Laws of Reciting the Shema, Chapter 4 (Auto Translated)

Chapter 4: Those Exempt from Reciting Shema

Introduction to the Chapter

A gut moed (good holiday), and we continue learning the laws of reciting Shema. I want to acknowledge the sponsor, our esteemed friend, well-known supporter of Torah and wisdom, Rabbi R’ Yoel Weissberger, the president of Machon Kerem Torah V’Chochma, who has donated for the first beautiful few shiurim, but the purpose of his donation is that we should learn from him. “Mimenu yilmedu v’chen ya’asu” (from him they shall learn and so they shall do). We tear ourselves away during Chol HaMoed, we exert ourselves for the learners, we too will need to learn Torah, but also the learners should also show themselves and also throw off the blanket. This is tremendous.

Now we will learn the fourth chapter of the laws of reciting Shema in Sefer Ahava.

Overview of the First Three Chapters

Yes, so basically, we learned in the first chapter that the Rambam set forth the essential mitzvah of recitation, what the recitation is, and also the blessings of Shema and the time for reciting Shema.

In the second chapter, the Rambam discussed the manner of how one does it, namely what invalidates it, drowsiness, lack of intention, and so forth, how one is precise, what happens with mistakes in the order.

The third was about the honor due to Shema, that one may not be in an unclean place, and all the detailed laws of what happens if you are sitting in an unclean place, and what constitutes an unclean place or a place that disturbs, whether it disturbs the intention or whether it disturbs the cleanliness thereof.

And in this chapter we will learn about who is obligated and who is exempt from reciting Shema.

The Topic of the Chapter: Who is Exempt

Right, mostly who is exempt. Who is obligated, I mean there is a law that the Rambam begins thus, who is obligated, minors, girls, and so forth. Here he began with the fact that it is a mitzvah, and essentially everyone is obligated apparently. Now we will learn who is exempt. There are several people who are exempt.

So, perhaps we will see the order. Usually who is exempt is the deaf, the mentally incompetent and slaves, but here there are also added people who are very troubled, or a person who accompanies a deceased. Perhaps for this reason this is a whole topic in itself. Women, the order of the Mishnah goes even though there is a whole chapter “Mi shemeto” etc. which speaks only about the…

It’s interesting, it could be that for this reason there is the order of the matter of impure things, pure things, and also the whole length is there. There the Gemara’s pilpulim (dialectical discussions) are already there, there are perhaps with other mitzvot, and there are more pilpulim. But here it says that it is a person regarding Shema, and the Rambam established it by Shema. Apparently the same thing here too, what does it have to do with the essence of one engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from the mitzvah, or when a person is exempt, but it stands here regarding Shema, and one applies it to other topics.

One must see this, one must think about this. I don’t know if all the laws are the same by prayer, and one sees it here. Certain ones, yes, certain ones. The understanding, one engaged in a mitzvah is apparently for all mitzvot, yes.

Law 1: Women, Slaves and Minors are Exempt from Reciting Shema

Okay, so first we will learn which person, which type of people are exempt from reciting Shema.

Yes, says the Rambam, says the Rambam, “Women, slaves and minors are exempt from reciting Shema.” These are the three categories. Women, and then slaves, meaning a Canaanite slave, who has the same law as a woman, and minors are exempt from reciting Shema.

Reason for the Exemption: A Time-Bound Positive Commandment

Because it is a time-bound positive commandment, and we learned in the laws of Talmud Torah chapter 1 law 13, that they are exempt from all time-bound positive commandments.

The Rambam already enumerated the principle, the principle of time-bound positive commandments the Rambam enumerated in the laws of Talmud Torah, no? Not in the laws of Talmud Torah. We already saw the principle somewhere, where did we see it? I remember that we learned it.

Yes, perhaps indeed yes, perhaps in the laws of Talmud Torah, no? No, no, not in the laws of Talmud Torah. In the laws of, where could it be?

Leaving Egypt.

I don’t remember anymore.

Yes, we learned it in the laws of idolatry, in an interesting place, by the mitzvah of pe’ot (sidelocks). Remember? There we learned all time-bound positive commandments, except for all the principles of what women are exempt from, women and slaves and minors, by not minors, women and slaves who are exempt, we learned the principle that all negative commandments they are obligated, except for bal takif and bal tashchit, yes? In practice, and time-bound positive commandments they are all exempt, except for certain time-bound positive commandments that they are indeed obligated, which we learned the law. And we learned the principles in tractate Avodah Zarah chapter, in tractate Avodah Zarah it was.

Anyway, now we’re not speaking of the principles, now it’s already simply, one states the law that what, that women are exempt.

Innovation: Love of God vs. Reciting Shema

This means that the essential knowledge of God’s unity, love of God, is an obligation, but what happens through reciting Shema, reciting Shema is a mitzvah in itself. Good, yes.

Obligation of Chinuch (Education) for Minors

But, one must however yes what, teach children to recite it at its proper time. There is reciting Shema at its proper time, there is reciting Shema at its time, the morning Shema, and the blessings before it and after it, in order to educate them in mitzvot, so they should be educated in the mitzvah, there is a mitzvah of chinuch.

Comparison to the Laws of Talmud Torah

This matter actually appears also a second time, because in the laws of Talmud Torah the Rambam said minors are exempt from Talmud Torah, but when they begin to speak, so teach them the letters “Torah tziva lanu Moshe” and “Shema Yisrael.” But that is not at its proper time, that is only that the first thing one speaks should be Torah. Here it is already more than that, that one teaches them what, to say Shema properly, and one should do it actually at its proper time, and with the blessings, in order to educate them in mitzvot.

Discussion: From What Age Does the Obligation of Chinuch Begin?

Okay, now we’re speaking of the obligation of chinuch, I’m not so sure. Because if we’re speaking of two-three year olds who begin to be able to speak… Let’s think, first of all, he doesn’t say here when, he says minors, he doesn’t say from when. It seems he must be able to speak, he must already be able to say Shema, I don’t know. He says that the obligation is in order to educate them in mitzvot.

If there is a law that in order to educate them in mitzvot itself the obligation is according to what they have reached, that by tefillin it is one who knows how to guard them, and by matzah it is one who knows how to eat grain. So it could mean that yes, the same age as the same order in the laws of Talmud Torah, that one teaches them “Torah tziva” and “Shema Yisrael.”

