K’riat Shma through Shomea K’oneh

The mishnah poses its question about the time of k’riat shma in plural language, asking when “it is read [by many]”. The Vilna Gaon, in his Shnot Eliyahu, contrasts this choice with the singular verb used in referenced to the recitation of the berakhot of k’riat shma. He observes that the difference in language reflects a difference in law. A berakhah can be recited through the medium of shomea k’oneh; one individual can recite the berakhah and many others will fulfill their obligation. Thus, the language indicates one person actual speaking. (The Ritva, Megillah 2a, makes a similar comment in explaining the mishnaic usage of a singular verb in discussing the reading of the megillah.) However, k’riat shma, asserts the Vilna Gaon, cannot be fulfilled through shomea k’oneh, and everyone must do it on their own; thus, the mishnah speaks in plural.

This notion concerning k’riat shma and shomea k’oneh has prompted much discussion, both as to its accuracy, and its explanation if accurate. As the Gaon notes in his commentary to Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 59:10), the idea is sourced in a comment of the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berakhot ch. 3, quoted in the Ran to Rosh HaShanah 34b) that the chakhamim required “that each and every individual should learn with his own mouth”.

The Magen Avraham (59:5) records a position, quoted from the talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah (Berakhot ch. 3), that k’riat shma can only be fulfilled through listening in the context of a minyan. The Shulchan Arukh HaRav (61:25) asserts that position in noting that some have the practice of reciting k’riat shma silently, to ensure that no listener rely on that recitation, assuming he is fulfilling his obligation through shomea k’oneh.

R. Avraham Weinfeld (Resp. Lev Avraham, 8) finds the position that the presence of a minyan affects the mitzvah of k'riat shma to be very difficult to understand, and suggests that if true, it is only so d'rabanan. Altenatively, perhaps the distinction was actually meant to apply to birkhot k’riat shma.

Several theories are offered to explain why shma would be excluded from the mechanism of shomea k’oneh. One notion, advanced by the Keren Orah, would presume shomea k’oneh to operate in a method similar to performing a mitzvah through agency (shlichut). If that is the case, then perhaps shma, as a personal acceptance of faith, is to be considered an obligation the individual performs with his body and soul, and thus no more applicable to shlichut than, for example, tefilin.

In any event, many authorities assume that shomea k'oneh is applicable to k'riat shma, as do the R'em and others cited by the Magen Avraham and the Pri Chadash. This is also the presumption of the Sha'agat Aryeh, who devoted an essay (#6) to the question of whether this is a viable suggestion for one who is mute to utilize to perform this mitzvah. The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 29) also operates under this assumption. (See Responsa Binyan Shlomo, I,8 as to how to reconcile these positions with the statement of the Yerushalmi.)