Peticha
The Mishnah sets the zman for Kriat Shema shel shacharit at shalosh sha’ot, the view of Rabbi Yehoshua, and one who reads thereafter “lo hifsid, ke-adam ha-kore ba-Torah.” The Halakha follows Rabbi Yehoshua. Three questions run beneath this: how the ruling reconciles with the recommendation of Vatikin at netz, what the Torah intends by “be-kumecha,” and what kiyum a person retains when he reads after the zman has passed.
Halakha ke-Rabbi Yehoshua and the recommendation of Vatikin
Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel rules Halakha ke-Rabbi Yehoshua, that the zman extends until shalosh sha’ot. The Rishonim already faced the difficulty of squaring this with the other sources on zman Kriat Shema shel shacharit, chief among them the Gemara on 9b that recommends Vatikin — “Yire’ucha im shamesh,” reciting Shema at netz. The Ba’alei ha-Tosafot resolve it by treating the zman as a span: from mi-she-yakir until shalosh sha’ot, the breadth grounded in “she-ken benei melachim,” since a minority — the children of kings — rise late. Within that window of roughly four hours, the optimal moment is Vatikin, at sunrise. The single best time and the outer limit therefore do not conflict; they mark the two ends of one span.
The Yerushalmi: “be-shochei’ach” as encouragement, not concession
The Yerushalmi records the same view of Rabbi Yehoshua, but Rabbi Idi and Rav Hamnuna and Rav Ada bar Acha be-shem Rav qualify it: Halakha ke-Rabbi Yehoshua be-shochei’ach — only for one who forgot. The phrase is difficult, and Rav Huna brings two Amoraim upon it. One holds that be-shochei’ach one may act like Rabbi Yehoshua; his colleague objects, “Vechi yesh halakha be-shochei’ach?” — how can a halakha be defined by forgetting, which is by nature unintended and unaware? The resolution is “kach hi ha-halakha”: the halakha genuinely permits reciting until shalosh sha’ot, and the framing “be-shochei’ach” comes “kdei she-yehei adam mezarez atzmo li-keroteh be-onatah,” to spur a person to recite Shema in its proper onah. That onah is netz, the position of Rabbi Eliezer, for most people were already awake before netz ha-chama. The upshot is practical: one who woke late reads like Rabbi Yehoshua, but one who woke early may not delay to shalosh sha’ot on the excuse that ample time remains. The earlier one recites upon rising, the better.
The Rambam’s psak: netz as lechatchila, shalosh sha’ot as be-ones
The Rambam, in his Pirush ha-Mishnayot and again in Mishneh Torah, issues a psak that carries this Yerushalmi in its background. He writes “Ein halakha ke-Rabbi Eliezer, ve-halakha ke-Rabbi Yehoshua,” and then adds “Be-meh devarim amurim, be-mi she-ne’enas.” Reciting until shalosh sha’ot is for one under ones, with no alternative; but lechatchila, “tzarich le-hitkaven li-gemor keri’atah im henetz ha-chama,” like Rabbi Eliezer. The lechatchila zman is netz; only be-di’eved or be-ones does one lean on Rabbi Yehoshua until shalosh sha’ot. In Mishneh Torah he is explicit: one begins to recite before netz so as to complete the bracha acharona, ga’al Yisrael, at netz, and he fixes the measure — “kemo asirit sha’ah,” about six minutes — before sunrise. “Ve-im echer ve-kara achar she-altah ha-shemesh, yatza yedei chovato,” for “onatah ad sof shalosh sha’ot la-yom le-mi she-avar ve-echer.”
Rav Kapach notes that the clause “Be-meh devarim amurim” did not appear in the first edition of the Rambam’s Pirush ha-Mishnayot. The Rambam testifies in his Responsa that he revised his views, and for five of the six sedarim we possess his autograph — Nashim and Nezikin in the National Library in Yerushalayim, two volumes in the Sassoon collection in London, one in Copenhagen, all now viewable online — carrying some eight hundred emendations in his own hand. To Rav Kapach’s reading, the younger Rambam held that the Gemara on 9b (Vatikin, Abaye) and the Gemara on 10b (Halakha ke-Rabbi Yehoshua) stand in dispute, and that we pasken like 10b, so that lechatchila one might recite until shalosh sha’ot. The mature Rambam asked what “Halakha ke-Rabbi Yehoshua” could mean alongside Vatikin, and answered that lechatchila all should perform Vatikin while 10b speaks be-ones — a reading that draws near to the Yerushalmi.
