Siman 67

The Rambam in the second chapter, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: If one is in doubt whether he recited Shema—he returns and recites, and blesses before it and after it. But if he knows that he recited it but is in doubt whether he blessed before it and after it—he does not return and bless. Thus far their words. The explanation of the matters: Since the recitation of Shema is from the Torah, therefore in a case of doubt—he returns and recites according to the law that a doubt regarding a Torah matter is resolved stringently. And therefore, even according to those who hold that from the Torah his obligation is only for the first verse or the first parasha, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 58, and certainly regarding the blessings which are entirely from the Rabbis, nevertheless since he becomes obligated in the essence of his obligation—he becomes obligated in everything, for such was the enactment (Rashba in a responsum, siman 320). Furthermore: that anything whose obligation is from the Torah, in a case of doubt—one must bless, such as the second festival day of the Diaspora. And even though regarding several doubts of the Torah we do not bless, such as a doubtful milah for an androgynos, and in the sounding of the shofar, and similar cases—this is because there the doubt is in the essence of their obligation. But here the obligation is clear, but the doubt is perhaps he already fulfilled it, and therefore since out of doubt—he returns and recites, he recites it all with its blessings. But when the doubt is only regarding the blessings—he does not bless, for a doubt regarding a Rabbinic matter is resolved leniently, and also there is some concern of a blessing in vain in this. But when the doubt is also regarding the recitation of Shema—there is no concern here of a blessing in vain, for according to the law it is so, as I have written.

And it is simple that this refers to a case where there is a doubt regarding everything: regarding the Keriat Shema and regarding the blessings. But if the doubt is only regarding the Keriat Shema, and the blessings he certainly recited—it is simple that he recites the Keriat Shema and not the blessings, for the blessings are not connected to the Keriat Shema, as I wrote in siman 59. However, one could say that if it is certain to him that he recited "Emet VeYatziv"—he also does not return and recite Keriat Shema, for he certainly also recited Keriat Shema, as he follows his habit. As I wrote in siman 64, that when he began "Lema'an Yirbu" we say that he certainly recited "VeHayah Im Shamoa" because he follows his habit, see there. And here too it is so. And if it is clear to him that he recited the blessings before Keriat Shema, and the doubt is regarding the Keriat Shema and the blessings after them—he recites Keriat Shema and the blessings after them.

And behold, according to what has been explained, that regarding any Torah doubt where one is obligated because of the doubt, he is also obligated in the blessing; and according to this, if he is in doubt regarding the taking of the lulav on Sukkot or the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, such that he goes back and takes it or goes back and blows—he must bless. Yet we maintain that he does not bless (Magen Avraham siman 585 subsection 3 in the name of the Rivash). And such is the law in every doubt of a d'oraita mitzvah, that out of doubt he is obligated to perform it but he does not bless. And one does not learn from the second Yom Tov of the Diaspora, which is a permanent obligation and thus the sages ordained, and not in a case of a situational doubt which is not a permanent obligation. And we have already brought this reasoning in Yoreh Deah siman 28 section 11 in the name of the Rosh at the beginning of the chapter "Kisuy HaDam," see there. And I have seen great ones who also wondered at this reasoning (the Gra and the Pri Megadim). Rather, it is certain that one does not learn from this law regarding all matters.

And in truth, in the responsa of the Rashba there, he wrote only that such was the enactment regarding the recitation of Shema. And he wrote further that even if it is clear to him that he recited the first verse, whereby he fulfilled the Torah obligation of the recitation of Shema according to his view, nevertheless, he returns and recites it with its blessings on the grounds that such was the enactment; see there. But we do not know from where we derive that such was the enactment, for in the Gemara this is not explained. And it requires further study. (And perhaps from "one who recites from here onwards.")

We have already written in siman 58 that there is a dispute regarding how much of the requirement of the Torah is in the recitation of Shema: some say one verse, some say the first parasha, and some say two parashiot. In our opinion, according to the view of the Rambam, all of them are from the Torah; see there. And I saw one of the great ones who wrote that both are true: that from the Torah one is obligated to recite all three parashiot, and conversely, one fulfills the Torah obligation with the first verse, just as it is with the study of Torah, which one is obligated to study from the Torah, and if he studied a little by day and a little by night, he has fulfilled "and you shall meditate upon it day and night." And if he studied all day and all night, he also fulfills "and you shall meditate upon it day and night" (Lechem Mishneh chapter 2 halacha 13 in the name of Kiryat Sefer, see there). And it is a great reasoning, for just as in the study of Torah, the more one studies the more reward he has, so too with the recitation of Shema: all of them are from the Torah, and nevertheless, he has fulfilled his obligation with one of them (and Rashi at the beginning of Berakhot will be answered).

The matter is simple: all that has been explained regarding a doubt as to whether one recited Keriat Shema—that he returns and recites it with its blessings—this is when it is still the time for Keriat Shema. However, if the time for Keriat Shema has already passed, he does not recite it with its blessings. For that which they said, "one who recites from this point forward has not lost" the blessings, applies only when he certainly did not recite, and not in a case of doubt. And it is simple.

Remembering the exodus from Egypt every day and likewise every night is from the Torah, as is explained in the Gemara (21a). And it is simple that one is obligated to mention it with the mouth and does not fulfill the obligation through thought, for we hold that thought is not like speech. Furthermore, regarding every "remember" written in the Torah, the meaning is with the mouth, and here too it is so. And as for why the enumerators of the mitzvot did not count the remembering of the exodus from Egypt among the general mitzvot, it seems to me it is because it is written in the Torah: "In order that you remember the day of your departure...", and it is not written in the language of a command, "Remember the day...". Rather, the remembering is because of the preceding matters in the verse there, and therefore even though it is from the Torah—it does not enter into the count of the mitzvot. And it appears to me that this is the difference between the night of Pesach and all other nights, for seemingly, since there is also an obligation to remember the exodus from Egypt at night, if so, what difference is there? But according to what I have written, the difference is that there it is an independent obligation, and it is a complete positive commandment and they counted it among the general mitzvot. And there are further differences, and it is explained in another place. (The obligation of the exodus from Egypt of the day is all day. And if he remembered at twilight—he mentions it. And the obligation of the night is until the break of dawn. See Sha'agat Aryeh who elaborated on this.)