But there we’re speaking of younger ones, children who can only speak words, one teaches them the verse “Shema Yisrael.” Here we’re already speaking of teaching with the blessings, with the blessings it must perhaps be six-seven, because they can say, especially “V’ahavta.” But the very verse “Shema Yisrael” we said that there one teaches.

Here one sees that it could be that there it is simply that the Rambam grasped that it is a very important verse, it is a critical verse, “Torah tziva” and “Shema Yisrael.” It could be that there he actually didn’t mean with the “V’ahavta” and the other sections of Shema.

And in general, in the laws of Talmud Torah it’s not clear that it’s a law of chinuch. It’s apparently not Shema, it’s a law of chinuch for Talmud Torah. Not chinuch, it’s not a law of chinuch, not because the son has a mitzvah of Talmud Torah one must teach him. Here is an external mitzvah that the father should teach his young children Torah for its own sake.

By the way, it could even be that the whole mitzvah of chinuch is a branch of that, we perhaps argued then, that chinuch perhaps is derived from the fact that the father must teach Talmud Torah, therefore he must also educate him in mitzvot.

Here it doesn’t say clearly, it says that minors are educated, the Rambam doesn’t say from which age. I remember that by the laws of chametz and matzah I looked over when we learned, the Rambam brought that a minor who knows how to eat grain, from when he eats bread one must educate him. Yes, in lulav it says a minor who knows how to shake, in tzitzit it says a minor who no longer calls for his mother at night.

So one understands that by each mitzvah it is according to that mitzvah. It’s a very beautiful thing, because it’s very, one thinks like very contemporary, that each type of activity one must think about the activity, for which age is the activity relevant. So the activity of speaking is a very young age, one already says the verse “Shema Yisrael.” The activity of shaking something is a certain age.

Here we’re already speaking of when the child is already apparently an age that he can know when it is day and when it is night, and he knows to say blessings Master of the Universe, to You the Multitude. He already speaks apparently a bit more maturely.

But he doesn’t say, why doesn’t he say? Because he doesn’t say “one who knows to Whom one blesses.” By blessings it says “to Whom one blesses,” yes, there one knows the text of the blessing. Here it doesn’t say. He brings on the side that one sees in the Mishnah, and what one sees in the Megillah, one sees that a minor can exempt regarding Shema. That is, he cannot exempt regarding Shema, but because he cannot fulfill the obligation for the public, but one sees that a minor is exempt regarding Shema, namely he is obligated in the blessings of Shema and the like. Okay. What the oath means, whatever.

Law 1 (Continued): One Whose Heart is Troubled

Now comes a new type of exemption which is apparently special for Shema, but we will see in prayer if there is also such an exemption. A new type of exemption, ah, not only Shema, it’s also there by prayer. Yes, first by Shema, whoever is troubled in a certain way, doing the mitzvah, he is exempt from reciting Shema.

Explanation: Libo Tarud (Heart is Troubled)

Yes, libo tarud (his heart is troubled), one whose heart is preoccupied, he doesn’t have peace of mind. It’s from the language of haste, yes, “ki b’chipazon yatzata me’eretz Mitzrayim” (for in haste you left the land of Egypt). He is busy, he doesn’t have any thought, whatever. He is busy with a mitzvah, there is a certain peace of mind that is required in Shema.

No, not so simple. We’ll see what the Gemara says. He can’t focus, he doesn’t have his heart free. Rabbeinu Peretz also says so for Shema, that one must have one’s heart free, as Rabbeinu Yonah says. It shouldn’t be burdened, not any yoke of the kingdom of heaven or what.

Distinction: Trouble of a Mitzvah vs. Trouble of the Soul

If it is trouble of the soul with not a mitzvah, then it is indeed overridden, it should not be a trouble of the soul. One puts everything aside, as we learned earlier, if one is in the middle of doing work, one should at least not understand the verse of Shabbat, the rest one can be.

Law 4: A Groom is Exempt from Reciting Shema

The Rambam’s Words: A Groom Who Married a Virgin is Exempt

Speaker 1:

The Rav also said earlier that for Shema one must have a free heart, yes, as the Gemara said this. One should not engage in public affairs or what, let’s see by. It was stated in the influence, a splitting of the sea. But the rabbis who are scholars must have no fear, because the first verse is acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, one cannot be troubled and hurried. It is very calm, exempt from Shema.

On the contrary, if there is trouble and haste which is not a mitzvah, then it is an obligation that he should not be troubled and hurried. He should put everything aside. As we learned earlier, that if one is in the middle of doing work, one should at least imagine the verse of Shema, or the rest one can come to no words at all. But when there are two things, one whether it is trouble and haste, and whether it is with a mitzvah, one is exempt from Shema.

The Exemption of a Groom — Trouble of a Mitzvah

Yes, it doesn’t say here that the reason is that one must have. It could be the reason, but, openly, it doesn’t seem clearer than I know what from the blessing of a mitzvah. Exempt from Shema until it passes over him, because his mind is not free lest he not find virginity. He is worried about the matter of virginity. And first he will have to rise early to the court, as we learn in the beginning of… Yes, a chapter of… Yes, a chapter of… It becomes a whole… He will have to study the difficult pages of the tractates. Yes, gladden the beloved friends. Because he is… He says here clearly that when he doesn’t have a free mind which is apparently, yes, one doesn’t have… Yes?

Discussion: One Engaged in a Mitzvah is Exempt from the Mitzvah — A Mental Engagement in a Mitzvah

Speaker 2:

Yes, but it could be that it’s a type of one engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from the mitzvah. It’s only a type of engaged in a mitzvah which is not necessarily because of trouble, rather he doesn’t have…

Speaker 1:

Right, right. One can say, but it’s one engaged in a mitzvah exempt from the mitzvah which also has the thing that “a heart doesn’t have two faces.” Another mitzvah perhaps one would say “stop the mitzvah for a minute and recite Shema.” But here it’s hard to tell him “stop,” because his head, his brain is according to this. You can’t tell him “stop” and recite Shema. Yes? So the case.

Speaker 2:

Yes, very good. But not only trouble, even… Not only whether trouble and whether it is… I mean that the word of mitzvah is perhaps that it’s legitimate, it’s right. By a trouble of permission one says “you should be settled in mind.” You are commanded to be busy with your livelihood now, but you were indeed commanded. It’s a mitzvah to have a wedding, and part of the mitzvah of having a wedding comes with the trouble that perhaps he can’t now have peace of mind. I would ask the Chatam Sofer, and there is such a word from him, I don’t know what, that a person is worried, but… It could be that he doesn’t mean necessarily that, I don’t know. What do you think?