The base of the machloket and the Rambam’s “de-avad ke-mar avad” template
At the root of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua lies a single question: in fixing the times of Kriat Shema, do we follow the average person and what most people do, or does the mere existence of a group — the benei melachim who rise late — suffice to set everyone’s sof zman by the late risers? Rabbi Eliezer follows the average and sets the limit at netz; Rabbi Yehoshua, since late risers exist, extends everyone’s sof zman to their hour. The Rambam offers a compromise: one who rises early should recite when he rises, ideally at netz, while the limit of shalosh sha’ot belongs to “mi she-avar ve-echer,” the one who slept late.
The Rambam applies a recurring template to zmanei tefillah, visible in the fourth perek of Berakhot, where Chachamim and Rabbi Yehuda dispute the sof zman: he paskens like one opinion yet permits acting like the other. Sof zman tefillah is arba sha’ot for Rabbi Yehuda and chatzot for Chachamim; the Rambam rules like Rabbi Yehuda, yet one who missed may still daven Shacharit until chatzot, like Chachamim. This is not tashlumin — tashlumin is unavailable to a meizid who failed to daven — and yet even a meizid may daven Shacharit until chatzot, for it remains the zman of Shacharit. The same holds at Mincha and Maariv: one may daven Mincha until plag and Maariv after plag. The Gemara identifies this as a machloket of Rabbi Yehuda and Chachamim and rules “de-avad ke-mar avad, u-de-avad ke-mar avad,” which the Ba’alei Tosafot read as a refusal to decide for the individual: daven Mincha until plag and Maariv after plag, or Mincha until shkiya and Maariv after tzeit ha-kochavim, as one wishes.
Here the first Tosafot in Berakhot insists that one may not vacillate daily — Rabbi Yehuda one morning and Rabbanan the next — but must settle on one practice, and so the Shulchan Aruch rules. “De-avad ke-mar avad” thus means choose: unlike ordinary psak, where the decision is made for the individual, here the individual chooses, and his choice binds him. When I was asked this week whether one may attend a plag minyan every day, the answer is that one who has settled on davening Mincha until shkiya may not. The Friday minyan is another matter, on account of Tosefet Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch, though it rules in Hilchot Mincha that one chooses once and that rov Am Yisrael daven Mincha until shkiya — so that there are no weekday plag minyanim — writes in Hilchot Shabbat (siman 263) that “makdimim le-hitpallel,” as the Magen Avraham explains, because Friday night differs. Tefillat Shabbat is a kiyum of Kiddush — a point I developed in the shiur on my father’s yahrzeit this year — and since Kiddush may be made before shkiya, one may daven Maariv early; the Shulchan Aruch was also guided by a clock-less society, where beginning tefillah at shkiya risked chillul Shabbat, so they davened early to gather everyone and guard Shabbat. The Friday plag minyan therefore stands, but on weekdays one must decide.
The Rambam, by contrast, does not appear to require a one-time choice. For him “de-avad ke-mar avad” carries the same logic as at Shacharit: the Halakha is like Rabbi Yehuda, and the zman of Mincha is until plag, yet one may also daven Mincha until shkiya, since that is Chachamim’s view. This is his template — when zmanim are disputed, one opinion fixes the zman while the other remains permitted — and it underlies his words here: Abaye on 9b recommended Vatikin, like Rabbi Eliezer; the Gemara rules like Rabbi Yehoshua; “de-avad” means one may rely on Rabbi Yehoshua, without diminishing the strong recommendation of Rabbi Eliezer, the zman of “be-kumecha.”
The Rambam’s strictness in practice: netz be-yechidut or a later tzibbur?
