שמע ישראל ה’ אלקינו ה’ אחד

by

SMG Post Template

Verse: שמע ישראל ה’ אלקינו ה’ אחד

Command: Believe in the Unity of G-d

Devarim 6:4

Type: Positive

SMG Mitzva # 2

Cross-Ref: {link}

SMG

We are commanded to believe and to accept [α] the oral tradition that the creator is ‘One’ [as explained further]; on heaven, earth and to the extent of all directions, as it says[i] שמע ישראל… אחד. The word שמע in this context means to accept, a similar example[ii] of that usage is ואתה תשמע מן השמים[1]

“[iii]… This sentence of שמע requires proper intent – according to Rabbi Meir. Rava stated, the law follows Rabbi Meir. Sumĉus stated, any who lengthen [their intent] by expounding on the word אחד has the days of his life lengthened. Rav Aĉa ben Yaakov stated, and this is regarding the letter ד. Rav Ashi stated, so long as one doesn’t mispronounce the letter ח”

One must lengthen his concentration on reaching the letter ד [β] until completing by intent, the thoughts elucidated here but should not extend the pronunciation of the letter א – which would make the word sound like Ay[2] Ĉad [which means ‘where is one’].

This “One” is not like other appellations of uniqueness, e.g., a king is the one and only in his country… but while true about his royalty, that isn’t true when reviewed from the other characteristics inherent to the king. For example, he is not the only person in his country. Nor is he the only king, there are other kings in other countries. Even an angel, should one descend to earth and be the only angel on the planet, that angel would still not be inherently unique [rather his presence on the planet would be unique]. G‑d though, is unique from all characteristics.

Rav Sadya [Gaon] wrote in response to the polytheistic heretics of his day;

  • If one god is unable to perform an action, save with the assistance of another – that would imply both gods are weak [γ].
  • If a god requires another to perform a task – that would imply both are dependent on each other.
  • If both gods can do as they wish [and neither depend on nor assist the other, that too would result in nonsense. For example, if] one god wants a person to live, and the other god wants that person to die – then the person would die–live / live–die constantly.
  • If one god can [to prevent the nonsense above] countermand the other – than neither one is a sage[3].
  • If the god can’t countermand the other – then their power must be spent [and is no longer a god – or possibly, the status of this god reverts to one of the prior arguments above, this this god depends on another etc.].

Furthermore, Rav Sadya [Gaon] wrote against those who misinterpret verses in the Torah such as the verse[iv] נעשה אדם בצלמנו [this is not proof that the Torah refers to a poly-deity structure, since] it is normal in the holy language to refer to something great in the plural, even though they are not pluralistic, e.g.[v]אוכל נכה בו [in which both singular and plural are used in reference to the same person][4],נעצרה נא אותך [vi]

The text continues at great length concerning the “Oneness” and there is no need to expound at great length on this since all Jews are firmly lodged in strong faith as to the Creator of all is One and Unified as stated in the verse quoted, and[vii]אתה הראתה לדעת and also[viii]וידעת היום והשבת and also[ix]אני אני הוא Torah has many more examples of this.

[1] Parenthetically: It is not clear from the text that this verse alludes to a usage of accept vs hear, since the context talks about the utterance of possible false oaths in front of the altar and the appropriate meting of punishment thereby as the oath is heard.

[2] The Segol and Tzayray are related sounds / pronunciation.

[3] Presumably ‘sage’ implies being in charge – as the sages were in the Geonic era.

[4] There is a second verse brought as proof by Rabeinu Sadya Gaon [Daniel 2:36]. I have decided not to include it here, as the verse in Daniel is written in Aramaic and possibly might cause a reader to argue that the first proof from Na’aseh Adam is invalidated as being unrelated to the holy language. In English also, it is common for the royal ‘We’ to be used for important people. Therefore, I would argue that this language quirk is not specific to Hebrew but common in other languages as well.

May Rabeinu Sadya forgive me and may G‑d have mercy on me.

[i] Devarim 6:4

[ii] Divr. Hayam. II 2:6

[iii] Gem. Beraĉos 13b

[iv] Beraishis 1:26

[v] Bamidbar 22:6

[vi] Shoftim 13:15

[vii] Devarim 4:35

[viii] Devarim 4:39

[ix] Devarim 32:39

AMUDAY SHLOMO

[α] both terms – to believe, and to accept – are required to properly explain [the Mitzva], since ‘to believe’ is similar to the ingrained trust inculcated in youth. Even when the belief in heaven is firmly established [by indoctrination], this does not fulfil the obligation of the Mitzva. [The obligation is only fulfilled] when one [deliberately] listens to and accepts at heart the underlying proofs and evidence – which is why the SMG continues with the logical arguments of Rav Sadya Gaon.