Discussion: Can the Groom Find a Minute with a Free Mind?

Speaker 1:

A funny thing, every groom is…

Speaker 2:

It was said that it could be that the measure is that you can’t recite Shema with proper intention. But can you find a few minutes during the course of the day until the wedding, or until the end of the time for Shema, when you can properly settle your mind? Ah, he says that it could be. I mean that he speaks here in general about a free mind, meaning in a manner when there is no free mind. If he finds that there is a free mind, he will indeed be obligated. I said that there is a dispute in halacha whether a groom is in practice in current times exempt, or it changes. If a groom tells you that he has a free mind, that he can focus a whole wedding and dance with everyone and hear the jester, he tells you that he has enough free mind, no?

Speaker 1:

No, not. In the old times there wasn’t any dancing. No, that’s not a proof. There is a reason… Today we will see the Ravia, and it will come, and later we will see the reason why today grooms say Shema, because one says that anyway he is not obligated, so he is therefore also so. But it’s not so. I mean this is simply a trouble, it’s a psychological problem, and therefore I think that it could be that this is what one says about virginity. I don’t know if it’s exactly that the thing. It’s simply a nervous thing, he is a groom the first time, and the halacha tells you when he is in a free mind, yes? From the first night until he has not yet had relations with her, except we’ll see the exceptions in a second, right?

The Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayot: “The Anxiety of Marriage Has Already Departed from Him”

Speaker 2:

Why is then… You ask a question, he can’t find any minute? Not so. This is one engaged in a mitzvah, but not a physical engagement in a mitzvah, you are in the middle of traveling somewhere, you can’t sit in a sukkah. It’s a… how does one say, a mental engagement in a mitzvah. He is now, from when he begins making the kiddushin, from the first night he had a wedding until the first relations, he is a man on a mission, he is focused on one thing. Okay?

Speaker 1:

Okay. The continuation of the Mishnah is, the weddings were on Wednesday night, Thursday, Wednesday, Wednesday night. He didn’t want to have relations, so that he could recite Shema thus. He writes “his mind cooled and his heart became bold with her,” he already got used to his wife, he doesn’t have the same trouble, “and his heart became bold with her but he did not have relations.” It’s very interesting. And he says in Peirush HaMishnayot the Rambam says, the language is “the anxiety of marriage has already departed from him.” This has much to do with a matter of that he is very strongly in desire or what. I mean he can’t focus, as they spoke regarding learning, that it’s hard to learn if one hasn’t gotten married.

Virgin vs. Widow — The Distinction

Speaker 2:

Right, no, from this I think that this is what is meant by “shem Elokim Tzeva’os”. It’s not necessarily that. You see how it says the tirda (anxiety) of the groom with a virgin the first time. With a virgin there is some tirda, perhaps because there is the matter of tahara (purity), and there is the matter of… it needs to be in a manner… I don’t know what kind of manner. What it says is that he has fear lest he find in her an open opening. Who knows. Okay.

Now, one who marries a widow or divorcee, he is also engaged in a mitzva, or rather a mitzva from the meal, no difference. But he is indeed obligated in Krias Shema, if it is not comparable to one who has bread in his basket. By a widow there isn’t this attraction, so he is not troubled during the act. Therefore he is indeed obligated in Krias Shema, and so says the Rambam, “and likewise all similar cases”. Apparently the Rambam is saying with this, that when there is an osek b’mitzva (one engaged in a mitzva) that doesn’t take away the entire mind, then it’s also the same thing. This one needs to know how many more laws there are of osek b’mitzva by the Rambam, but here stands an important principle, that what is a mitzva that doesn’t take away the entire mind, one needs to… but now he is an osek b’mitzva during the act, should he interrupt?

Discussion: When Must One Interrupt from Osek B’Mitzva?

For example, we learned that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his companions would interrupt for Krias Shema, yet he was engaged in Torah. But their intention was for Krias Shema, yes.

But if one is engaged in a certain type of mitzva, for example as I know in Hilchos Sukka it says that if one is in the middle of doing pidyon shvuyim (redeeming captives), such a type of mitzva that perhaps takes away the entire mind, should one be exempt from Krias Shema, which is not the king’s will. So I say, I mean one needs to understand, because apparently the point why Krias Shema is different from for example sitting in a sukka, because sitting in a sukka actually takes a lot of time, one needs to go find a sukka, one cannot at the same time be engaged in pidyon shvuyim, it’s a contradiction in the action, two actions are a contradiction. Here there is no contradiction, you can in the middle of a wedding find time, even one marrying a virgin. It’s simple that he simply doesn’t have time at the wedding to make a minyan for Ma’ariv, to pray Krias Shema. Simply he doesn’t have the mind. And until he goes to do the act, you could say perhaps, I think, because such a person is so busy with his tirda, that his mitzva should succeed, I don’t know, and now is the time, I ask a question, he needs to schedule it differently, perhaps simply a thing, his tirda, he’s waiting for the results to come from the pidyon shvuyim campaign that he’s doing, I don’t know, one needs to find something that is a tirda, but the tirda has him running around.

Discussion: Tirdas Mitzva vs. Tirdas Reshus

Speaker 1:

Yes, if it’s a tirdas reshus (anxiety of optional matters). The Barditchever Rav, the Barditchever Rav on erev Sukkos when he was busy with the esrog, with the lulav, he was exempt from Krias Shema. Also it doesn’t need to be, because the tirda was ahavas Hashem (love of God), with the same reasoning one can exempt someone from Krias Shema. Yes, one needs to know the precise definition.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but this is apparently, what this says a tirdas mitzva is a chiddush (novelty), this is indeed a tirda with the tirda of be’ila (marital relations), it’s just an example of which type of tirda can be a tirdas mitzva, to exclude tirdas reshus from “his ship sank at sea”, as the Gemara says. But any kind of tirdas mitzva… we don’t conduct ourselves with the practical halachos usually, because we say because one immediately sees, so apparently it’s not relevant, but it could be that there is indeed a way.

Halacha 4 (continued): One Whose Dead Lies Before Him

Words of the Rambam: Exempt Until He Buries Him

Speaker 2:

Okay, let’s go to the next halacha. Yes, now let’s learn about mourning, yes, now let’s learn about mourning, someone who is dealing with a dead person, this exempts him, and how it exempts from Krias Shema, this is however when his dead lies before him.

