Pores et Shema
The rabbinic understanding of the biblical covenantal rite of the
Shema in terms of a coronation ceremony was underscored in two different ways. The first
was the ceremony entitled Pores et Shema and the second was the interpolation of
the strophe "Blessed be the name of His glorious sovereignty forever and ever"
between the Shema verse and the ve-ahavta. In this post, we shall focus on the first and
then on the second.
I am dedicating a whole post to this topic to make sure that
those who would like to reintroduce it in their synagogues will have a full appreciation
of the issues involved. It would be wonderful to get a conversation going on the
worth of such an innovation or, better yet, restoration. Even better would be
feedback on its effectiveness.
The discussion will be a bit complex as the literature on pores
with regard to the Shema is extensive and complicated. The complexity is in
part due to the unwarranted mixing of individual and communal norms for the recitation of
the Shema. As a ceremony requiring a quorum of ten, "pores et Shema"
in M. Megillah 4:3 refers to its communal recitation. Only as a communal
recitation does the Shema constitute an enthronement ceremony. As such, it adheres to
contemporaneous Greco-Roman norms for royal acclamation.
Roman royal acclamations were unanimous and unisonous, vox
omnibus una, mens eadem. Similarly, the Midrash praises Israel when it enters
the synagogue and so coordinates its recitation of the Shema that it emerges as unanimous
and unisonous as opposed to reciting it in an uncoordinated way wherein one follows the
other and confusion prevails. In the same vein, the angelic liturgy was portrayed as
coordinated with one voice. These directives were all intended to assure that the
acclamation of God as sovereign follows proper regal procedure as is appropriate for
liturgical acclamation rites.
The word pores itself with regard to the Shema means to
divide it. We illustrated this meaning two posts ago by citing the following
midrash:
How did Israel get to recite the Shema? R. Pinchas b. Chama
said: Israel got to recite the Shema from the Revelation of Sinai. How is this so? You
find that it was with this word [Shema] that God opened at Sinai. He said to them:
"Hear O Israel, I am the Lord your God." They responded saying, "The Lord
our God, the Lord is One."
Much of the opposition to understanding pores as
"dividing" is based on the assumption that the original expression was pores
al Shema. Even Joseph Heinemann's objection to Ezra Fleischer's suggestion that
the response was a single strophe relies on the expression pores al Shema. Medieval
authorities, perplexed by the halakhic expression pores et/al Shema which has no
clear referent, devised various explanations for the term, none of which commanded wide
assent.
Once it is realized that the original expression was pores et
Shema, it is clear that the Shema verse is the direct object of the verb pores,
"divide." Since the Shema verse itself is to be divided, the antonymic
expression korekh et Shema implies that the verse was recited without any break.
Thus the relevant source in T. Pesahim 3:19 should be rendered as follows: "How did
they korekh et Shema? They said: ‘Shema Yisrael A-donai E-lohenu A-donai
Ehad,’ but made no break [between Yisrael and A-donai]. R. Judah says: ‘They
did make [such a] break, but did not say: Blessed be the name of His glorious sovereignty
forever and ever.’"
When by Gaonic times the dividing of the Shema verse had long
fallen out of use, the expression pores et Shema became pores al Shema in
order to denote the whole Shema and its blessings along with the antiphonal response of
the barekhu.
There are significant objections to the alternative suggestions
for the antiphonal response. The suggestion of Fleischer, and subsequently Heinemann, that
the response was "Blessed be the name of His glorious sovereignty forever and
ever" fails to meet the two criteria of an antiphonal acclamation of being neither a
verse nor divided. Israel Knohl recognized the royal acclamation setting, but not
that pores indicates a division of a verse. Influenced by Louis Finkelstein, he
adopted the opinion that the reader would pores al Shema, i.e., one person would
recite it for the whole community.
Ismar Elbogen's position "that the reader began with Shema
Yisrael, the congregation repeated these words and completed the verse" meets both
criteria, but is unnecessarily complicated. In fact, it reflects the position of R.
