Daf 4b - Redeeming Prayers
Ein Yaakov
- The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr.
Moshe Simon-Shoshan
**********************************************************************
In loving memory of Channa Schreiber (Channa Rivka bat Yosef v' Yocheved) z"l,
with wishes for consolation and comfort to her dear children
Yossi and Mona, Yitzchak and Carmit, and their families,
along with all who mourn for Tzion and Yerushalayim.
**********************************************************************
Lecture
12: Daf 4b
Redeeming
Prayers
In the
previous passage we read a baraita that advocated saying the Shema
at night in the synagogue before the evening prayer. In the context of this passage, the
main reason for doing is to ensure that one actually gets around to saying the
Shema rather than falling asleep first.
Now the Gemara suggests that there may be a more fundamental reason for
this practice:
The Master
said:
'Let him
recite Shema and say the Tefilla.
This accords
with the view of R. Yochanan.
For R.
Yochanan says:
Who inherits
the world to come?
The one who
follows the Geula immediately with the evening Tefilla.
R. Yehoshua
b. Levi says:
The
Tefillot were arranged to be said in the middle.
This passage
introduces a basic principle in the laws of prayer, semichut Geula
le-Tefilla. This principle
obligates or, at least, recommends reciting the Shemoneh Esrei (the
Tefilla) immediately following the blessing of redemption, Geula,
which is said following the Shema. This
blessing focuses on Gods redemption of Israel from Egypt. I would like to consider the meaning
and implications of this dictum before going on to discuss our passage.
Rashi cites a
mashal, a parable, from the Jerusalem Talmud on this matter. The parable draws on the famous scene
at the beginning of Shir Ha-shirim, Chapter Five. The Jerusalem Talmud compares one who
does not link Geula with Tefilla to the lover of a king who knocks
on the kings door, but leaves before the king opens the door. So too, the one who fails to link
Geula with Tefilla has effectively squandered his opportunity.
Rather, one should first find favor with
God by offering Him praises regarding the Exodus and then, while still in a
state of closeness with God, one should make requests before Him. According to Rashi, the Geula
blessing is an opportune introduction to the Shemoneh Esrei; it increases
the efficacy of ones prayers.
Rabbi Joseph
B. Soloveitchik (the Rav) in his classic essay, Redemption, Prayer, Talmud
Torah (Tradition, Spring 1978) suggests a different approach. He argues that the processes of
redemption and prayer are fundamentally parallel; prayer is actually a type of
redemption. For the Rav, redemption
is moving from a state of powerlessness and anonymity to one of activity and
identity. Prayer, similarly, is a
response to the experience of suffering.
At first, the individual cannot comprehend the nature of his suffering;
he feels only undifferentiated pain.
He is mute, only able to cry out without words.
Prayer is the process of becoming aware of ones needs and learning to
articulate them. For the Rav, this
awareness is redemptive. The
creative act of prayer makes a person fully human. The alienation of pain and
suffering is transformed into a means for self-consciousness and understanding.
Along similar
lines, I would like to suggest another commonality between Geula and
Tefilla.
Many have pointed out that the three
paragraphs of the Shema, as well as the three blessings that surround
them, correspond to the three basic ways in which God relates to the world -
creation, revelation, and redemption.
These categories are formulated by the early 20th century
Jewish philosopher Franz Rosensweig in his book, The Star of Redemption. Redemption, unlike like the other
two categories, involves Gods involvement in history. The blessing of redemption, Geula,
as well as the last paragraph of the Shema, focus on God taking the
Jews out of Egypt, the most prominent example of Divine intervention in human
affairs. Similarly, the prayer of
the Shemone Esrei addresses a God who is involved in human affairs and
can meet the individual and collective needs of the Jews and all humankind. Geula and Tefilla thus
go together.
Alternatively, perhaps there is no particular connection between Geula
and Tefilla. Rather, we place
the two next to each other in order to forge a link between the Shemone Esrei
and the larger unit of the Shema and its blessings. Shema and Shemone Esrei
were two separate prayers, with different sources and purposes, governed by two
different, but overlapping, timeframes.
We are obligated to say the Shema upon waking up and going to bed. We are obligated to say the
Shemone Esrei in the first and last part of the day, as well as at night. By propounding the rule of linking
Geula with Tefilla, the Rabbis forge these two prayers into a single
service, creating a unified system of daily prayer. We generally experience these prayers
as a unified whole. The terms Shacharit and Maariv refer to the
entire package of the Shema and Shemoneh Esrei.
