The Kriyat Sh'ma

Howard Shuman
January 19, 2013

Shabbat shalom!

This week I would like to talk with you about the Kriyat Sh’ma. Several weeks ago we had an excellent D’var Tefilah by David Feuer, who explained the different possible interpretations and cross-cultural meanings of “One‑ness” and “Unity” expressed in the opening statement of the Sh’ma.

Today however, I would like to focus on several other aspects of the Kriyat Sh’ma: the history behind our current liturgical practice; why we recite the three paragraphs, in particular the third paragraph concerning the tzitzit; the meaning behind the first and second paragraphs; and finally relate a surprising connection between the third paragraph of the Sh’ma and mystical views of the Rabbis of the mishnaic period. However, it would not be a completely Jewish experience if there were not contentious arguments about both fundamental meaning as well as seemingly inconsequential details — and indeed that is where we shall begin.

The first topic is the historical perspective on the Sh’ma. It is generally accepted that twice daily recitation of the Sh’ma is biblically mandated, and this leads many to assume that the Sh’ma plus three paragraph configuration that we practice today is the same as it always has been. However — although the statement “Sh’ma Yisrael”… as well as the first two paragraphs, “Ve’ahavta” and “Ve haya im shamoah” are likely to have always been recited as part of the Temple liturgy by the Cohanim — the third paragraph has had a life of its own. This stems from differing descriptions of the Temple liturgy in the Mishna. Different versions of the Temple liturgy appear in different locations. All include the recitation of the Ten Commandments and at least the beginning of the Sh’ma. As an example we see that in mishna Tamid 5:1 the Cohanim are instructed to recite all three paragraphs:

• say one blessing
• recite the Ten Commandments
• recite the Sh’ma
• recite the three paragraphs (Ve’ahavta, Ve’hayah im shamoah, Va’ yidaber)
• say three blessings: True and sure, Avodah, and the Blessing of the Priests
• on Shabbat an extra blessing for the outgoing priestly watch.

However, the transition from this Temple liturgy to daily recitation by individuals or in communal Synagogue liturgy was not a straight line as we might assume. It was interrupted by the elimination of the Ten Commandments from the Temple Service. There was a long-lived and contentious dispute about the Ten Commandments that was triggered by “the slander of the minim”. Who the minim were and the nature of their slander is an entire topic for another time. Suffice it to say that one accepted theory is that they were Hellenized Jews who wanted to give up many of the mitzvoth and claimed that because the Ten Commandments were recited by the Cohanim daily, only those mitzvoth were binding and the others could be eliminated or ignored. One faction of sages wanted to therefore eliminate the recitation of the Ten Commandments to show that all of the mitzvoth, not just those ten were binding. The opposition wanted to continue the liturgy as it was (Berakhot 12a). In the end, the Ten Commandments were eliminated from the Temple liturgy. At least one source claims that the third paragraph is meant to take the place of the Ten Commandments in so far as we are told to “remember and perform all of the mitzvoth of Hashem”. An additional function of the third paragraph is to fulfill the obligation to recall the Exodus from Egypt daily.

At this point it is useful to consider the role of the synagogue in Jewish daily life during the Second Temple period. The sacrificial rites were still practiced and it is generally thought that the main activity in the synagogue revolved around Torah study that had been instituted by Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly in the 5th century BCE after the return from Babylon. Indeed in the synagogue, the Sh’ma was recited twice daily; morning and evening as we still do. The opening statement and the first paragraph, to fulfill the precept that the “book of the Law should not depart from your mouth”. As the third paragraph was added to the Temple Service, it also became part of the synagogue liturgy.

A curious detail of the siddur version of the Kriyat Sh’ma is the inclusion of three extra words. If one is praying with a minyan, the Shliach Tzibbur ends the recitation of the Sh’ma with the statement “Hashem, Elokeichem Emet”. In contrast to all other terminations of psalms, prayers and texts, where the Shliach Tzibbur can end anyway he or she prefers, “Hashem, Elokeichem Emet” however, must be said exactly as is, without variation. Similarly, when one prays by one’s self or without a minyan (ie. without a Shliach Tzibbur), the Sh’ma is preceded by the statement, “Kayl Melech Ne’eman”. The origin of this practice is that with the three extra words, the total number of recited words is 248, corresponding to the number of limbs ascribed to the human body by the rabbis as well as the number of positive mitzvoth. Hence, by this custom, we recapitulate the instruction in the first paragraph to love Hashem and perform the mitzvoth with all of our being.

A major difficulty that I encounter when reading the first and second paragraphs is what I perceive as inconsistent instruction on how to perform the mitzvoth. At first, the instruction in paragraph one is to love Hashem and serve Him with all of one’s heart and soul. In the second paragraph however, if we turn astray and fail, all types of disasters will ensue. To me this has always seemed inconsistent. Love or fear, but how can we be motivated by both simultaneously?

