Siman 62

Even though it has been explained that one must be meticulous with its letters, nevertheless, if one read it and was not meticulous with them according to the meticulousness that has been explained—he has fulfilled his obligation, and he does not need to read it another time. And so the sages taught in the Mishnah (15a): If one read and was not meticulous with its letters—he has fulfilled his obligation. And Rashi explained: That he was not meticulous to articulate them well with his lips. Thus far his words. And the intention is not that he did not articulate the words and the letters at all, such as if he said half-words and the like. For certainly in such a case he has not fulfilled his obligation, as this is not a reading at all. Rather, his intention is as the Rambam and the Bartenura explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah: That he was not meticulous in separating similar letters, or that he rested the mobile sheva or moved the resting sheva, and the like. For in such a case—he has fulfilled his obligation. And it is simple that one who has a speech impediment, such as people who are unable to pronounce the resh properly, or who are unable to say a right-dot shin, or who say a gimel like a dalet and the like—he has fulfilled his obligation, since he speaks according to his manner of speech. And more than this is found in Midrash Chazit on the verse "And his banner over me is love": Rav Acha said: An ignoramus who calls "ahavah" (love)—"eivah" (enmity), such as "ve-ahavta"—"ve-eivata," the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: "And his stuttering over Me is love."

And for this reason I say that according to our pronunciation, where there is no distinction between Aleph and Ayin, and between Het and Khaf, and between Samekh and soft Tav, and between Tet and dagesh Tav—they have fulfilled their obligation since such is their language. For behold, we see that those who are precise in this achieve the distinction with great effort, and still the distinction is not as it should be. And especially between Aleph and Ayin there are literal opposites, and like blasphemy and reviling, Heaven forbid. Such as in the Shemoneh Esrei, "and purify our hearts to serve You [le'ovdekha] in truth," and as in the recitation of Shema, "take heed to yourselves... and you turn aside and serve [va'avadtem]...", for when one says it like an Aleph—it is the literal opposite, Heaven forbid. Nevertheless, since such is our pronunciation—there is no concern in the matter. And the Merciful One desires the heart, and only one who is meticulous in mitzvot should see to be very precise in this. And so too in the entire Torah regarding the term "avodah" which appears according to our pronunciation like "aveidah"—his reward is great when he is precise in this.

One may recite it in any language, as it is written: "Shema" – in any language that you hear. And one must be careful regarding errors in that language, and must be as precise in it as in the Holy Tongue. And this is specifically when he understands the language. Such is also the law regarding prayer and Birkat HaMazon, as we learned in the seventh chapter of Sotah. And so too Kiddush, and the blessing over fruits, and the blessing over mitzvot, and Hallel. And there is one who says that regarding these, even if he does not understand the language – he has fulfilled his obligation (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), and many disagree with this (see Mishnah Berurah). But in the Holy Tongue, one fulfills his obligation even in the recitation of Shema even when he does not understand the language, since he knows the primary matter of the recitation of Shema. And you have no ignoramus who does not know the meaning of "Shema Yisrael," and that every man of Israel is obligated to give his life for the sanctification of the Name. And in siman 185 we will explain further regarding this with the help of Heaven, see there.

And know that this matter, that Keriat Shema and Tefillah may be said in any language, this is certainly only when one translates exactly all three paragraphs and the entire Shemoneh Esrei into the other language. For if not so, this is not Keriat Shema or Tefillah. And according to this, this law applied only in the time of the Mishnah and the Gemara, when they knew our language well and were able to translate it. But now, it is known that we have several doubts regarding the meaning of the words and the commentators have disagreed over them, such as "letotafot"—how shall we translate it? And likewise the verse "Shema Yisrael," for even in its plain meaning there are several interpretations. And likewise the meaning of "tzitzit"—there are those who interpreted it as a term for "looking" and there are those who interpreted it as a term for "protruding." And likewise the word "patil," and many similar to these. And behold, even the essential Name of Havayah we do not know how to translate properly, for some translate it as "Eternal" and some translate it as "Almighty." And there is no translation for "He was, He is, and He will be," which is the essence of the Name of Havayah, and in translation the Name of Havayah is equal to the name "Elohim." And likewise "vachara af"—in translation both are terms for anger, but in the Holy Tongue there is a great difference between them. Therefore, in this time, it is forbidden to recite Keriat Shema, Tefillah, and all the blessings except in the Holy Tongue. And thus did the Geonim of the world rule approximately eighty years ago, and such is the primary law.