Eleazar b. Taddai as recorded in both Mekhilta'ot and not that of R. Nehemiah.
Elsewhere Elbogen notes that he and Wilhelm Bacher agree that the term refers to the
three passages of the Shema together with the benedictions, and that the Shema was recited
verse by verse antiphonally. According to Kaufmann Kohler, however, he understood
Elbogen to mean that "the reader is thus supposed to have first recited the two
words: Shema Yisrael, to which the congregation responds by reciting the next four
words," which is precisely my position and, as I subsequently found out, that of Max
Kadushin.
Moshe Weinfeld in his commentary on Deuteronomy mistakenly
attributes to me the position that "the cantor recited the words ascribed to God,
`Hear O Israel I am YHVH,' etc...." My position is that the precentor said,
"Hear O Israel," and the congregation responded (probably along with the
precentor) with "the Lord our God, the Lord is one." By virtue of the
relationship of the Shema verse to the Decalogue, people could be mentally responding to
"Hear O Israel, I am the Lord your God."
According to Hanoch Albeck, the precentor said, "Hear O
Israel, the Lord our God" and the congregation responded with "the Lord is
one". Albeck provides no explanation for such a division. It is clear
from the midrashic tradition that the response was: "The Lord our God, the Lord is
One." The piyyut, Shomer Yisrael, divides up the two by allocating the first
stanza to those who say, "Hear O Israel," and the second to those who say,
"The Lord our God, the Lord is one." Also the piyyut, kol bru'ei a`aleh,
attributed to Solomon ibn Gabirol, contains the refrain, "All shall testify and
declare together as one: `The Lord our God, the Lord is One.’ " This
division between the second and third words is supported by the traditional cantillation,
as well as by traditional commentators.
Nonetheless, a response consisting of just "the Lord is
One" may be attested to by two piyyutim of the Musaf service of Rosh Ha-Shanah.
The first, Ha-omrim ehad, opens with "Those who say: `The Lord is our
God,'" and closes with "Those who respond, `The Lord is one.'" The second, Ha-ma'amirim
be-'emah, also opens with "the Lord is our God," and closes with "the
Lord is one." It is hard to determine whether these reflect liturgical practice
or poetic license. A similar case is the Sabbath table hymn attributed to Judah Halevy,
"Yom Shabbaton 'ain lishkoah," where the third stanza states:
Then they all came together in a covenant: "We will do and
we will obey" (Exodus 24:7) they said as one. And they opened and responded:
"The Lord is One."
By linking the Shema verse with the covenant at Sinai, the hymn
seems to echo the comment of R. Pinhas b. Chama, cited above. Alternatively,
"The Lord is One" is simply a truncation of "the Lord our God, the Lord is
One" in order to conform to the metrical restraints of the line.
The synagogal ritual of dividing the Shema probably fell into
desuetude in the Byzantine period when it no longer evoked a contemporaneous mode of royal
acclamation. The change may be reflected in the complaint that when some recite the
Shema from the beginning and others from the end, they appear divided. Instead, it is
suggested, they should coordinate it and recite in unison the whole verse, as mentioned
above.
Another distinguishing mark of Palestinian practice was standing
for the Shema, a practice traceable to the third century Amora R. Yohanan. The
practice of standing fits the perception of the recitation of the Shema as an act of
acclamation as opposed to an act of study. This correlates well with the ancient
Palestinian practice of standing for the angelic coronation of the first blessing, a
practice that survived in Medieval Europe. As the Greco-Roman background was
forgotten, standing came to signify more an act of testimony than one of acclamation.
The development of the Shema as an act of testimony, and concomitantly as a text
for martyrdom, has parallels in Christianity and Islam.
In almost all cases, the communal recitation of the Shema
retained a distinctive performance mode throughout, such as being sung in unison,
chorally, aloud, and cantillated. Whatever the case, it was not to be repeated.
Finally, even the individual recitation acquired its own modality of enunciation.
CLAL Rabbinic Community On Line