Fortunately the Sages have commented on this paradox. One of the earliest is Antigonos, of Socho, an early Tanna, (Avot 1:3):

“Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward, but rather be like servants who serve their master not for the sake of receiving a reward; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.”

This mishna of Antigonos simply recapitulates but does not resolve the problem and as there is no gemara for Avot, it is left for others to help. We need to consider the environment in which Antigonos makes his statement; an extraordinarily turbulent time both for the tensions within the Temple and Kingdom of Israel as well as for the Hellenistic cultural influences, such as the Epicureans, for whom the only goal in life was to attempt do good and to seek personal happiness in complete dissociation from any relationship with the one true God.

Differing interpretations of Antigonos’ dilemma led to deep sectarian differences among his disciples. Erroneously, some disciples used his mishnah to question the world to come and its reward as well as the resurrection of the dead; these rejections of a belief in a future reward led many to abandon Judaism altogether and also contributed to the factional splits of the Sadducees and Boethusians. More temperate interpretations of Antigonos’ mishnah developed over several centuries and it is discussed at length by the Rambam in the Introduction to Perek Helek. In sum, serving Hashem out of pure love and truth is an ideal consistently achievable by very few; Avraham Avinu, and of course, Antigonos. For those who do not or cannot achieve this elevated status, the fear of Heaven must suffice. I would only add that one can imagine some days it is easier to serve Hashem purely out of love whereas on other days, fear of Heaven is the only way.

Finally the third paragraph, in addition to recalling the Exodus, introduces the mitzvah of tzitzit. The tzitzit are mentioned three times in this paragraph. As a sign of our devotion to them, an almost universal custom is to kiss the gathered tzitziot each time they are mentioned and again at the end of the Kriyat Sh’ma. The function of the tzitzit is to be a visible reminder of our obligation to carry out the mitzvot. As explained by the Rambam in the Introduction to Perek Helek, mentioned above, Hashem helps us to perform the mitzvoth that he has given us; “Mitzvah gorreret mitzvah”, performance of one mitzvah leads to another. Wearing visible tzitizit will help us keep the other mitzvoth in mind and protect us from doing aveyrot (Avot 4:2). A very informative and detailed essay on the history of tzitzit can be found in the back of the Etz Hayim chumash by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom.

Of course, the most curious part of the third paragraph and the second mention of the tzitzit is the blue thread, the “p’til techelet”. In ancient times one of the threads was dyed with techeilet. The source and the method of producing the techeilet were lost following the destruction in 70 CE and it has been necessary to fulfill the mitzvah with white tzitzit ever since that time. However, attempts to reintroduce the practice of p’til techeilet have occurred through history. In the 1880’s Rabbi Gershon Henoch made a strong case for the cuttlefish as the “chilazon”, the animal source of the dye. More recently, the Amuta P’til Techeilet in Jerusalem has determined that snails of the genus Murex are the source of the dye and have shown that there is a credible process for producing the dye from glandular secretions of these snails. They produce strings and promote their use in Israel and here in the U.S. Of course it would be too simple if there were only one group promoting the use of techeilet. In competition with Amuta P’til Techeilet are some Breslover Hasidim who adhere to the techeilet of R. Henoch produced from cuttlefish.

However, what is the true mystical significance of the techeilet dye as it relates to the Kriyat Sh’ma? An answer comes from the BT in Sotah 17a.

“But what is the thread of blue? As we learned: R. Meir used to say: How different is blue from all the varieties of colors: Because blue resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the heaven, and heaven resembles the Throne of Glory. As it is said: ‘And they saw the God of Israel and there was under His feet, as it were, a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for purity’ (Exodus 24:10). And it was written: ‘The likeness of a throne as the appearance of sapphire stone’,” (Ezekiel 1:26).

The techeilet and its mystical reference to Hashem’s throne and the symbolism that it evokes are answer enough to the slander of the minim Hellenizers who saw no need of a connection to God and just wanted to adapt Judaism to fit their Epicurean ways. The techeilet is thus visible and public evidence of our direct connection to all of creation and its Creator.

Shabbat shalom.

Sources:

• Why We Pray What We Pray: The Remarkable History of Jewish Prayer, 2010, R. Dr. Barry Freundel, Urim Publications, Jerusalem. ISBN:978-965-524-034-4
• The Sages: Character, Context, and Creativity, v. 1: The Second Temple Period, 2010, R. Binyamin Lau, Maggid Books, Koren Publishers, Jerusalem. ISBN:978-159-264-245-8
• Tzitzith, A Thread of Light, 1984, R. Aryeh Kaplan, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn. ISBN: 1-879-016-03-6

→   Divrei Tefillah series webpage.