“One whose dead lies before him”, someone has died on him. It’s interesting the language “one whose dead”, there is this language “and I am a man whose dead lies before him”. Someone has died on him, it must be a dead person, the dead person is a felt dead person, the dead person to whom he has died. “But one who didn’t know about it”, the Gemara in Berachos. A dead person has died to him, “his dead lies before him”, yes, yes, yes, yes. A dead person has died to him, says the Rema, what is the measure that he is obligated to mourn for him, just a close friend. That he is not obligated because it also died on him, but it’s not the same definition. Exempt from Krias Shema until he buries him. This also looks like it’s another case of an osek b’mitzva where there is a tirda, where there is a great confusion of mind, yes, because the burial is indeed a mitzvas aseh (positive commandment), yes, the Rambam counted burial as a mitzvas aseh from life.

Halacha 5: One Whose Dead Has Died – Exempt Until He Buries Him

Words of the Rambam: One whose dead has died whom he is obligated to mourn for – is exempt from Krias Shema until he buries him, because his mind is not free to read.

Says the Rambam, what does “whom he is obligated to mourn for” mean? Just a close friend whom he is not obligated in mourning, has also died on him, but it’s not the same definition.

Exempt from Krias Shema until he buries him. This also looks like it’s another case of an osek b’mitzva where there is a tirda, where there is a great confusion of mind. Yes, because the main burning is the mitzvas aseh, yes? The Rambam counted burial as a mitzvas aseh from “lo salin nivlaso al ha’etz” (his body shall not remain overnight on the tree).

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: Yes. It’s also a preparation for a mitzva, but the main mitzva is not specifically on the relatives. Here it’s simply the relative, he now stands to speak with the chevra kadisha (burial society), he wants to find a grave, I know what, whatever to do everything that needs to be done, so he is… it will be close to light to do.

I thought that perhaps this is Shabbos, perhaps this is not certain, that one can perhaps take the custom of Jerusalem that the Chassidim are accustomed, that the children don’t go… when the chain goes away, that the burial perhaps the children… so this indeed has significance that the relatives are the ones who accompany until the burial. And also, just as “until he buries him” is the concern of the relatives.

Okay, “because his mind is not free to read”. It’s the same thing, because his mind is not free to read Krias Shema. Yes.

The One Who Guards the Dead – Even Though It’s Not His Dead

“And likewise one who guards the dead”, this is… the first thing is relevant for all relatives who have a… yes.

Speaker 2: No, no, all relatives, even as long as they’re not finished with the burial, are exempt.

Speaker 1: And now it says if he’s not a relative. “And likewise one who guards the dead, even though it’s not his dead”, even if it’s not his dead person, he’s not a relative, but his job is he’s a shomer mes (guardian of the dead), for example he’s a volunteer to guard dead bodies, is in chevra kadisha, is also exempt from Krias Shema, because he is guarding a dead person.

Difference Between Relative and Shomer Mes

Ah, it’s different. In other words, let’s understand. The first halacha is exactly like a groom. It’s not relevant that he does anything. Even, one can even ask a question, I see, I still remember that people talk about this. It’s not, let’s say someone’s father died, and he lives in Eretz Yisrael, I know what. He does nothing for the burial. He… it’s not that he has nothing to do, because he is troubled. It’s on his mind that the burial should happen. What practical difference does this have? The practical halacha is yes the practical halacha. The one who is the shomer? The chevra kadisha.

But here is the question whether it’s also a matter of free mind, or it could be that we will still learn in chapter 3 that one may not read Krias Shema in front of a dead person, whatever the circumstances. He is essentially an onen (acute mourner), he has a dead person, he has a trouble, he must not move away from the dead person. It’s indeed a matter, the dead person needs guarding, as the Gemara says in Berachos, and his job is to guard the dead person, and next to the dead person he may not read. It’s not necessarily that he has a confusion of mind, it could be that it’s not his dead person. But next to the dead person he may not read. It’s yes, apparently more an osek b’mitzva, it’s more a practical osek b’mitzva.

Two Guardians – This One Guards and That One Reads

Okay, one needs to think, for example, next to the dead person he stood, he goes away four amos, and he sees that it’s not… he sees him.

Speaker 2: Okay, one can pull oneself like that. If one cannot turn around, yes. Okay.

Speaker 1: “And if there were two guardians”, so you see that literally when one guards a dead person means that one must literally be next to him the entire time, it seems. “And if there were two guardians, this one guards and the other goes and reads”, so that the second one goes over to another place, he moves away just four amos as we learned earlier, “and reads and returns and guards”, and he comes back, and not at the same time. “And reads”, they take turns.

One Who Digs a Grave for the Dead

As the Rambam rules, “and likewise one who digs a grave for the dead”, and it takes time, it takes the entire time from there, from the matters of Krias Shema, from the… if it takes the entire time, again, if it takes very long, they are indeed obligated in this digging. The point is, it comes to that one is exempt from Krias Shema, yes. Osek b’mitzva is exempt from the mitzva.

Question: Why Don’t We Say He Should Grab Shema Yisrael?

All these halachos fit a bit better, if one goes like the Rambam, that essentially the main mitzva of Krias Shema, for example in the morning, is to read immediately when the time comes, immediately before sunrise. He says, now he is still exempt. Later it’s already somewhat after the fact even to read until the end of the time of Krias Shema.

It’s a bit interesting. Earlier he brought the workers, that he only needs to grab the simple verse of Shema Yisrael, and he can go further to do his work. So if one who digs a grave it’s not simple that his heart is not free, why shouldn’t we tell him he should grab as long as he has time? He can indeed say while he works.

Answer: Osek B’Mitzva Is Completely Exempt

But you see that an osek b’mitzva we won’t bother him. The point is that he should be able to focus entirely on the mitzva that he is engaged in.

A worker is indeed exempt, an osek b’melacha (one engaged in work) is not exempt from Krias Shema. Therefore, he says that there is a way how he should do it, he can do it.

Speaker 2: Yes, but he exempts him. He tells you indeed, the Tannaim exempted him. He cannot, he can… that’s it, he is exempt. The mitzva of Krias Shema does not apply to one who is osek b’mitzva.

Speaker 1: So, he says that he can find practical solutions. It could be even it’s a mitzva haba’a ba’aveira (mitzva that comes through a transgression) to do so, but he doesn’t need to. He is engaged in one mitzva, he is exempt from the second. Yes, soon we’ll see what is with a mitzva haba’a ba’aveira here. But apparently that’s the point. It could also be that one doesn’t need to… one needs to speak about this specifically when we’ll come to speak about this.

