Last time, we unpacked a complex sugya in the Bavli that struggled to understand the relationship of the berachot of the Shema to each other. Let’s take a look at a short comment of the Yerushalmi that appears to use this same phrase in a different way. The comment was made on the first Mishna of the second chapter of Masechet Berachot:

משנה ברכות ב:א

הָיָה קוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה וְהִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּקְרָא אִם כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ יָצָא

Mishna, Berachot 2:1

If one was reading the Torah and arrived at the time of the reading of Shema – if you intend your heart, you can fulfill your obligation. 

The Mishna understands that even though this person did not recite the complete liturgy — meaning that they did not recite any of the blessings — they could nonetheless appropriately fulfill the mitzvah of the Shema. The Yerushalmi then says:

תלמוד ירושלמי ברכות י”ב א (וילנא) פרק ב הלכה א

א”ר בא זאת אומרת שאין הברכות מעכבות. 

Yerushalmi Berachot 12a (2:1)

Rabbi Aba said, “This teaches that the blessings do not stand in the way of [the Shema].”

It is clear that this short passage explains that the recitation of the berachot of Shema is not essential to the proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of reading the Shema. It seems that, while approximately the same phrase is used in both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi, they are talking about two very different questions. 

Tosafot

Next we find a puzzling comment of Tosafot on the page in the Bavli:

תוספות מסכת ברכות דף י”ג עמוד א, היה קורא אם כוון לבו יצא – 

בירושלמי אמרינן ברכות אינן מעכבות דאע”פ שלא אמר שתים לפניה ושתים לאחריה יצא דאם לא כן תקשי מאי מהני אם כוון לבו הרי לא בירך תחלה. 

Tosafot, Berachot 11a, s.v. Im kivein libo –

The Yerushalmi says, “the blessings do not stand in the way of [the Shema].” For even though one did not say the two [berachot] before or the two [berachot] after, he has fulfilled his obligation. For, if this were not the case, then you must ask why would it matter that he had the proper intention; he did not recite the blessing prior.

This first half of Tosafot’s comment is simply a citation and elaboration on the Yerushalmi. However, it is the next section that is confusing. Tosafot asks a question comparing the Bavli and the Yerushalmi:

וא”ת הא בפ”ק (ברכות י”ב.) מסקינן סדר ברכות אין מעכבות הא ברכות מעכבות? 

And if you will ask, behold, in the first chapter [of Masechet Berachot 12a] we conclude that even though the order of berachot does not stand in the way, the berachot themselves stand in the way of each other?

Tosafot makes two assumptions that are not obvious, the second more problematic than the first. They believe that the gemara in Berachot 11b /12a concluded in a very specific manner: even though the order of the recitation of the berachot is not essential, one is still required to recite both berachot. That reading of the sugya is certainly possible though not obvious. 

However, the second assumption that this question makes is that the Yerushalmi and the Bavli use this phrase to refer to the same idea. Tosafot sees a contradiction between the conclusion of Yerushalmi, “ברכות אינן מעכבות” and the Bavli, which claims, “ברכות מעכבות”. As I clarified above, the two passages refer to two very different ideas: one (Yerushalmi) about the relationship between the berachot and the Shema, and the other (Bavli) about the relationship of the berachot to each other¹. 

Despite this obvious distinction, Tosafot’s answer distinguishes between public and private. In a public, communal prayer setting, one is required to recite both berachot, as was the situation in the Mikdash described on Berachot 11b /12a. However, when davening alone, as is the case in the Mishna at the beginning of the second chapter of Berachot (13a) the omission of the berachot does not invalidate the recitation of the Shema, which was the inference made by the Yerushalmi.

The Tosafot’s question is problematic. For this moment, let us assume that Tosafot in fact understood the obvious difference between the Yerushalmi, which deals with the relationship of the berachot to the Shema, and the Bavli, which considers the relationship of the berachot to one another. I submit that Tosafot may, in fact, be making a fundamental claim about how these two concepts relate one to another.

If one thinks that the omission of the berachot does not hinder the proper fulfillment of the Shema (ירושלמי – ברכות אינן מעכבות את שמע), then one claims that the blessings of the Shema are not inextricably linked to the Shema itself. Rather, they are normal ברכות שבח, blessings of praise, that the Rabbis happen to locate before and after the Shema as a way to insure their regular recitation. One implication of this status is that the omission of one beracha² does not stand in the way of  the proper fulfillment of the other(ברכות אין מעכבות זו את זו).  

However, Tosasfot believe that the Bavli concluded that even though the proper order of the berachot does not stand in the way of their fulfillment, one must recite both blessings every day (סדר ברכות אין מעכבות הא ברכות מעכבות). These are not in fact two disconnected ברכות שבח, blessings of praise, that follow on another, but they are fundamentally connected to each other. In order to explain why the Yerushalmi thinks that the berachot are unrelated to the Shema or to each other (ברכות אין מעכבות) and the Bavli thinks that the berachot are related to each other (ברכות מעכבות), Tosafot introduce the distinction between public and private. In public, everyone agrees that the normative practice is to recite both berachot prior, but that in private, if one were rushed for time, one of the berachot could be recited later in the day.

This debate — do we view the berachot and Shema as a combined unit or as two distinct sections — lies at the core of how we understand this piece of the Siddur. Tosafot’s difficult question forces us to see a bigger picture. To understand that what might appear to be a limited or local question in fact reflects a more global conversation occurring at the time. Our next installment will move us from the 12th century Ba’alei ha-Tosafot to the 13th century Rishonim in Sefarad: the Ramban and his student the Rashba.

1. See the following achronim, in their commentary on this Tosafot, who are bothered by this question:פני יהושע, דברי דוד, מרומי שדה, הגר”א מובא באמרי נועם, הגרי”ד ברשימות. In his commentary on Tosafot, the שערי תוספות, Rabbi Oxenberg addresses the problem at the end of his analysis and summary in footnote number 6. The ביאורי תוספות in the Metivta Sha”s is surprisingly thin. In his commentary on the Yerushalmi called עיר של זהב on page 12a Rabbi Zalman Hillel Fendel also offers an approach to this same problem. See also the ים התפילה by Rabbi Mordechai Zakutinsky סימן כה pages רא – רב.
2. Think of the berachot of אשר יצר and א-לוקי נשמה as an example. In addition the bulk of ברכות השחר functions in this manner. Many have a custom not to recite עוטר ישראל בתפארה on Tisha b’Av when the Tefillin are not worn. At Mincha, when Tefillin are put on, that beracha is then recited.