The Rabenu Tam is apparently not concerned with the Tarte Desasre and therefore the Krias Shema and the Tefilah of Maariv can be said after Plag even though Mincha might have been said after Plag as well. Why then is the Rabenu Tam (at the end of Tosfos) concerned about the Yersushalmi who clearly does not hold like the Rabenu Tam. In other words, we already understood at the very beginning of Tosfos who discusses Rashi's opinion, that the reason why one says Krias Shema after Plag but before Tzes in accordance with the Yerushalmi. That opinion is clearly the opposite of the RT and therefore it is not clear to me what the RT is "clarifying" about the Yerushalmi at the end of Tosfos.
Joshua Bacon, fair lawn, NJ USA
Tosfos cited the Yerushalmi to provide support for Rashi's opinion, but that does not mean that Rabeinu Tam will completely ignore the Yerushalmi simply because he allows one to do Tartei d'Sasrei. The Yerushalmi anyway did not state that it is against Tartei d'Sasrei in Tefilah; it merely says that the Keri'as Shema aspect is not to fulfill one's obligation. Rabeinu Tam explains that there was another Keri'as Shema between Minchah and Ma'ariv which did not fulfill any obligation and this is what the Yerushalmi is talking about, but the Keri'as Shema said with its Berachos even before Sheki'ah is the main Keri'as Shema, even if Minchah had been said right before Ma'ariv and they were Tartei d'Sasrei.
Yoel Domb
Thank you very much for your response. I am not sure I understand, Do you mean to say that according to the RT there was another KS (in accordance with the Yerushalmi) between Mincha and Maariv in addition to the KS with the Brachos. What would be the point of that KS if according to the RT the KS with the Brachos could accomplish both the Mitzvah and also be Limud Torah prior to Tefillah. Or do you mean to say that the RT is explaining that the Yerushalmi clearly disagrees with his (RT) opinion and is just reiterating what the Yerushalmi holds regarding the purpose of the KS before Maariv (which RT already did at the beginning of the Tosfos).
The explanation I wrote is the Ma'adanei Yom Tov's explanation of Rabeinu Tam, as he is explained in the Rosh (Avudraham has a similar explanation of the Yerushalmi). According to this, they would read the Shema (possibly only the first Parshah) as a kind of preparation for Ma'ariv, and then would say the Tefilah (in accordance with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's opinion in Berachos 4b, that Shemoneh Esreh of Ma'ariv is before Keri'as Shema and its Berachos) and only then say Keri'as Shema and its Berachos. Thus, the Yerushalmi according to this interpretation maintains that the second Keri'ah is the main one and the first (which may be earlier than the proper time for Keri'as Shema) was only meant to enable the Tefilah to be prefaced by Divrei Torah. This is in accordance with Rabeinu Tam's contention that the main Keri'as Shema is the one said in the synagogue.
Yoel Domb