One should not recite Keriat Shema in a whisper, for one must make audible to his ear what he utters from his mouth, according to the plain meaning of "Shema Yisrael," which is a term of hearing. However, ex post facto, if he did not make it audible to his ear—he has fulfilled his obligation, though it is not the preferred manner. For the primary meaning of "Shema" is a term of understanding, and there are many instances of "Shema Yisrael" in the Torah that are terms of understanding, such as: "Shema Yisrael, you are crossing the Jordan today," and similar to it. Therefore, even though hearing is also included in the term "Shema," nevertheless our sages, of blessed memory, said that it is not a requirement ex post facto. And thus the halacha was ruled in the Bavli (15b), and in the Yerushalmi, the second chapter of Berakhot (halacha 4), see there. (And from this we derive there: "In any language that you understand," because "Shema" is a term of understanding.)

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 4: If due to illness or another constraint one recited Kiryat Shema in his heart—he has fulfilled his obligation. And even ab initio he should do so if he is in a place that is not completely clean, and he cannot clean it because of a constraint—he should meditate in his heart. Provided that the place is not completely filthy, as it is forbidden to meditate on matters of Torah in a place of filth. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters appears to me to be as follows: For certainly we hold as the halacha that meditation is not like speech. For so ruled the Tosafot and the Rosh in Berakhot (20b) according to Rav Chisda that meditation is not like speech, and so ruled the students of our teacher, Yonah, there in the name of the Geonim, and so ruled the Maor and the Ra'avad in the book Tamim De'im siman 240 (except for the Ri'az in the Shiltei Gibborim there, and it is a lone opinion). And even the Rambam who ruled in the first chapter of Berakhot that one fulfills the obligation of blessings through meditation, nevertheless regarding Kiryat Shema it appears clear that he admits that one does not fulfill the obligation through this. And the proof is that regarding blessings he wrote: And if he did not make it audible to his ears—he has fulfilled his obligation, whether he expressed it with his lips or whether he recited the blessing in his heart. Thus far his words. But regarding Kiryat Shema, which precedes the blessings, he wrote: And if he did not make it audible to his ear—he has fulfilled his obligation. See there. And he did not conclude "whether he recited the blessing in his heart"—learn from this that regarding Kiryat Shema he has not fulfilled his obligation. And the reason appears to be that regarding Kiryat Shema it is written, "and you shall speak of them." However, in any event, it is the opinion of all our teachers that one does not fulfill the obligation of Kiryat Shema through meditation. And such is the primary ruling in law.

And this is the intention of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch: If due to illness or duress… – he has fulfilled his obligation. Meaning: that even though contemplation is not like speech, nevertheless, when it is impossible otherwise – he fulfills his obligation with this. Meaning: that it is better than not reciting at all. For so we say to Rav Hisda, that therefore a ba'al keri contemplates in his heart, so that the whole world will not be occupied with it while he sits idle, see there. And certainly if the duress or the illness passed within the time for the recitation of Shema – he should return and recite it with his mouth, but this is not common. And this is what they wrote afterward: And even ab initio he should do so if he is in a place that is not completely clean… Meaning: that because he previously said "he has fulfilled his obligation," a term of post facto, for this he says that there is no ab initio and post facto here, for certainly even post facto one who is able to speak does not fulfill his obligation through contemplation. Rather, those who are unable to speak fulfill their obligation with this, and for them it is even ab initio since it is impossible otherwise. And therefore also in a place that is not completely clean – it is forbidden due to doubt to speak with the mouth, and with contemplation it is permitted. And so too one who is thirsty at night in his bed, for whom it is impossible to wash his hands and rise from his bed – he is immersed in sleep and it is as if it is impossible, and he contemplates the berakhah in his heart (Taz subsection 1). But in a place that is completely filthy – even with contemplation it is forbidden. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And with this the difficulties of the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 2 are answered.)

One who hears the recitation of Shema from the mouth of his fellow—he has not fulfilled his obligation even if he intended to fulfill it through him (Maharam Alashkar). For the mitzvah of the recitation of Shema is the reciting and not the hearing, as it is written: "And you shall speak of them" (ibid.). And even if he is not proficient—the second person does not fulfill the obligation for him. However, in a group of ten when the sheliach tzibbur recites—he fulfills the obligation for one who is not proficient, as is stated at the end of Rosh Hashanah. And there is one who says that regarding the blessings of the recitation of Shema, the sheliach tzibbur fulfills the obligation for one who is not proficient, but not for the recitation of Shema itself (Eliyah Rabbah in the name of the Abudraham). And it does not appear so (Eliyah Rabbah). And the sheliach tzibbur must make his voice heard in "Shema Yisrael," so that the congregation will hear and accept the sovereignty of the Name of Heaven together.