I come from a Beit Av that loves chumrot — the Briskers are known for them — yet they were not machmir on this Rambam, reciting Shema until shalosh sha’ot without concern for the chumra. The measure of the Rambam’s strictness appears in his Responsa, siman 180. He was asked what is preferable: to recite Kriat Shema at netz ha-chama be-yechidut, or to delay it more than an hour after netz until the tzibbur gathers — a late minyan that does not, in fact, miss the zman. The Rambam does not fully answer the question; he writes that the preferable course for both the individual and the tzibbur is to recite Kriat Shema at netz ha-chama. The case of a tzibbur that does not assemble at netz he leaves aside, but his own position is unambiguous.
Is there a kiyum of Kriat Shema be-tzibbur? Pores al Shema and the public crowning
Whether Kriat Shema has a dimension of tzibbur, parallel to tefillah be-tzibbur, bears on pores al Shema, a Gemara in Megillah 23b. The Mishnah there lists matters that require a minyan — and it is worth noting that no minyan appears in Mishnayot Berakhot at all, which describes tefillat ha-yachid rather than tefillat ha-tzibbur, the shaliach tzibbur surfacing only in the fifth chapter, regarding error. Minyan belongs to Megillah on account of Kriat ha-Torah, and there the list includes pores al Shema, nesiat kapayim, birkat kohanim, and “ovrim lifnei ha-teivah.” Many understand pores al Shema as bearing on the manner of reciting Birchot Kriat Shema, whose kiyum tzibbur is the Kedushah within Birkat Yotzer Or — “Kadosh kadosh kadosh”; an opinion found in the Rambam and in the Geonic literature holds that the Kedushah de-Yotzer Or may be said only with a minyan, and that is pores al Shema.
Within these discussions the Mishnah in Sotah draws attention, for it asks how Moshe u-Venei Yisrael recited Shirat ha-Yam — “Az yashir Moshe u-Venei Yisrael et ha-shirah ha-zot la-Hashem” — when the song was new and unknown. The Mishnah offers several views, among them that they were granted ruach ha-kodesh as Moshe was; but two of them amount to a machloket over the nature of Shirat ha-Yam. According to one, they recited it as we recite Hallel, with a recurring pizmon: Moshe said “Ashira la-Hashem ki ga’oh ga’ah, sus ve-rochevo ramah va-yam,” and all answered “Ashira la-Hashem ki ga’oh ga’ah”; Moshe continued “Ozi ve-zimrat Yah va-yehi li li-yeshu’ah,” and all again answered the refrain, having learned only that one line. According to the other, it was like Kriat Shema: Moshe said the first half of each verse and the people the second.
Ezra Fleischer treated this in an article and tied it to the riddle of “Baruch shem kevod malchuto le-olam va-ed,” which appears neither in Shemot nor in Devarim 6. A Gemara in Pesachim teaches that the “Yisrael” of Shema is Yaakov Avinu: when he wished to bless his sons and found ruach ha-kodesh withdrawn, he feared some were unfaithful — perhaps an Esav among them — and they reassured him, “Shema Yisrael,” that is, Avinu ha-zaken, “Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad,” whereupon he answered “Baruch shem kevod malchuto le-olam va-ed.” Since we wish to say Baruch shem like Yaakov Avinu, yet Moshe Rabbeinu did not include it, we whisper it. (The Yom Kippur custom to say it aloud rests on the midrash that Moshe took it from the malachim; we whisper it for fear of them through the year, but on Yom Kippur, when we are like angels, we say it aloud.) Fleischer suggests that the Mishnah in Sotah hints that the chazzan said “Shema Yisrael,” addressing the crowd as “Yisrael,” and the kahal answered “Baruch shem kevod malchuto le-olam va-ed” — a public recital amounting to a ceremony of crowning the Kadosh Baruch Hu over the world. In our practice today we do not experience Kriat Shema as public in the way Shemoneh Esrei is, though the Kedushah and Barchu preserve a trace of it.