In contrast,
R. Yehoshua b. Levi says, The tefillot were arranged to be said in the
middle." This statement suggests
that R. Yehoshua did not dispute bringing together Geula and Tefilla
in the morning, but only at night.
In his view, the two daily recitals of the Shema are meant to bracket the
three daily recitals of the Shemoneh Esrei.
The Gemara
now turns to the logic behind these two positions:
What is the
ground of their difference?
If you like,
I can say it is [the interpretation of] a verse,
and if you
like, I can say that they reason differently.
For R.
Yochanan argues:
Though the
complete deliverance from Egypt
took place in
the morning time only,
there was
also some kind of deliverance in the evening;
whereas R.
Yehoshua b. Levi argues
that since
the real deliverance happened in the morning
[that of the
evening] was no proper deliverance.
The first
explanation of the dispute argues that attaching Geula to Tefilla
is a result of the relationship between redemption from Egypt and the Shemone
Esrei. This explanation,
however, does not specify how the two are related. According to this opinion, the two
rabbis argue about the significance of the redemption from Egypt that occurred
at night. Clearly, the Jews did not
leave Egypt until the morning.
However, according to R. Yochanan, the beginnings of the redemption, that
occurred the night before, count as redemption.
According to R. Yehoshua, these events are overshadowed by the redemption
that occurred the next day. It is
not obvious how these arguments explain the original dispute about Geula
and Tefilla. It would seem
that if the redemption at night was not significant, the blessing of Geula,
or perhaps the last paragraph of the Shema, should be omitted at night. Perhaps this is R. Yehoshuas intent,
since if we dont say Geula at night, in his opinion, the whole principle
of connecting Geula to Tefilla does not apply at night.
Alternatively, even R. Yehoshua agrees that we say the Geula blessing at
night, but for some reason connected to the historical timing of the original
redemption from Egypt, the rule of connecting Geula to Tefilla
does not apply at night. I am not
sure what this reason would be.
Next, the
Gemara presents an alternative explanation of the dispute:
Or if you
like, I can say it is [the interpretation of] a verse.
and both
interpret one and the same verse, [viz.,]
When thou
liest down and when thou risest up.
R. Yochanan
argues:
There is here
an analogy between lying down and rising.
Just as [at
the time of] rising, recital of Shema precedes Tefilla,
so also [at
the time of] lying down, recital of Shema precedes Tefilla.
R. Yehoshua
b. Levi argues [differently]:
There is here
an analogy between lying down and rising.
Just as [at
the time of] rising,
the recital
of Shema is next to [rising from] bed,
so also [at
the time of] lying down,
recital of
Shema must be next to [getting into] bed.
In this
understanding, the rule of connecting Geula to Tefilla reflects a
larger desire to link the recitation of Shema and Shemone Esrei. Both
rabbis agree that this is the case in the morning, and they both agree that the
verse, When thou liest down and when thou risest up, suggests a parallel
between the morning and evening Shema.
According to R. Yochanan, the parallel is the order in which the
Shema and Shemone Esrei are said.
In both cases, the Shema and its blessings should precede the
Shemone Esrei, thereby connecting Geula to Tefilla. R. Yehoshua, on the other hand,
derives from this verse that just as the morning Shema is said
immediately upon waking, the nighttime shema is said immediately before
going to sleep. Hence there is no
possibility of linking together Geula and Tefilla.
Finally, the
Gemara seeks to resolve some technical impediments to the linking of Geula
and Tefilla:
Mar b. Rabina raised an objection.
In the
evening, two benedictions precede
and two
benedictions follow the Shema.
Now, if you
say he has to join Geula with Tefilla,
behold he
does not do so,
for he has to
say [in between], 'Let us rest'?
I reply:
Since the Rabbis ordained the benediction, 'Let us rest',
it is as if
it were a long Geula.
For, if you
do not admit that,
how can he
join in the morning,
seeing that
R. Yochanan says:
In the
beginning [of the Tefilla] one has to say:
O Lord, open
Thou my lips [etc.],
and at the
end one has to say:
Let the words
of my mouth be acceptable?
[The only
explanation] there [is that] since
the Rabbis
ordained that O Lord, open Thou my lips should be said,
it is like a
long Tefilla.
Here, too,
since the Rabbis ordained that 'Let us rest' should be said,
it is like a
long Geula.
The Gemara
notes that the Mishna requires a fourth blessing, Hashkiveinu, following
the Geula blessing at night.
This requirement seems to make it impossible to link Geula and Tefilla
at night. Similarly, R. Yochanan
requires that before beginning each and every Shemone Esrei, one should
recite the verse O Lord, open Thou my lips
Once again, the introduction of
this verse seems to make the linking of Geula and Tefilla
impossible in all cases. The Gemara
answers that once the rabbis introduced these innovations, they effectively
became part of the Geula blessing and hence do not interfere with its
linkage to the Shemone Esrei.
