A.
This week’s parasha contains Moshe’s repetition of the Âsereth ha-Dibroth, the “Ten Utterances” with which Mattan Torah began, often misnamed the “Ten Commandments” (V, 6-18).
The Mishna describes how the kohanim used to pray in the Temple: אמר להם הממונה ברכו ברכה אחת והם ברכו וקראו עשרת הדברות ושמע והי' אם שמוע וגו' (“The one appointed [to lead the service] said to [the kohanim] to recite one blessing, and they recited [it] and read the Âsereth ha-Dibroth, Shma [Deuteronomy VI, 4-9], [and] V’haya im shamoa [ibid., XI, 13-21]....” תמיד פ"ה מ"א:).
Elsewhere (ברכות י"ב.) we learn: אמר ר"י אמר שמואל אף בגבולין בקשו לקרות כן אלא שכבר בטלום מפני תרעומת המינים (“Said Rabbi Yehuda, said Shmu’el, 'Even in the countryside people sought to read thus, but [the rabbis] had already abolished them because of the insinuations of the heretics [minim]'”), who used the practice to advance the claim to the less well-educated, as Rashi explains ad loc., that אין שאר התורה אמת ותדעו שאין קורין אלא מה שאמר הק"בה ושמעו מפיו בסיני (“the rest of the Torah is not true, and [that] you should know that [we] do not read anything save what the Holy One Blessed is He said and they heard from His mouth at Sinai”). In other words, the minim wanted to promotee the idea that there were “ten commandments,” rather than 613, which had to be obeyed (ע"ע ירושלמי ברכות פ"א ה"ה דאמרינן התם "מפני טענת המינים שלא יאמרו אלו לבדן ניתנו למשה בסיני").
Basing himself on the above passages, an anonymous chacham asked Rambam whether the custom of standing during the reading of the Âsereth ha-Dibroth should also be discouraged, on the grounds that it is מדרכי המינים המאמינים שלעשרת הדברות מעלה על שאר התורה (“of the ways of the minim who believe that the Âssereth ha-Dibroth are more important than the rest of the Torah”). He offers two explanations which he had heard for the custom, that it commemorates the fact that Israel stood during the original utterances at the foot of Sinai, and that it is an age-old custom of the ancient communities of Babylon. He refutes both of these, saying that the reason Israel stood was out of respect, since they were being addressed directly by G-d, and, similarly, that people in the Babylonian communities rose out of respect for the august personages, roshei yeshiva or reishei galutha, whom it was customary to honour with the reading; other, more humble communities not addressed directly by G-d or graced by such august personages need not follow the Babylonian example.
Rambam responds by ruling in favour of the questioner: בכל מקום שמנהגם לעמוד צריך למנעם בגלל מה שמגיע בזה מן ההפסד באמונה ומה שמדמים שיש בתורה מדריגות וכו' וזה רע מאוד וגו' (“in every place in which their custom is to stand they should be prevented because of what comes of it in loss of faith and that they imagine that there are levels [of truth] in the Torah... and this is very bad....” שו"ת רבינו הרמב"ם מכ"י אוקספורד, סי' מ"ו).
If so, why do we still stand?
B.
Rabbi Chayyim Yosef David Azulai (Chida) was asked the same question independently. He responded that the ban on reading the Âssereth ha-Dibroth together with the Shma mentioned in the gmara supra and standing whilst hearing the Dibroth during a regular Torah reading, are two very different things: הכא שקורין בס"ת כל התורה מידי שבת בשבתו וגם ביום זה שהם קורין עשרת הדברות קורין איזה חלק מהתורה בס"ת לית לן בה דמוכח דהכל אמת אלא שהם עומדים בהם להיות שהם יסוד התורה ונכתבו בלוחות (“And here where we read the entire Torah from the séfer Torah, sabbath after sabbath, and also on this day when they read the Âsereth ha-Dibroth they read a certain portion of the Torah from the séfer Torah we have no part in [this heresy] for it is demonstrated that it is all truth, but they stand during [the Âssereth ha-Dibroth] because they are the foundation of the Torah and were written on the Tablets....” שו"ת טוב עין סי' י"א).
More recently, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל (אגרות משה או"ח ח"ד סי' כ"ב) ruled similarly to Chida, but on the basis of a different rationale:
First, he notes that Rambam wrote in his comments on the mishna supra that the Dibroth are עיקר הדת וראשיתו שלכן חזינן שלא בטלו מלומר במקדש (“the root and starting point of the [Jewish] religion, for which reason we see that they were not abolished from being said in the Temple”).
He then cites the opinion of the Tif’ereth Yisra’él on the same mishna: דכך היתה התקנה אף בגבולין לקרות בכל יום עשרת הדברות קודם ק"ש. אולי מקורו הוא מלשון שכבר בטלום דלא שייך לשון ביטול על מה שלא הי' כלל כו' שהי' זה אחר זמן גדול משבטלום שרצו עוד הפעם להנהיג כו' ואמר ר"י אמר שמואל שכיון שכבר בטלום מחמת שבגבולין יש מקומות שלא נמצאו ת"ח והטעו המינים את ע"ה אין להנהיג בהא כו' (“that thus had been the ruling, that even in the countryside [it had been the norm] to read every day the Âsereth ha-Dibroth before reading Shma; perhaps [the Tif’ereth Yisra’él’s] source is the phrase ‘they already abolished them’ since the term ‘abolished’ does not apply to something which had never been at all... For this was some time after they had abolished them that people wanted to institute the custom once again... and Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmu’el said that since [their predecessors] had already abolished [the custom], since there were places in the countryside where there were no Torah scholars [unlike in the Temple, where the Sanhedrin was immediately available to answer questions], and the minim could mislead the peasantry, one should not reinstitute it....”).