The same machloket underlies Shirat ha-Yam itself: is it Hallel, or a coronation of the Kadosh Baruch Hu? We treat it as both, reciting it within Pesukei de-Zimra as zimra, and again after Kriat Shema, in “Mi Chamocha,” where it plainly serves kabbalat ol malchut shamayim. The Ramban, on the Aseret ha-Dibrot, holds that Am Yisrael first declared the Kadosh Baruch Hu their king at Shirat ha-Yam, with “Hashem yimloch le-olam va-ed,” and that the Dibrot allude to it: “Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeiticha” — you proclaimed Me king at the sea, and I now hold you to it, for a king must be obeyed.
Re-reading “be-kumecha” for a society of clocks: the Mishkenot Yaakov
The concept of “be-kumecha” presses a question that has accompanied these months of learning the zmanim. Our waking habits have changed: we have moved to mechanical clocks and electricity and detached ourselves from the sun. Netz today fell at 5:37, and one who would reach the netz minyan must rise before five, while most people do not; sof zman Kriat Shema this week, by the Gra, was just after nine. A “late minyan that misses zman Kriat Shema” is something of an oxymoron, since the zman is itself fixed by when people rise. If the operative concept is “be-kumecha,” should we re-examine when zman kima falls today and align the sof zman to it?
This touches a wider problem: many halakhic categories were formulated against a particular realia, and once set, the question is whether they may be re-evaluated. The discussion of beli’ah be-keilim is one example, raised in recent years largely in the Dati Le’umi world: poskim note that today’s vessels are of higher quality — older pots were full of holes, and the ta’am they describe was something actually sensed — and that modern detergents truly clean, where once dishes were washed with water; perhaps hechsher keilim should be reconsidered. The answer I was raised with is that a category formulated against a reality nonetheless becomes autonomous — like a satellite, “chai noseh et atzmo” — and is not reopened; a legal system fixes its categories at their formulation and does not revisit them each time, for one cannot live that way. We turn matters into concepts, and the concepts then live.
The Mishkenot Yaakov — Rabbi Yaakov of Karlin, a talmid of Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner, writing in Lithuania before the Netziv — did not wish to re-evaluate but to re-read, which is among the principal tools available: we do not re-categorize, but we may claim that this is what the sources meant, remaining loyal to the sources while ourselves interpreting them. In his teshuva (siman 79) he seeks zechut for those who, in summer, delay until roughly eight by the clock — “even ha-sha’ot ha-nikra zeiger” — though by sha’ot zmaniyot a quarter of the day from netz to shkiya has passed and the zman is gone according to the Rambam. His chiddush proceeds in two steps. First, zman Kriat Shema does not turn on the boundaries of yom va-laila — several Tanna’im place it before tzeit ha-kochavim, mi-she-kidesh ha-yom or when kohanim immerse — but on “be-shochbecha u-ve-kumecha.” Second, the shi’urim were stated only for the days on which day and night are equal, twelve hours each; the sha’ot of zman Kriat Shema are therefore not sha’ot zmaniyot but fixed sixty-minute hours, and the same, he claims, was intended by the Tanna’im.
The Rambam, he notes, innovated that all hours are reckoned as sha’ot zmaniyot, a twelfth of the day whose length shifts daily, and several gedolim challenged him from the Zohar ha-Kadosh. Where I come from, in a contest between the Rambam and the Zohar, the Rambam prevails; but the Mishkenot Yaakov turns to the Zohar’s twelve fixed hours, citing the Ya’avetz in Lechem Shamayim and the Magen Avraham in siman 233, who distinguished that the Zohar speaks of the mishmarot, aligning against the malachim, and not of us. On this reading day and night are always reckoned equal — six in the evening to six in the morning is night, six to six is day — the winter night lending hours to the day and the summer day to the night, while each remains essentially twelve, as at the tekufot of Nisan and Tishrei. Rabbi Eliezer, who set the zman at netz, did not mean that one checks netz each day and sets his alarm, but netz of the equal day, when most people indeed rise by morning, having slept some eight hours from the close of the first ashmoret. To say that in Tammuz most rise three hours after chatzot and sleep but three hours is untenable. Hence morning begins at six o’clock the year round, and night at six in the evening — irrespective of daylight or season — and sof zman Kriat Shema, on this reckoning, is nine o’clock all year. The claim does not rescue the nine o’clock minyan, which by any measure misses the zman; but it matches the sof zman, in a society governed by clocks, to the rhythm of the average working person.
