avakesh

Ata Kadosh

Kuzari 7: How to salvage antiquated proofs

Download Proofs and Aristotle

Download Kuzari 7

Someone up there is pulling the strings

The Special Relationship

United States of America stands at the vanguard of Western Civilization. Europe is nothing compared to it. In sciences it leads far beyond where Germany led in the nineteen twenties, in arts it is more influential than 19th century Paris and in style and popular culture it dwarfs Italy  - ever.

United States is also the only Judeo-Christian country that ever existed.

For decades now, the term Judeo-Christian has entered public discourse, and appropriately so. Jews have contributed mightily to the all areas of American life and their values have had a remarkalble a profound influence on public policy, moral tone and cultural environment of North America. Europe is not Judeo-Christian, if it is Christian at all. You  never hear this term in England, or Australia, or even in our northern neighbor Canada. The idealism of American life, the insistence on fair process and opportunity for all, the dulling of competitiveness and inter-personal rivalry that is so much a part of the traditional Western European outlook on life, the insistence on social justice and protection for the weak and unfortunate - this are among the most enduring features of Jewish contribution to American life. Above all, Jews diluted cynicism  and willingness to accept and play along with the rules, even be they unjust, that characterizes so much of European political thinking.

In Jewish tradition, Western civilization has been identified with Esau,  the brother of Jacob. Over the centuries a biological descent between Esau and Rome, the seat of Papacy and, at one time, Christianity, has been claimed. Our tradition does preserve the particulars of Roman descent from Esau.

"The great kingdom of Rome was built by Zepho, son of Eliphaz, son of Esau. Tirtat of the land of Elisha attacked him and killed him (Yelamdeinu, Batei Midrashos 160)."

The Malbim in his commentary to Obadia 1,1 suggests that in addition to genealogical descent, the identification of Rome and Esau is also based on the "founding of their faith by children of Edom, as R. Isaac Abarbanel wrote to Isaiah 34, with proofs."

Whether one accepts this piece of historical information or not, it is fairly obvious that identification of the West and Esau rests on the very visible traits that Roman, and subsequently Western civilization, shares with the character traits of Esau as he is described in the Bible. In fact, it is my impression that midrashic collections seem to highlight especially these cultural qualities when they discuss Esau. The limitations of space do not allow a full treatment of this subject, which in truth deserves a book length treatment; we can, however, manage to briefly focus on two or three of them.

Among such traits is the individualism and disdain for tradition and authority that is such an obvious feature of Western civilization and also of Esau who was a "self-made man". Esau willingly gave up his birthright in order to build his future with his own toil and effort. "Esau showed to others that (in his opinion) the institution of birthright is not morally correct. Rather one who is more talented, of his own right should be honored above others. Many great leaders of the nations of the worlds followed Esau 's opinion and disparaged the status of birth; rather, (they held) everything depends on the natural abilities of each individual (Netsiv, Haemek Davar to Genesis 23,34). What describes the American mindset better than this?

One trait of Esau that few will fail to recognize in the civilization and culture of the West is the emphasis on the image over substance, leavened with a good measure of hypocrisy.

He (Esau) was a hypocrite (Shocher Tov 14,3).
Esau would hunt him (Yitshak) and deceive him with words (Genesis Rabbah 63,10).

Nevertheless, the emphasis on the appearances brings a certain measure of outward nobility and aristocratic bearing which is evident in the outside trappings of Esau's civilization, his architecture, art, music - the brilliance of classical Western culture. The Maharal writes: " The verse "two proud ones in your belly" alludes to the wide view of Israel and Edom, not just Rebbi and Antoninus alone (Avodah Zara 11a, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Do not read GOYM but GYYM. This is Antoninus and Rebbi from whose table there did not pass lettuce and radishes, neither in the summer nor in the winter) - that they possess a specific substance. They have a live force of substance and they comport themselves with worth in their eating. This means that there is one who eats like an animal, without raising himself in it but Israel and Esau do not conduct themselves so. They prepare a proper environment to make their eating more important. So also Esau comports himself in his clothing to this day to honor himself in his dress and to raise his self respect above that of other nations, also through great buildings. Not so Ishmael - they do not care about their clothing, cuisine, bathhouses.... this means that they (sons of Esau) have a self-worth in their life-force (Gur Arye, Gen. 25, 24).