Rabbi Feinstein concludes that standing in the synagogue is unrelated to this, but shows the importance of every individual member of Israel, who merited to hear these words directly from G-d’s mouth, דזהו ענין אחר אינו בכלל מה שבטלו דלפי זה אין לדמות מילתא למילתא (‘for this is a different matter entirely, amd is not sat all what they abolished, and accordingly one should not compare the one to the other”). The custom of standing during the Âsereth ha-Dibroth, he rules, is valid.
Rabbi Ovadya Yosef שליט"א, for his part, was asked a variant of this question: If one finds oneself in a synagogue in which the custom is to stand for the Dibroth, what should one do?
Rabbi Yosef begins by reviewing Rambam’s ruling, and declares אין לזוז מפסק דינו של הרמב"ם הנ"ל (“one may not budge from the above ruling of the Rambam”). He then proceeds to note Chida’s opinion, concluding that Chida was unaware of Rambam’s opinion, and would have changed his mind had he known of it. In support of this thesis, he adduces two other unrelated cases in which Chida ruled differently from Rambam and later reversed himself on learning Rambam’s view.
Turning to the immediate question, he notes that Chazal say: לא יהי' אדם יושב בין העומדים ועומד בין היושבין (“A person should not be sitting amongst the standing or standing amongst the sitting”; מסכת דרך ארץ רבה פ"ז וזוטא פ"ה), explaining that this only applies in the absence of a compelling halachic reason to behave differently than the rest. Nonetheless, to sit whilst the others were standing in this case would appear to show disrespect. Therefore, he suggests that if one knows in advance the custom of the synagogue, one should stand for the entire reading, or at least for the entire âliya in which the Âsereth ha-Dibroth occur, so as not to violate Rambam’s ruling not to stand specifically for the Dibroth whilst still maintaining peace and decorum (יחוה דעת ח"ו סי' ח').
Rabbi Yosef does nor mention Rabbi Feinstein’s opinion. Can they be reconciled?
C.
If we turn to the Shulchan Âruch, we find that, whilst he did not rule on this specific issue, he does say concerning Torah readings in general: א"צ לעמוד מעומד בעת שקורין בתורה (“One need not stand erect whilst the Torah is being read;” או"ח קמ"ו סע' ד'). His source in this is the practice of Rav Sar Shalom, one of the Ba’âlei Tosafoth, cited in the Tur (שם). Rema adds the gloss: ויש מחמירין ועומדין וכן עשה מהר"ם (“And there are those who are stringent and stand; thus did the Maharam mé-Rothenburg”).
On this, the Mishna Brura cites a comment of the Bach (או"ח קמ"א) דגם המהר"ם מודה דמדינא שרי אלא דס"ל דראוי להדר ולעמוד מפני שצריך האדם להעלות בדעתו כששומע הקריאה מפי הקורא כאילו קבלה אותה שעה מהר סיני ובהר סיני היו כל ישראל עומדין כו' (“that even the Maharam admits that it is permitted [to sit], but he holds that it is proper to stand because a person ought to consider as he hears the reading from the reader that it is as if he received [the Torah] that moment from Mt. Sinai, and at Mt. Sinai all Israel were standing....”).
Now, I once heard in the name of Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloceitchik זצ"ל an explanation that the difference between Rav Sar Shalom and the Maharam goes back to the question of what Ezra’s intention was in issuing the original ruling that one should read the Torah on Monday, Thursday, and Shabbath (בבא קמא פ"ב.): Did he intend it simply as a measure to encourage Torah learning, or did he have the deeper intent of emulating Mattan Torah three times a week, in keeping with the verse רק השמר לך ושמור נפשך מאד פן תשכח את הדברים אשר ראו עיניך כו' יום אשר עמדת לפני ד' אלקיך וגו' (“ Just guard yourself and guard your life lest your forget the things which your eyes have seen...[on] the day you stood before Ha-Shem your G-d;” Deuteronomy IV, 9-10, ועיי' יומא ה:).
If his intent was the former, the Talmud tells us that, from the death of Rabban Gamliel ha-Zaqen, due to advancing human weakness the old practice of studying Torah whilst standing was abolished (סוטה מ"ט. רש"י שם ע"פ מגילה כ"א.); this presumably underlies Rav Sar Shalom’s practice. On the other hand, if his intent was the latter, this explains the Maharam, who nonetheless agreed (the Bach goes on) ומי שהוא איש חלש וקשה לו לעמוד ועי"ז אין דעתו מיושבת עליו לכוין לקול הקורא יש לו לישב (“and whoever is weak and finds it hard to stand and for this reason cannot concentrate on the voice of the reader should sit”).
D.
Even if we agree with Rav Sar Shalom (as, apparently, both Rambam and the M’chabbér did) that the primary purpose of reading the Torah in the synagogue is study, it seems to me that there is nonetheless room to say that the two parashoth containing the Dibroth constitute a recapitulation of Mattan Torah, and therefore one should stand for them (as Chida and Rabbi Feinstein ruled). This is espoecially true in our day, when there are normally Torah scholars present in our congrgations (if only in the person of the congregational rabbi) who could deal with any minim and their issues.
But perhaps the best course is to follow Rabbi Yosef’s advice (who does not suggest making an issue of the custom, even though he disagrees with it), and stand for the entire reading, or at least the relevant âliya rather than only for the Dibroth, in deference to Rambam’s opinion, so as to comply with all the rulings, and avoid disputes.
For אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים (“These and these are the living words of G-d;” עירובין י"ג:).
No comments:
Post a Comment