“Be-shochbecha u-ve-kumecha”: identical or asymmetrical?
A question raised by gedolei olam and known from the Kesef Mishneh turns on the asymmetry of the derashot. For “be-shochbecha” we expound, like Rabban Gamliel, “kol zman she-benei adam shochvim al mitatam” — the whole time one lies down; why, then, did they not expound “u-ve-kumecha” as “kol zman she-benei adam kamim,” the whole day one is up? The Kesef Mishneh — the Beit Yosef — answers that mi-de-oraita the sof zman Kriat Shema is indeed all day, “u-ve-kumecha”; the limitation to a fixed hour is mi-de-rabbanan, instituted because one must be someich ge’ulah li-tefillah, and since sof zman tefillah is arba sha’ot, they fixed Shema at shalosh sha’ot. On this account the reason that one who reads after the zman has not forfeited his brachot is that mi-de-oraita it remains the zman; had it not been the zman at all, his brachot would be le-vatalah.
The Yereim, a talmid of Rabbeinu Tam, treats the same asymmetry: “be-shochbecha” can be expounded as a state of lying down, like “ochlecha” from “ochel,” whereas “u-ve-kumecha” cannot be expounded as standing, only as rising. When the meaning of “negina le-ma’alah” and “negina le-matah” eluded me, I turned to Doron Yaakov, who holds a doctorate in Lashon and davens at times in our shul. He explained that the Yereim derived “be-shochbecha” from the participle “shochev,” describing the act of lying, the difference of le-ma’alah and le-matah being one of stress — milel or milra — as between “ochel” and “achilah”; but “be-kumecha” derives from no noun, for there is no shem etzem “kum,” only the verb “lakum,” the action of rising. The Torah thus uses the words differently: against the Kesef Mishneh, who treats them alike, the Yereim holds that “u-ve-kumecha” means upon rising, at the start of one’s day. Kriat Shema is the recitation of Shacharit, said when one begins the day; and since we are someich ge’ulah li-tefillah and do not recite Shema upon waking, its place is taken by Modeh Ani — “Modeh ani lefanecha melech chai ve-kayam” — where “melech chai ve-kayam” carries the kabbalat ol malchut shamayim. Doron Yaakov added that the Yereim’s reading does not withstand what we now know of the historical grammar of Hebrew, but such was his understanding.
The Netziv too addresses it, holding that “be-shochbecha” denotes also the act of going to sleep, so that one may recite all night because one may retire late. He thus agrees with the Kesef Mishneh while matching the verses in the opposite direction: it is not that, per Rabban Gamliel, the zman is all night as such, but that it extends to when one lies down to sleep — and the sons of Rabban Gamliel retired at three in the morning.
Techilat shalosh or sof shalosh?
The Hagahot Maimoniyot — a commentary on the Rambam by a talmid of the Maharam mi-Rothenburg, setting Ashkenazi halakha beside the Sephardic halakha of the Rambam — records a position of the Re’em, Rabbi Eliezer mi-Metz, a talmid of Rabbeinu Tam and of Rabbeinu Simcha of Speyer (and the Ba’al ha-Yere’im cited above): that Rabbi Yehoshua’s “ad gimel sha’ot” means until the beginning of the third hour, not its end — which would advance the sof zman by an hour. After weighing his proofs he concludes that it means the end, and “ken heskim mori… be-Migdal Enzisheim”: the Maharam mi-Rothenburg, arrested in 1286 and imprisoned in a tower at Ensisheim, was visited by his students, and in one such visit, on this very question, he agreed that the limit is the end of shalosh sha’ot.
“Ha-kore mi-kan ve-eilakh lo hifsid”: what remains after the zman?
