was difficult for him to lie completely on his side. Therefore, it was sufficient for him to incline onto his side, so that his lying would not be considered an arrogant manner.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And in the breaks, one asks

out of respect and responds”—the words of Rabbi Meir.

The Gemara discusses the matter from either perspective:

“Responds”—because of what? If we say it is out of respect, now

we already learned that one interrupts and

asks

about another’s welfare out of respect;

is it necessary to say that he responds!?

For there is greater reason to respond to a greeting than to initiate a greeting to one who did not ask about his welfare.

Rather,

say that the intention of the Mishna is that

“in the breaks, one asks out of respect and responds to anyone’s greeting.”

If so,

“say the latter clause: ‘And in the middle, one asks out of fear and responds.’”

And according to the explanation of the first clause, the latter clause must be examined:

“‘Responds’—because of what? If we say it is out of fear, now

we already learned that one interrupts and

asks

about another’s welfare

out of fear;

is it necessary to say that he responds?

Rather,

say that the intention of the latter clause is that in the middle one responds

out of respect.

If so, it turns out that

this is

the view of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who disagreed in the latter clause with the first tanna,

as we learned: “Rabbi Yehuda says: In the middle, one asks out of fear and responds out of respect; in the breaks, one asks out of respect and responds to anyone’s greeting.”

And in what did he disagree with Rabbi Meir? Therefore, the Gemara explains: Our Mishna

is incomplete

in both its first and latter clauses,

and this is what it teaches: In the breaks, one asks out of respect, and needless to say, he responds

out of respect;

and in the middle, one asks out of fear, and needless to say, he responds

out of fear;

the words of Rabbi Meir.

“Rabbi Yehuda says: In the middle, one asks out of fear and responds out of respect,