This explanation makes most sense if we understand the linkage of Geula
and Tefilla as facilitating a larger joining of the Shema and the
Shemone Esrei into a single unit.
Highway to
Heaven
The Gemara
now presents a discussion of the prayer we call Ashrei, which mostly
consists of Tehillim 65, beginning A psalm of David." The Gemara states:
R. Elazar b.
Abina says:
Whoever
recites [the psalm] Praise of David three times daily,
is sure to
inherit the world to come.
This line
does not seem to conform with traditional rabbinic notions of the world to come
and how it is gained. The Rabbis
generally portray the world to come as being earned by the composite deeds of a
person over a lifetime. We mortals
do not have the exact calculus for making this determination. Furthermore, it seems hard to imagine
that something so simple as the recitation of a psalm could possible gain one
entry into the world to come. We all
know of people who have faithfully recited Ashrei three times daily and
yet have committed all sorts of sins.
Is such a person really guaranteed the next world?
Rashi
attempts to mitigate this problem.
He understands the three times a day as referring to the three daily prayers. This understanding is difficult to
understand considering that we say Ashrei twice in Shacharit and
we do not say it at all in Maariv.
The Maharsha explains Rashi as referring to the three times Kedusha
is said daily, twice in Shacharit (once in uva le-zion) and once
in Mincha. This
interpretation at least shifts the focus from Ashrei to a prayer of
central cosmic significance. Yet we
still must ask, can one indeed enter heaven simply by reciting the Kedusha
three times daily?
The
commentator Etz Yosef suggests that this line should not be taken literally. This statement is a literary
exaggeration meant to emphasize the importance of saying Ashrei, not to
make serious claims about who goes to heaven and why.
Ein Yaakov
suggests another possibility. Praying three times a day is harder than it seems. Very few people pray three times each
and every day with full and proper kavana (intent). Someone who manages to achieve this
throughout his life will have risen to a very high level, and certainly will
enter heaven.
Finally, I
would like to suggest another possibility, not raised by the traditional
commentaries. We take this statement
at face value, that a simple ritual/liturgical act can guarantee entry into the
world to come. While this notion may
seem strange to those familiar with mainstream Jewish tradition, similar beliefs
were held by members of other religions in the ancient world. Is it possible that some Jews
similarly attributed such extraordinary, even magical, powers to the recitation
of prayers? I think this is quite
possible. Indeed, we will see very
soon that the Gemara agreed that the recitation of the Shema has the
power to protect the individual against demons.
Why should not another prayer, when recited regularly, have the capacity
to protect one from the fires of Gehenom? Many religious Jews today,
similarly, believe that certain psalms, recited in a particular regimen, can
have a positive impact in a specific way, whether it is healing from illness,
finding a marriage partner, or whatever.
The Gemara
now investigates the reason for the special status of this psalm:
What is the
reason?
Shall I say
it is because it has an alphabetical arrangement?
Then let him
recite, Happy are they that are upright in the way,
which has an
eightfold alphabetical arrangement.
Again, is it
because it contains [the verse],
Thou openest
Thy hand [and satisfiest every living thing with favor]?
Then let him
recite the great Hallel, where it is written:
Who giveth
food to all flesh!
Rather, [the
reason is] because it contains both.
The Gemara
points to two distinguishing features of Tehillim 65. One is that the psalm is an
alphabetical acrostic, and the other is that it contains the verse, Thou
openest Thy hand and satisfiest every living thing with favor. The Gemara then
notes that neither of these attributes is unique to our psalm. Tehillim 119 is an eightfold
acrostic, and Tehillim 136:25 similarly mentions Gods sustenance of all
living things. The Gemara concludes
that Tehillim 65s special status is because it combines both attributes.
Of these two
attributes, we can more easily understand why the verse, Thou openest Thy
hand, is significant. The notion
that God provides sustenance for all life on earth has profound spiritual and
theological significance in Judaism.
It makes sense that this idea makes Ashrei a particularly significant
prayer, which might even have special powers, and that one who truly
internalizes the message of this verse is worthy of entering heaven. The fact that Ashrei is an
acrostic does not seem as important.
The importance of the acrostic seems to suggest a magical implication. Alternatively, the alphabetic
acrostic may suggest that the psalm contains a complete and total praise of God,
from A to Z, as we would say. If
this is the case, then we can understand why Ashrei has a special status.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!