Halacha 5 (continued): We Don’t Take Out the Dead Close to the Time of Krias Shema

Let’s go further from my thing collecting. He says further, “We don’t take out the dead to his grave close to the time of Krias Shema.” Indeed for this, because as long as we don’t bury him everyone is exempt from Krias Shema, we shouldn’t go bury him close to the time of Krias Shema, in order not to cause so many people to miss the mitzva of Krias Shema. Unless he was a great person, for then because of his honor they will endeavor in nullification of Torah and mitzvos for him. Yes, a great person one can indeed do even close to the time of Krias Shema, and even though thereby Jews don’t read Krias Shema.

The Bearers of the Bier and Their Replacements – Who Is Exempt

And now we’ll see what are indeed the details, who indeed becomes exempt from Krias Shema if he goes to the funeral?

Him, yes, but not people who are just at the funeral, only those who are dealing with the dead person. Just people who are at the funeral, is indeed as we say, as we’ve already begun, one goes to escort the dead person, as an exaggeration, we say we don’t seek any… just, one goes to escort, one escorts the dead person.

So indeed there is, carrying the dead person for the need, people from the dead person for the need, going, the bearers of the bier, those who are now holding the bier, but it’s heavy, one holds for a long way, and one wants to carry it, for example in the cemetery one will carry it outside the city, so, it changes the entire time. So it’s very important, not only that those who are carrying the bier now each one differently should go away, but also those who are going to take over the bier, or even those who are going to take over the bier in two rows later, replacements of replacements, those who are now going to take over the bearers of the bier the next, or those who are going to be the next shift one after the other, so indeed whether before the bier or after the bier, no difference whether they are in front of the bier or in back of the bier.

Speaker 2: I don’t know exactly what the law is of front and back.

Speaker 1: I mean that one of them, I don’t know which of them, I mean that one of them is normal.

Speaker 2: We’ve already spoken about this.

Speaker 1: Yes, but I mean that even those who are after the bier, apparently before the bier, let’s say that you’re carrying it, let’s say there’s a line of people, one passes it over bit by bit, the person who stands in front, let’s say one passes it over to the one in front, yes. So even those who are in back, but it happens sometimes that he is also the next one, something like that, I thought of this.

Um, there is an escort and other accompaniers, those who need the bier, and the replacements are indeed obligated in Krias Shema.

Speaker 2: Very good. I mean that this is also apparently practical, the bearers of the bier and their replacements are in the four amos of a dead person.

Speaker 1: Right.

Speaker 2: All the others are not in the four amos of a dead person, therefore…

Speaker 1: Ah, but it’s also a matter apparently of honor of the dead, of osek b’mitzva of escorting the dead. Even mourners are yes, that’s indeed the point, even mourners are yes. Why are they yes? They move over, because him one sees, one can turn away a bit and come back. Okay.

Halacha 5 (continued): During the Eulogy – The Dead Lies Before Them

If one has a eulogy and one is in the middle, what is the halacha? So my Krias Shema.

When the Dead Lies Before Him – They Slip Away One by One

When the dead lies before him, ah, I forgot to say, when the dead lies before him, so the entire crowd shouldn’t go away, because that is a disgrace to the dead person. They slip away one by one, one at a time goes away, and from the middle nothing happens, and the funeral is not disrupted. One doesn’t grab, one at a time goes away alone for Krias Shema, he misses one eulogy, and they come back to the eulogy to continue.

When the Dead Doesn’t Lie Before Them – All the People Read

But someone for whom the dead person lies before him, but if the dead person doesn’t lie in front of them…

Tell me one makes a eulogy, the dead person is not here now. It’s just a gathering for eulogy, or before or after. He says yes, when he is dealing with the dead person, or I don’t know what, he hasn’t begun to answer that. So yes, this is no disgrace to the dead person, so all the world reads Krias Shema, we can all read Krias Shema.

Ah, apparently because the point is because one is engaged, because they are not next to a dead person. That is the point? The point is about it’s no disgrace, or about practically, because they can there where they are stand, although the dead person is here, he indeed won’t go away, they can remain there at the eulogy and for a minute not listen to the eulogizer, and just focus on Krias Shema. So apparently the matter.

The Mourner Sits and Is Silent

Yes, but the mourner, the mourner sits and is silent. The mourner, as we earlier calculated the Mishna in tractate 36, the ground is he sits and is silent, yes, the language of the verse, yes. Sits and is silent and took upon him, yes. He doesn’t read Krias Shema, because not one obligated is called osek b’mitzva, because he is indeed completely exempt. We indeed learned, he indeed has the tirda, the mitzva of the burial, until after burial.

Further, here one sees clearly, but he doesn’t speak that one does anything. If he would do something, he indeed wouldn’t be here anyway. One sits in the middle of a eulogy, and the eulogy has a pause. One didn’t stop the eulogy, one said “gentlemen, it’s time for Krias Shema”.

And the mourner is not that one eulogizes for him, the mourner is exempt also as the regular laws here of exempting the osek b’mitzva, but also the two witnesses are exempt from all mitzvos.

Ah, he indeed has a business about this. No, it’s not the same halacha? Ah, one is a part of both, one is perhaps…

Halacha 6: The Row to Comfort Mourners – Order of Consolation After Burial

Translation

If he had done something, he wouldn’t have been there anyway. People sit and sit and sit at the hesped (eulogy), and the hesped has a pause. They didn’t stop the hesped, they say, “Ribono shel Olam, Krias Shema!” and the olam (congregation) continues sitting, of course. So the olam is exempt also from all the regular dinim here of being exempt from mitzvos, but they are also engaged in all the mitzvos.

Why then specifically about this, no? Isn’t it the same assumption? Ah, one higher, both one perhaps. Also an oseik b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah (one engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah).

The Words of the Rema: “To Honor the Mourners to Receive Consolation”

The Rema says further, “to honor the mourners to receive consolation”. After the burial, the custom of the world is that the mourners stand aside, and so the olam passes by, and the olam stands in rows, and as one goes to say, we are consoling, one says the famous words, “HaMakom yenachem”. So “the olam returns from behind the grave to the place where the mourners stand to make a row to receive consolation”.