The following midrash typifies the personalization of Rome and the West as Esau while not sparing his hypocrisy. At the same time, It describes our period in time to the "tee".

In the future Esau will wrap himself in a tallis, sit down next to Yakov and say to him, "You are my brother"....Yakov will say to him, "My brother, you will not be like me. "I will lead you to death, I will be the pestilence that leads you to Sheol (Hoshea 13,14). Had I upheld degrees that you promulgated against me, I would have been guilty at the eyes of Heaven. Had I violated them, you would have killed me? (Yalkut Shimoni, Yirmiahu 333)

Esau had many descendants and they undoubtedly differed in regard to the "Jewish question". Some, like Eliphaz, would not hurt Yakov even under pressure (His father commanded him to fight the sons of Yakov but because he grew up with Job, he did not fight them, Lekach Tov, Shemos 17,8). Others, like Amalek, are inveterate Jew-haters. So also in our day, many different attitudes and approaches can be seen among the descendent's of Esau. We, however, focus on America as the "head" of Esau.  "And I hated Esau" (Malachi 1:3) - the reference is to the minor parts of Esau, but not to his head, that is buried with the fathers of the world (Sotah13b). The Vilna Gaon explained this in  Aliyos Eliahu as the intellectual accomplishments of the West, that have their role even within the sanctuary of Judaism.

When Esau asks Jacob to set aside his uniqueness, he offers in return the cessation of Anti-Semitism. After all, in Esau's view it is Jewish particularism that provokes Esau to hate Jacob. Ramban writes: … they did to us all kinds of evil things in hate of the Holy One Blessed Be He for they did not hate Israel because they served idols like them but because they would not do as they do. They served the Holy One Blessed Be He and keep His commandments and would not marry them and not eat of their offerings and insult their idolatrous worship and clear it out of their own places. As it says, "for You they killed us every day (Devarim 33, 40)" .All that Esau asked of Jacob was to deny his destiny and to meet him half-way.

"That was Esau's intention when he told Yakov, "Let us travel together and I will go before you (Genesis 33,12). He wanted them to join together in both this world and the world to come, to meet each other halfway, with each modifying his conduct until they were alike (Yalkut Shimoni, Genesis 133). Indeed, Esau will even adopt certain tenets of Judaism-such as monotheism, the Divinity of the Torah, and reward and punishment-but only if Israel will give up some of its heritage. Similarly, according to Tanna D'Bei Eliahu Zuta(19), Esau proposed. "Give up some of the mitzvos that divide us. You will thereby enjoy this world and still have half the world to come. Isn't that enough? (Bais Halevy, Vayishlach).

Can one see relevance in these ancient writings for the world of today? Do we not see the pinnacle of Esau's civilization, the country that is the utmost embodiment of his values of individualism and superficiality/ image, offering this bargain to sons of Yakov, and most of them have taken it. The unfortunate reality is that most Jews have abandoned the observance of Jewish law that in many details, would separates them from Gentiles. In return, Esau has placed his political and military might in service of common goals, in support of the so-called "Judeo-Christian" values. Will this friendship continue when Esau sees that Jacob returns to his Law and rejects his extended hand and his conditions of friendship?

The friendship between Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom) is mentioned several times in the Bible, for instance: "From Kadesh, Moses sent messengers to the king of Edom: 'Thus says your brother Israel' (Numbers 20:14); "You will be passing through the territory of your kinsmen, the descendants of Esau" (Deut. 2:4); "You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your kinsman" (Deut. 23:8). Even when devastation is prophesied for Esau-Edom, their brotherhood is mentioned: "For three transgressions of Edom...Because he pursued his brother with the sword" (Amos 1:11); "And not a man on Esau's mount shall survive the slaughter. For the outrage to your brother Jacob (Obadiah 1:9-10). This friendship stems from the historic meeting between the two brothers, in which love was aroused between them. "Genesis 33:2 -Esau ran toward him, embraced him, fell upon his neck, and he kissed him; then they wept."  Rashi- "his mercies were aroused and he kissed him with all his heart".

