A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) require kavanah for Kriyat Shema even if mitzvos don't require intention? The shiur distinguishes between actively reading Shema (which needs kavanah for kabbalat ol malchut shamayim) and encountering Shema while learning Torah (תורה) (where proper kavanah can make even secondary recitation valid). This resolves the apparent contradiction with the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling.
This shiur provides an in-depth examination of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on kavanah in Kriyat Shema and how it relates to the Gemara (גמרא)'s analysis. The speaker begins by outlining the apparent contradiction: according to the simple reading of the Gemara, if one holds mitzvos ein tzrichot kavanah (mitzvos don't require intention), then reading Shema regularly without specific kavanah should fulfill the obligation. However, the Rambam rules that even if one reads Shema, without kavening his heart in the first verse of Shema Yisrael, he is not yotzei (hasn't fulfilled his obligation). The speaker identifies several difficulties with the Rambam's position. First, it seems to contradict the Gemara's conclusion. Second, the Rambam's language appears redundant when he states the requirement for kavanah in the first verse twice. Third, the Rambam's ruling about korei l'hagia (reading without focus) seems inconsistent with both Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot's understanding. The central resolution offered distinguishes between two separate halachot in the Rambam. The first halacha (הלכה) deals with actively reading Shema (akari et shema) - the optimal way to fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה). Even in this case, one needs both proper recitation and kavanah for kabbalat ol malchut shamayim (accepting the yoke of heaven). This is not merely kavanah to fulfill the mitzvah (kavanah l'atzei) but specifically kavanah for the theological content. The second halacha addresses a different scenario: when one is learning Torah (תורה) (korei b'Torah) and encounters the Shema text. This is not considered full kriyat Shema but rather kriyat Torah. In this case, if one has kavanah for kabbalat ol malchut shamayim in the first verse, he can be yotzei the mitzvah even though the recitation itself is secondary. The speaker explains that korei l'hagia represents a kriyah that meets the standards for Torah study but not necessarily for the specific mitzvah of Kriyat Shema. However, when combined with proper kavanah, it becomes sufficient. This interpretation resolves Tosafot's difficulty about the meaning of 'im kiven libo likro' by understanding it as expressing one's internal kavanah through speech, similar to the principle that thoughts alone are insufficient and must be expressed verbally. The analysis extends to parallel cases in Hilchot Megillah and other areas where similar principles apply. The speaker suggests that the Rambam's approach reflects a broader understanding of when mitzvos require kavanah, particularly distinguishing between mitzvos of action and mitzvos of speech, and how Torah study creates a unique category that affects these requirements. The shiur concludes by addressing why the Rambam's interpretation doesn't conflict with the principle of mitzvos ein tzrichot kavanah, explaining that different types of mitzvos may have different kavanah requirements based on their essential nature and purpose.
Brachos 13a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Up Next in this Series
Why does saying Ashrei three times daily guarantee a share in the World to Come? The verse 'umasbia l'chol chai ratzon' reveals that God provides not just sustenance but pleasure to all creation out of pure love. This recognition teaches us that even basic needs are expressions of divine chesed, creating the foundation for love-motivated service through both major and minor mitzvos.
Should one learn Torah full-time trusting in Divine providence, or combine learning with work? The shiur distinguishes between Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's approach of complete separation from worldly concerns versus Rabbi Shmuel's view that proper work itself becomes part of Torah. The key insight: true emunah means learning without demanding sustenance from either Hashem or community, unlike having a 'contract' expecting payment for learning.
Should one combine Torah study with work, or rely entirely on Divine providence through exclusive learning? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, explaining that 'Bnei Aliyah' live above natural law where Torah itself becomes their reality. This connects to the difference between tzaddik gamor and tzaddik she'eino gamor regarding transcending physical limitations.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