Who Stands and Who Goes? – Explanation of the Order of the Row

What does this look like? That the mourners are mekabel tanchumin (receiving consolation). Ah, here where the mourners stand to receive consolation. One goes home from the way, one went to the burial place, and now one walks back. There’s space, you know how much space there is? We know how much space there is. There’s space, and now one goes to make the row. The mourners stand in a row to be mekabel tanchumin, and the people go through in front of them. That’s what it looks like.

No, by us it’s reversed. The people… no, by us I mean I’ve seen, the people stand in the row, and the mourners go through. That’s what it looks like, “to the place where the mourners stand to make a row”, the people go through in front of them.

You know actually… the mourners stand in the row to receive consolation. That’s what it looks like. That one actually has to do it reversed. It actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t know why we do it this way. But one can’t really tolerate it, one can’t really tolerate it, and one doesn’t understand precisely what the exact should be. Perhaps he doesn’t mean that either, but he wants to be precise.

No, that’s what it looks like, because the olam is mekabel tanchumin, the mourners are mekabel tanchumin. The mourners are standing to make a row to receive consolation. And the people are walking, the people go. No, I understood. Walking doesn’t mean one stands, one goes, but the row is the walking. This is a practical question of how one makes the row.

The Pause Between Burial and Row – Time for Krias Shema

The point is now, now there’s like a pause between the burial and the row. Now one stops on the way between this step and that step. One stops between…

And then one can catch there the mitzvah of Krias Shema, it’s important as earlier, the matter of starting on time, before netz hachamah (sunrise). Before netz hachamah is very important.

Right, we always look at it as if there’s a sof zman (end time). All these laws of mourning also have like a beginning time. When the time comes, essentially one must read. One pushes it off, it’s like a mitzvah haba’ah l’yadcha al tachmitzenah (a mitzvah that comes to your hand, don’t let it slip away), that one must essentially do the beginning of the time.

Inner and Outer Ones in the Row

Now, we call exempt because we are engaged in the needs of the deceased, there are inner ones who see the face of the mourner. So that means one is already standing in the row. When the time of Krias Shema comes, one is already standing in the row, waiting for the mourner. So either way, one must do this with the mourner. So those who see the face of the mourner are exempt from Krias Shema. And the outer ones…

It seems that not every single person needs to themselves, there needs to be a long enough row, every single person… the honor is that a large olam stands there, not every single person must say it themselves. So there are outer ones, those who won’t see the mourner, and they won’t need to say “HaMakom yenachem”, they just need to stand there to give honor to the deceased and honor to the mourner.

What Does “Row” Mean? – Vertical or Horizontal

I now understand, row can mean doesn’t necessarily mean that it should make us like one line stretching out. It can be that row is simply one in front of the other. It can be a row… simply said, the row is vertical, not horizontal. Because there’s the first one who sees the mourner, the second, third, perhaps one goes through, but he still stands in the back of the line.

Honor of the Deceased – The Reason for a Large Olam

It also gets promoted that he should have a job. It seems that it should still be half worthwhile. But why not tell him to go home? It seems that there’s a reason of honor of the deceased, that there’s a large olam that is accompanying. It seems that a deceased wants to have sixty myriads accompanying. It’s an honor for the deceased or for the mourners that there are more people there. Even if they don’t see the people, the people don’t see them.

Digression: Row in Other Laws

I’m thinking now about matters of mourning, but the row, do you remember where else we learned about a row of three people? In the laws of teshuvah, when one wants to appease a person. One sends to the grave. One sends to the grave, for a nasi one sends three people with rows. It seems that it’s some kind of publicity, when one wants to speak with a person, one wants to give honor, one sends him like a row of three people. Another place I think it says, after Yom Tov when one sends gifts, whether one sends with a row or doesn’t send with a row, yes, it’s a matter. It’s something a… yes, it’s some kind of order. We don’t have these orders, what we do at funerals is itself a remembrance, but there’s an order, three people stand, it comes like a delegation, to console, it’s an honor. Yes.

Law 7: Exempt from Krias Shema – If One Wishes to Be Stringent

Okay. The onen (one whose deceased relative has not yet been buried), the onen, he cannot be a mourner, and he cannot be a mourner, even Krias Shema in his place. It’s not that thing that’s here that he’s an oseik b’mitzvah and someone there for him. He can’t say Krias Shema, but he should say a blessing, Amen yehei shmei rabba, he should answer. He can’t say, he doesn’t want to be, he can’t say, he wants to teach him Krias Shema with everything. But the answer is, he should say Krias Shema. Yes, it’s something like that, a spindle. The Ra’avad argues, the Ra’avad says that this is too stands… no, no, the Ra’avad is speaking about the previous law. Something the Ra’avad there stands there. In any case, I need to understand the reality. What does it mean that he can’t say Krias Shema?

Those Who Come Because of the Mourner Are Exempt, Because of Themselves Are Obligated

Okay, he now needs… it says, the same thing the Gemara says. The Kesef Mishneh brings the Gemara, it says: “Those who come because of the mourner are exempt, because of themselves are obligated”. There are people who come to a funeral, an event, he came because of himself, it’s an event, he came to see the news. He is included as obligated in Krias Shema. But he came for the honor of the deceased… but those who… there are people who come for the honor of the deceased, there are just onlookers. It’s… they are also obligated in Krias Shema. Just so you should know that the “onlookers” have always existed, it says in the Gemara about this.

The Words of the Rambam: Anyone Who Is Exempt – If He Can Settle His Mind

Ah, now an important law. Someone who is exempt from Krias Shema… it’s very interesting, he’s learning the laws of Krias Shema, immediately he comes to the mourners and the grooms with the… I’ll understand. Okay. Yes, “anyone who is exempt from Krias Shema”. All those who until now we’ve learned, whoever is exempt, a groom and mourners and so on, he’s exempt, but if he wants to be stringent and read Krias Shema, he may, he may. But “and this is if he can settle his mind”, if he can calm himself and read with concentration. But if he’s exempt, he’s exempt from Krias Shema because of confusion, he’s mixed up and he’s bewildered.

Confusion – He Cannot Settle His Mind

This is interesting, it can be because of “met l’met” (deceased to deceased), perhaps he doesn’t have the full… his heart isn’t there to say “Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad”, he has a foolishness… no, he has a simple distraction. No, simply simple distraction is a language of… he’s confused. Someone who is confused, he can’t settle his mind to say Krias Shema, so automatically “he doesn’t settle his mind”.

