The Evolution of a Custom - Halacha, Aggada and Kabbalah - a revealing brew.

Recently I worked through an interesting custom that has become so mainstream that most of us do it automatically without thinking, twice daily. What intrigued me about it is that it entered Halacha even though it contravenes Halachik rulings.

Whenever we say Shema in shul with a minyan, the Mitpalelim wait for the Hazan to repeat aloud the last two words – Hashem Elokeichem – adding the word Emet, which is the first in the next paragraph. The most blatant issue is that it contravenes the prohibition of repeating words in Shema as ruled in Rambam Hil. Kryat Shema 2:11

קרא פסוק וחזר וקראו פעם שנייה, הרי זה מגונה; קרא מילה אחת וכפלה, כגון שקרא שמע שמע, משתקין אותו.

It is frowned upon someone repeating a verse. However if someone repeats a word, for example repeating Shema, Shema, he is silenced.

Although Rashi in the Gemara rules the opposite, one is silenced for repeating sentences while repeating words is only frowned upon, repetition in Shema is definitely not a priori acceptable.

The source for this interesting custom goes back to the Geonim and early Rishonim. The Ra’avyah R. Eliezer ben Yoel Halevi (d. 1225) quotes a Yerushalmi that the Shema has 245 words. The Rabbis added El Melech Ne’eman to make it 248 which equals the number of limbs of a person. The idea being that the Mitzvah of reading the Shema protects a person’s limbs. This Yerushalmi is not mentioned by anyone else nor does it exists in our current editions. (That is not surprising as there are other such cases where early Rishonim quote Yerushalmi that we have no record of. It was the basis for the famous Yerushalmi on Kodoshim forgery issue). The idea of adding EMN is that the acrostic thereof is Amen, אמןan appropriate response at the end of the Blessing before Shema. (I do not want to digress and discuss the issue of whether one responds Amen to this Bracha). Apparently this custom of adding EMN took hold in Germany - where Ra’avyah lived - and eventually in Spain too as we see from the Ramban’s (1194 – c.1270) query (see Chidushei Haramban on Berachot at the beginning) made to the Ramah – R. Meir ben Todros Halevi Abulafia (c.1170 Burgos, Spain - 1244) on the subject. Ramban himself has an interesting take on the basis for this custom. He suggests that in the earlier times, when it was more common for people who did not know the liturgy to be part of the congregation, the custom was for the Hazan to read the Berachot aloud. The Shema itself each one read for himself as the Halacha requires. They therefore answered Amen on the Bracha of the Hazan saying EMN. That evolved into the minhag of everyone saying it. Thus it is a minhag based on Amei Ha’aretz.

The Tur, R. Yaakov ben Asher, (1270-ca 1340) in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 61 reports the Ramah’s answer who considers the minhag erroneous. First one may not answer Amen on one’s own Bracha (except under certain conditions but this Bracha is excluded specifically see Rambam Hil Berachot 1:16). Second one mentions the name of Hashem in vain (El) and finally one is creating a hefsek, a separation between the Bracha and the Mitzvah. It would be acceptable to say Amen after the Bracha of the Hazan, but not when one says the Bracha himself. (Apparently this answer led to Ramban’s suggestion above.) The way the Tur reports this Ramah it is clear that he agrees with him and the Minhag is considered erroneous. However apparently it prevailed as we will see.

The Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo (born 1488, Spain-died March 24, 1575, Safed, Palestine) reports that at his time it was already a custom that the Hazan repeated the words Hashem Elokeichem Emet at the end of Shema. He explains that as the EMN idea was found to be incorrect and it was felt that the need to have 248 words in Shema was important, it was decided to replace EMN with the HEE repetition. He quotes a Zohar as the basis, to which I will return later.

This Minhag was not a straight evolution but rather a process. There is a report that in the time of the Geonim the Hazan said aloud from להיות לכם לאלהים onwards to remind people not to stop at the end of Shema but continue straight to Emet Veyatziv. At first, when the 248 words idea came into being, having finished the Shema ahead of the Hazan, the people would listen to the Hazan and that was seen as sufficient to count the Hazan’s words as if they had repeated those words to complement the number. As time went on different new methods were developed until the current minhag became mainstream. R. Moshe de Leon (born c. 1240, León-died 1305, Arevalo) offers two suggestions for the Hazan’s repetition – Ani Hashem Elokeichem and Hashem Elokeichem Emet.

Now let us revert to the Beit Yosef. He quotes the Tikkunei Zohar who clearly says that the earlier Rabbis had a custom to say EMN but had a problem with it and instituted the new approach of HEE. He further quotes a lengthy discussion from Zohar. There were apparently two versions in Zohar, the two suggestions of R. Moshe de Leon, and BY quotes his Rebbis who opted definitely for HEE.

Apparently in Minhag Ashkenaz EMN remained (see Remah who kept it only for someone who says Shema by himself) and in Frankfurt HEE was not repeated just the word Emet was announced loudly by the Rav. Rav Kafih in his three volume letters, printed a responsa by R. Moshe Tzarum, the last Rav of Sana’a, the capital and largest city in Yemen, who also argues that HEE is a new Minhag introduced by the Mekubalim, and that the normative Minhag Teiman is to not say EMN nor HEE.

What fascinates me in this story is the coincidence of the two versions of R. Moshe de Leon finding their way into the Zohar. He also seems to be the earliest to suggest this idea. Ramban the great Kabbalist had no tradition for the HEE minhag, rejected the EMN one and did not find the need to have 248 words in Shema. Apparently as the Kabbalah evolved these new ideas took hold and were so strong that they prevailed against all Halachik objections. Making sure that a person limbs are protected is apparently an irresistible imperative.

It is also fascinating how much history and complications a simple Minhag has. I have only summarized and reported what was pertinent for my observation. For a comprehensive discussion of all the different versions of this Minhag see Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz by Rav Hamburger Vol. 2 where it takes up over half of that volume.