Similarly, the author of the Nitzachon [Rabbi Yom Tov Lipman] writes that one cannot completely fulfil the Mitzva of faith in G‑d without having studied science. But it is difficult to depend on logical proof alone without a firm foundation of belief derived from Torah, at which point the proofs are sufficient.

A proof for this [requirement to not depend on indoctrinated belief] is from the famous story of the origin of שמע ישראל;

when our forefather, Yaakov, desired to reveal secrets concerning the end-of-days to his sons, the divine presence left him. To allay that, his sons answered with the affirmation of faith – שמע ישראל.

Obviously, Yaakov knew his sons believed, as he himself had taught them in their youth. But to fulfil this Mitzva, that indoctrination is insufficient, to which his children allayed that concern by reciting the שמע ישראל of their own volition.

[β] The letter ח symbolizes the seven (7) heavens and earth. The reason one should not extend one’s intent on this letter [vs the ד which symbolizes the four corners of the world] is because heaven is not truly understandable; attempting to do so could lead the person to apostasy.

[γ] meaning; each one does what it wishes, and both know what each are doing, and yet either one chooses not to interfere with the other’s actions. Even in that scenario, while not powerless to interfere, the very fact that either god would take into account the domain and honor of the other god not to infringe on it, impugns his own power. Which is why Rav Sadya Gaon uses the term Nil’im – which in Hebrew is associated with being bothered with nonsense.

RASHI

Rashi clearly understands this verse of שמע ישראל is not a Mitzva, but a prophecy of what the future will be like, and in commenting on the verse, Rashi quotes two (2) prophecies which provide the same declaration:

  1. כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרא כלם בשם ה[i]
  2. [ii]ביום ההוא יהיה ה’ אחד ושמו אחד- on which Rashi comments that the meaning of He is One and His Name is One is that they will abandon all other vanities and acknowledge that He is the only one and His Name will be the only one mentioned by everyone.

Furthermore, Rashi quotes[iii] הראת and translates the word using the Aramaic translation by Onkelos אתחזיתא “You were shown” and states “when the Torah was given on Sinai, G‑d opened the seven heavens, and just as he tore open heaven, he tore open the world below and they saw that he was the only one. That is why the Torah states אתה הראת לדעת You were shown to know”.

And again, in the same chapter[iv], the Torah states אין עוד, there is no other. On which Rashi does not comment as this verse is self-understood, especially after explaining the prior.

Knowing this, the language used in the verse of שמע, cannot be read literally – G‑d, our G‑d, G‑d One. Rashi uses therefore both verses to explain the prophecy. The first adds in that in addition to the Jews knowing G‑d is the only one (as we know historically from verse 4:35), Tzephanya prophecies that in the future all nations will follow that ideal.

This prophecy answers why the Torah transitions from אלוקינו (our G‑d) to ה’ (G‑d of all creation). However, this prophecy is insufficient to explain why the term אחד was added at the end. Zeĉarya clarifies the prophecy further, that they will only call in His Name.

This also flows with the order of the verses in which the prior verse refers to the prophecy given to our fathers, and the Torah continues with this prophecy as elucidated by Tzephanya and Zeĉarya.

[i] Tzefanya 3:9

[ii] Zechariah 14:9

[iii] Devarim 4:35

[iv] Verse 39

Discussion by SMS

Interestingly, although the פשט follows as I have laid out, by tradition there is a break between the two verses of שמע and ואהבת when reading the Torah publicly. Perhaps because the דרש recognizes this as a Mitzva and wants to separate it from the prophetic verse beforehand.

The Gemara[i] discusses a point made in the Mishnah concerning habits engaged in by the men of Yeriĉo, where many date groves were located. One of those customs was that they may abbreviate (the word used in the Mishna is more closely related to the word bundle) שמע when the obligation to recite arises while working on the date harvest.

  • Rabbi Meir holds that they’d recite the first verse without stopping.
  • Rabbi Yehudah said they’d stop but wouldn’t recite the 2nd verse ברוך שם.

Presumably, the Gemara interprets this Mishna as the discussing the practice by the men of Yeriĉo to abbreviate the content of what was recited in the שמע, since the Mishna in Beraĉos 2:4 already established that workers harvesting in the trees may break from their work to recite the שמע.