The Rambam’s Condition: Only If One Can Settle Oneself

The Rambam makes an interesting condition: if one wants to make the face of Hashem Elokeinu even though he’s exempt, and he wants to be one who is commanded and does, it’s very good. But this is only good if the “face of Hashem” should be… that you can settle yourself. If not, there’s no point at all in reading Krias Shema in confusion, that’s already not. Do you understand what he’s saying?

The Objection of the Ra’avad: Krias Shema Is Reading Torah, Not Prayer

The Ra’avad argues about this. The Ra’avad says he doesn’t understand what’s wrong, if someone wants to be stringent and he reads Krias Shema even though he’s in the world of confusion, he wants to be “commanded and does”? I remember the Ra’avad, if I come like this, I don’t want to nullify the yoke of Heaven.

But without concentration? The Ra’avad says, it’s like reading Torah. “One should not stand to pray”. The Ra’avad says, by prayer he understands, prayer is implied without concentration it’s perhaps a disgrace then without concentration. But how is it just, it’s reading Torah. The Rambam said earlier that one doesn’t remain at the time of… it’s reading Torah. What’s the problem?

Yes, but the Rambam held that he shouldn’t accustom himself to the act of reading Krias Shema without concentration. I know, okay, that’s my simple explanation.

“Not Everyone Who Wishes to Take the Name May Take” – Two Explanations

And he says that he is… “one should not stand to pray”, ah, that’s the language of the Mishnah, that Rabban Gamliel said, I don’t want to nullify the yoke of Heaven from myself. And that’s a prayer, he’s reading without concentration. I don’t know.

And the Ra’avad says that… ah, one could say, in the Mishnah it says another thing, a different thing, it could be that this is what the Rambam actually meant. In the Mishnah it says that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “not everyone who wishes to take the Name may take”. That means, the Gemara was afraid of arrogance. He says, he shows pride that he has settled mind even in the most difficult time.

He says, by the Rambam there’s no arrogance, on the contrary, everyone will think that he’s reading without concentration, just like everyone who reads without concentration. And not only us, but the sages of the Talmud already said that they read without concentration. They pray without concentration.

Yes, but the Rambam sees that he brings yes the law of the Gemara, and in the Gemara it says yes this, that it’s not held by everyone, “not everyone who wishes to take the Name”. It could be that this is what the Rambam understood, “not everyone who wishes to take the Name” means not everyone can actually settle their mind. If you can, all honor. But the one who can’t, he shouldn’t say, “Ah, I’m reading, I hold myself great, I can read.” You can’t.

Question: What Does “Nullifying the Yoke of Heaven” Mean Without Concentration?

Interesting. One can also ask, what does it mean to take the Name of Heaven to say without concentration? It’s not acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, it’s just saying words.

It’s a very interesting thing. I’m somewhat more on the side of the Ra’avad. Okay.

I don’t hear you.

Continuation of the Discussion: Concentration in Krias Shema – Dispute Between Rambam and Ra’avad

Speaker 1: A ta mute, a ta not, a ta I don’t hear you.

Speaker 2: Yes, do you still hear, R’ Yitzchak?

Speaker 1: Now by the way, do you need to shave in the morning?

Speaker 2: I don’t know, I don’t know.

Speaker 1: Okay let’s finish here like this, so so so, he says perhaps like this, he says perhaps like this, like this, let him read Krias Shema, if he happened to succeed with concentration, that’s wonderful, he had Krias Shema, and if not he’s like one reading Torah, he says he doesn’t have settled mind he shouldn’t read.

Settled mind is something that easily slips out of one’s hands, something he does have settled mind, that’s wonderful, and if not he had like reading Torah. Try it out like this.

The Rambam says, if you don’t know for certain that there’s settled mind, he says don’t say it at all. Interesting. The Rambam was afraid he’ll accustom himself to saying without settled mind, that he’ll be disrespectful of Krias Shema, but the Rambam says let him try, be disrespectful, it’s some kind of reasoning.

Umm, but the Rambam says it’s quite well understood, let him try, first case he’ll be like reading Torah, something like trying. It’s a real head-case. We’ll stop, we’ll finish next time. Something got confused here.

Speaker 2: No, it’s not lost.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: Is it better?

Speaker 1: No, I just hear myself twice.

Speaker 2: Yes, now I don’t hear twice. Is it better?

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: Okay, okay, okay, in short so… we already know the next law, that one may learn, in short it’s a dispute between Rambam and Ra’avad whether one may read Krias Shema without concentration.

It seems that the Ra’avad understood that what it says earlier like reading Torah, is also here in the matter of accepting the yoke of Heaven. Do you understand what I’m saying? Because look, he says like reading Torah, and one shouldn’t nullify the Name of Heaven from himself. Okay, let’s finish the last law, and he learned about Heaven.

Law 8: The Impure Are Obligated in Krias Shema

Speaker 2: The Rambam says further. All the impure, all people who are tamei (ritually impure), are obligated in Krias Shema and bless before it and after it, and they are in their impurity, even if they are still tamei, they can read Krias Shema even though they are tamei. It is possible for them to ascend from their impurity on that day, even if they can later in the day be tahor (ritually pure), they may read Krias Shema even when they are still tamei. Like one who touches a sheretz (creeping thing) or a niddah (menstruant woman) or a zavah (woman with irregular discharge) and the like, who go to the mikveh at night and are tahor, they may read Krias Shema even when they are still tamei.

You shouldn’t say that since someone is a tamei met (impure from a corpse), I know what he needs to wait anyway, okay, but he can go to the mikveh and become a tevul yom (one who immersed that day) right now. No, even so, there’s no distinction, he’s obligated and he must and he can read Krias Shema.

The Enactment of Ezra and Its Nullification

Speaker 2: The Rambam says such a law: And Ezra and his court enacted, Ezra and his court enacted an enactment, that a ba’al keri (one who had a seminal emission) alone from other impure people should not read until he immerses. That means, Ezra said that a ba’al keri should be different from the other impure people, and he shouldn’t read Krias Shema unless he immerses.

But the Rambam says: And this enactment did not spread throughout all Israel. The enactment never became an accepted enactment. Therefore, the enactment of Ezra never became an obligation.

Just as we learned in the introduction to Mishneh Torah, that the obligation of such a type of decree is only when all of Israel accepts it.

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: Why wasn’t it accepted? Because the majority of the public didn’t have the strength to stand by it. Very good. Therefore it was nullified.

Discussion: How Can an Enactment Be Nullified?