The Mishnah teaches that one who reads after the zman “lo hifsid, ke-adam ha-kore ba-Torah” — he has not forfeited, but stands as one reading pesukim; he has missed Kriat Shema, though Torah may be read all day. Rav Chisda amar Mar Ukva holds “u-vilvad she-lo yomar Yotzer Or,” that one who davens late may not recite Birkat Yotzer Or, treating it as a bracha upon the light of the day rather than upon Kriat Shema — much as one who recites Shema like Rashbi upon waking does not say Hashkiveinu, which belongs to lying down. A beraita refutes him: “ha-kore mi-kan ve-eilakh lo hifsid… aval mevarech shtayim le-faneha ve-achat le-acharcheha,” so that the brachot are said even after the zman; “teyuvta de-Rav Chisda teyuvta.” An ika de-amrei preserves a different tradition, in which “lo hifsid” itself means “she-lo hifsid brachot,” and a beraita supports it. Rabbi Mani concludes that “gadol ha-kore Kriat Shema be-onatah yoter me-ha-osek ba-Torah”: reading after the zman is like kore ba-Torah, but reading be-onatah is greater.
Two lines of explanation stand behind the brachot and the comparison to kore ba-Torah. The first: the Rashba on our sugya, and the Rosh, ask until when Birchot Kriat Shema may be said; the Rashba cites Rav Hai Gaon that it is only until arba sha’ot, the sof zman of tefillah. On this view the brachot are part of Shacharit and not bound to Kriat Shema: one may have missed Kriat Shema — which belongs to the start of the day, upon rising — so that after shalosh sha’ot it is kore ba-Torah, yet the brachot remain as part of tefillah. This is of a piece with the first Tosafot in Berakhot, on those who daven Maariv early: since one has already davened Maariv, he may say Birchot Kriat Shema as part of Maariv, through smichat ge’ulah li-tefillah — an explanation I heard from the Rav. The Rashba also brings an opinion until chatzot, like Chachamim, while the Rambam, in Hilchot Kriat Shema (perek 1, halakha 13), holds that Birchot Kriat Shema may be said all day, so that for him they bear no relation to tefillah.
The second is an idea of my grandfather, the Rav. When the Mishnah says “ke-adam ha-kore ba-Torah,” it does not mean merely that one who missed Kriat Shema is like any person reading Chumash and is mekayem Talmud Torah. Rather, the mitzvah of Kriat Shema contains two kiyumim. One is kabbalat ol malchut shamayim, and this is bound to its time: the purpose is to frame the day, to begin it and to end it with a declaration of faith, so that the whole day is colored by it, and therefore it must be said upon rising, at the start of the day. The other is a daily reading from Chumash: Chachamim intended that every day a Jew be kore ba-Torah, as the Gemara in Menachot 99b teaches that “afilu lo kara adam Kriat Shema ela shacharit ve-arvit, kiyem ‘lo yamush sefer ha-Torah ha-zeh mi-picha.’” This rests on “Ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eleh asher anochi metzavcha ha-yom… ve-shinantam le-vanecha,” where “ve-shinantam” attaches to “ha-devarim ha-eleh,” so that we are bidden to read these pesukim daily as a kiyum of Talmud Torah — a kiyum within Kriat Shema. One who reads after the zman thus forfeits the kiyum of kabbalat ol malchut shamayim, the framing of his day in faith, but retains the kiyum of kore ba-Torah, which is itself a kiyum of Kriat Shema; and because a kiyum of Kriat Shema remains, he may recite it together with Birchot Kriat Shema. I set this out at greater length in an article some thirty years ago.
Chidushim u-maskanot
The recurring yesod is that zman Kriat Shema is governed by “be-kumecha,” the rhythm of rising, and not by the boundaries of day and night — whence the Rambam’s lechatchila of netz and his be-ones of shalosh sha’ot, the Mishkenot Yaakov’s clock-bound re-reading, and the Yereim’s grammatical asymmetry between shechiva and kima. The corresponding nafka mina governs what remains after the zman: by the Rashba and Rav Hai Gaon the brachot survive as part of tefillah, while by the Rav the recitation itself retains a kiyum of kore ba-Torah, a second face of the mitzvah alongside the time-bound kabbalat ol malchut shamayim.