Rashi, quoting Rabbi Meir explains that Rabbi Meir’s opinion is that they would not pause between the words אחד and ואהבת when the Halaĉa is that one must lengthen the time on אחד and pause between the acceptance of the rulership of heaven to other things; that in the first verse, everyone accepts this upon himself and proclaims that our G‑d is the one. While the second verse is written as a command. (See comments on positive Mitzva 3.) Rabbi Yehudah said they would make that pause, but they did not insert the verse of Baruch Shem in the pause.

Rashi, quoting Rabbi Meir, clearly feels the initial verse of שמע is not written in the imperative, but rather in the declarative, nor does it appear that Rashi feels Rabbi Yehudah disagreed with this distinction. Rather, Rabbi Yehudah holds that the reason the sages did not contest this practice is that the men of Yeriĉo still maintained the required pause to separate between the declarative verse of שמע and imperative Mitzva of ואהבת.

Tosefos though quotes Rabbi Meir, and explains that the pause that was not done by the men of Yeriĉo is the one between ישראל the subsequent name of G‑d. (Even though the word ישראל has the cantillation Esnaĉta under it, requiring a pause.) By continuing without pause, this changes the meaning of the verse to an entreaty to G‑d to listen to the Jewish people (who call out in his name) and answer them.

The Gemara elsewhere[ii] quotes the same quote regarding the men of Yeriĉo, and Rashi explains there “As explained in Gemara Pesaĉim that they would say שמע Yisroel but would not pause to provide space between each word”. Which is a stretch to apply to the Rashi in Pesaĉim, since in that Rashi, the problem clearly arises when there is no space between the two concepts – or possibly between the last word of the first verse, and first word of the next.

Even more interestingly, Tosefos seems to rethink his position in Gemara Pesaĉim and offers the following points:

  • That there was no pause between the word ישראל and G‑d’s name, which would imply that the person declaring the verse wishes the audience, ישראל listen to the name of G‑d.
  • That the simple meaning of the verse is that ישראל should listen ‘because’ (possibly should listen ‘that’? – which is grammatically correct in Hebrew) G‑d is our G‑d, G‑d is One.
  • The Yerushalmi Talmud explicitly states the men of Yeriĉo would not pause between each word. (Exactly what Rashi states in Gemara Menachos)
  • And there are those who say the men of Yeriĉo would not pause between the word אחד and Baruch.

Tosefos clearly states as we have deduced from Rashi on the Chumash that the simple meaning of the verse שמע ישראל is declarative, not imperative.

It is interesting, that neither Tosefos nor Rashi uses the historical context of when the verse was first recited in order to clarify Rabbi Meyer’s opinion – nor to provide additional scope to the meaning of the verse.

Historically, Yaakov summons[iii] his sons to tell them the prophecy אשר יקרא אתכם באחרית הימים. However, the Torah abruptly transitions from this to Yaakov giving his children his blessings. Rashi quotes the same midrash brought in these two Gemaras and states that Yaakov intend to reveal the prophecy, but the divine presence left him – so he began talking of other matters.

The midrash, as elaborated on in the Gemara in the name of Reish Lakish, continues that when Yaakov felt the divine presence leave after he desired to reveal the prophecy, he said: perhaps amongst my children there is one unworthy, like Avrohom from whom exited Yishmael, and like my father Yitzĉok from whom exited Aysav? To which his children responded with the verse שמע ישראל (Listen Yisroel [Yaakov] G‑d is our G‑d; G‑d is [the only] one). At that time, Yaakov opened (his discourse) and said ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד.

Our sages decided that during the שמע recital it would be disrespectful to Yaakov to leave ברוך שם out of the שמע, and disrespectful to Moshe to insert it, therefore, it should be inserted quietly.

Interestingly, Rashi on Vayeĉi not only omits the portion of the Midrash in which Yaakov speculates as to the cause of why the Shechinah left, he also adds additional verbiage and states “So he began to say other things.”

This is perhaps because, as explained later by Rashi, the verse שמע is in itself the prophecy of the future, which the Shechinah departed prior to its revelation at that time, and therefore there was no need to depend on Reish Lakish’s statements thereafter as the verse can be understood without that.

  • Regardless, it is clear from the position of Rashi that the verse שמע does not constitute a command and is therefore not a source for a Mitzva.

[i] Gem. Pesaĉim 56a

[ii] Gem. Menaĉos 71a

[iii] Beraishis 49:1

Leave a Comment