Speaker 2: I think the way I just learned it removes various commentators’ questions of how can a later court nullify the enactment of Ezra, since a court cannot nullify the words of another court unless it is greater than it. But it seems the Rambam is saying that it never became an enactment that became an obligation. Very good.

And therefore it’s indeed simple that and so Jews conduct themselves in practice, to read Torah, whether to learn Torah, whether to read Krias Shema, even if they are ba’alei keri.

“Words of Torah Do Not Receive Impurity”

Speaker 2: He concludes, because words of Torah do not receive impurity, but stand in their purity forever.

Very interesting. He doesn’t say that it’s because for some reason it wasn’t accepted. He holds that this is how it should be. The correct way is to say that words of Torah don’t receive impurity, because Torah is eternally pure, and the Men of the Great Assembly couldn’t have said that it receives impurity.

You see the true position of Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseira. It seems that he argues in principle on the enactment of Ezra. That means, essentially, when there was the enactment, he only held that there’s a dispute. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseira didn’t hold of it at all. Therefore, what one says that “anyway” it was nullified, doesn’t come to the whole law of purity that he says that words of Torah receive impurity.

But it doesn’t seem like it was nullified at some point, but that it never became an enactment that was obligating. That’s the language of the Rambam.

Discussion: There Was Indeed Some Nullification

Speaker 2: But every time one thinks, when one makes an enactment, how can it not spread if it doesn’t? It’s a bit funny.

Speaker 1: There is indeed from the first minute that Ezra made the enactment, people started to follow it. They saw that it didn’t work, so it became nullified. There is indeed a bit of nullification. The Gemara indeed has the language “they nullified the prayer”. That’s the point.

Speaker 2: But it’s very interesting, because it’s not simple to me that Ezra held that divrei Torah (words of Torah) are indeed mekabel tumah (susceptible to impurity). It’s not simple to me that he held that the Torah becomes tamei (impure) when a baal keri (one who had a seminal emission) says it. He wanted a fence that one should immerse oneself beforehand. But… yes.

Discussion: What Does “Divrei Torah Are Not Mekabel Tumah” Mean?

Speaker 2: Do you know what the expression “ein divrei Torah mekablin tumah” (words of Torah do not receive impurity) means? It means… but on this specifically Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira says, “No, divrei Torah don’t become tamei. On the contrary, perhaps people become tahor (pure) through them.” It’s not a… it’s strange. You’re right. It’s not simple that Ezra held that divrei Torah are mekabel… I don’t understand.

Speaker 1: When a tamei (impure person) is not allowed to enter the Beis HaMikdash (Temple), is that because the Mikdash is mekabel tumah?

Speaker 2: It doesn’t mean mekabel tumah. It means that it becomes damaged from becoming tamei. If a person who is tamei goes into the Beis HaMikdash, he becomes chayav kares (liable to excision). It’s lacking in the recitation of Shema. It’s lacking in the… yes, yes, I understand. Not a defect, and that’s the reason.

He says, after all, there’s a verse “halo koh devari ka’eish” (Is not My word like fire), divrei Torah is a fire, fire is not mekabel tumah. The simple meaning is, it’s a davar she’eino mamashi (something intangible), it’s a spiritual thing, that’s what he apparently means to say, right? It’s a real thing, it’s not the sort of thing that can become tamei. An entire cheftza kedosha (holy object), the Beis HaMikdash can become tamei, I mean, it becomes damaged, so to speak, when one defiles it. Torah is even higher, therefore Torah is not mekabel tumah.

And the Rambam also brings out that one should indeed love to express oneself with beautiful language. Right, right, ultimately, I mean, the Rambam also said all these ways that one shouldn’t begin life in a place with filth. You say that divrei Torah are mekabel tumah? It’s not, that’s not the point.

The Kesef Mishneh’s Question and Answer

Speaker 2: Okay, the Kesef Mishneh asks this question. The Kesef Mishneh says it’s an interesting answer. He says, Shlomo, I thought it’s a bit of a strange question, because it’s not comparable, a davar hanirgas (something tangible), the simple meaning is you see it, it’s not that the Torah becomes tamei, you see that it’s a… it’s confused, it’s confused.

Whereas tumah is a davar murgash (something felt), it’s a davar sichli (intellectual matter). The intellect is indeed, you don’t see it at all. If someone is physically dirty, let him indeed wash himself, we’re not talking about that. If he’s only a tumah, it’s a spiritual thing, he’s talking about a davar sichli, on this there isn’t that divrei Torah are mekabel tumah, because on the contrary, the Torah is also sichli, is higher than that, and so forth. Wonderful.

He says another answer, it’s interesting, the Kesef Mishneh asks the question, and afterwards he says another answer, perhaps it’s a matter of also, after all there’s a verse “vehaya machanecha kadosh” (and your camp shall be holy), one indeed learns that… okay.

Interesting, the Ra’avad doesn’t argue on this. The Ra’avad doesn’t argue on this. I remember that they bring some letter from the Rambam where he says that he indeed conducted himself to immerse. I don’t find here where he brings it. I’ll look it up later.

In any case, this is the halachic ruling. Okay. So, have we learned a chapter?

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: Okay, wonderful. Keep it open on your phone, because I remember that he needs to upload something, I know.

Speaker 1: Ah, okay. Stop.

Speaker 2: Okay. It’s working, I hope. Okay, wonderful.

—

Summary: Conclusion of Chapter 4

Speaker 2: Good evening, we’re learning the fourth chapter of Hilchos Krias Shema. So they’ve already learned the fundamentals of Hilchos Krias Shema. The Rambam continues with… they’ve already learned the fundamentals of Hilchos Krias Shema.

Speaker 1: Looks wonderful. Keep it open on your phone, because I remember that he needs to upload something, I know. Ah, okay. Stop. Okay. It’s working, I hope.

Let’s begin. Looks wonderful. Good, today we’re learning the fourth chapter of Hilchos Krias Shema. So, we’ve already learned the fundamentals of Hilchos Krias Shema, the Rambam has presented with very beautiful order the laws of Krias Shema.

Do you want to announce your sponsor?

Speaker 2: Ah, I have again here, let’s start nicely, because the first few minutes are more than everything.

Speaker 1: So, let’s begin, and we’ll announce a sponsor. Yes. Okay. Yes, good. A good moed. Yes? Good?

Speaker 2: Sorry, sorry, sorry. I missed something.

Speaker 1: So, let’s begin.