 

One reflection of this offer of friendship is the emergence of the theology of "Two Covenants". The rebirth and re-emergence of the Jewish people out of the fires of Holocaust and the rebuilding of the State of Israel presented a real challenge to the Replacement Theology, a  claim that Israel has been replaced with the Church. This represents the original Christian position as enunciated by the Church Fathers. Replacement theology teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the Church is a continuation of Israel (replacement theology / covenant theology), or the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism / premillennialism). The uniquely American "Two Covenant" position states that God has made a covenant with the Jewish people and also with the Christians. As such, each people has its own path to God. The following formulation of this idea, by Franz Rozenzweig has had a profound influence on the development of the Two Covenant theology.

 

"Christianity acknowledges the God of the Jews, not as God but
as “the Father of Jesus Christ.” Christianity itself cleaves
to the “Lord” because it knows that the Father can be reached
only through him. . . . We are all wholly agreed as to what Christ
and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save
through him. No one can reach the Father! But the situation is
quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father
because he is already with him. And this is true of the people of
Israel" (quoted from Nahum N. Glatzer, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought (New
York: Schocken Books, 1961), 342)

 

As the relationship between Yakov and Esau themselves, the integrity of the inter-relationship of Judaic and Christian civilization is not assured. As the Jewish people reasserts its historic destiny, as more and more Jews return to the Orthodox way of life and conception of history, as particularistic communal patterns and adherence to ritual law becomes more prominent and noticeable among the Jews on the American scene, will the offer of friendship still stand, or will it be withdrawn?

 

The children of Ishmael are very aware of the "special relationship", and they have began to publicly argue that it should be abrogated and that Israel and the Jewish people be sacrificed on the altar of the new special relationship, this time between Christianity and Islam. No one has made this argument more vociferously or more insistently that the  President of Iran ( for a perceptive discussion of this point, see here) Beginning with his letter  to President Bush and on many occasions subsequently, Ahmadinejad has been stressing the common heritage of Christianity and Islam and appealing for the two to join forces to fight injustice and oppression (read, the Jews). He tempts the Western world weary of conflict and destruction with a deceptively appealing offer of peace and prosperity. Europe has began to listen carefully to this message and but a few days ago, BBC invited Ahmenijad to broadcast a Christmas message to the country of Britain. One shudders to think what spiritual forces of truly apocalyptic proportions such a union of the Christian and Moslem world against the Jews will potentially provoke. May our eyes never see it and may it never come to pass.

 

The strain on the special relationship places us believing Jews in a truly difficult position. One one hand, we feel truly grateful for the offer of friendship that Esau has belatedly granted us. On the other, we cannot give up our destiny in exchange for this friendship. How should we respond? Should we minimize the signs of distinctiveness as a matter of coexistence, and at the expense of losing the sense of our mission (and our children), or should we leave hidden things to God and live in obedience and fealty to His command, come what may, as our fathers have done throughout history? Should we promote the concept of two covenants (as an option for Gentiles, not as our own view)  or should we concentrate on tending our own garden of faith and trust? Historically, Jews  did not like to engage in inter-religious dialogue - for what was in it for them? Judaism is not a missionising religion and we have no drive or need to convince others of our own Truth. Forced disputations often ended with imposed conversions, expulsions and appropriation of Jewish property and this memory makes us quesy about religious dialogue. Because of the existential threat that the abrogation of the "special realtionship" poses, should we rethink this position and reach out to our Christain brothers with consistency, reason and love?

 

I do not know. I am not wise enough to know. What I do know, however is that this question is absolutely crucial to our continued existence and that it will continue to haunt us from now until the coming of  the Messiah.

Avos 1:6: Rabbis give up temporal power

Shemaia said: "Love work (melacha). Hate authority (rabbonus). Don't get friendly with the government (reshus)." 

Shemaia's teaching continued to develop the ideal of the withdrawal of religious men from any association with temporal power and authority. He defines the role of a religious leader as working for the benefit of the community but exercising no coercive power over it, his authority being based solely on persuasion and ties of love and devotion.

A per our general approach, the stories that are preserved about the early Tannaim must be analyzed on the assumption that they represent a pattern and that they were preserved in order to teach as something and not haphazardly. We do not know much about Shemaia but this is what we do know.

The following story is told in Sanhedrin 19 about Shimon ben Shetach but in Josephus it is about Shemaiah. When Herod had extra- judicially put the leader of the national party to death, King Hyrcanus permitted the Sanhedrin to cite him before the tribunal. Herod appeared, in royal purple robes, whereupon the members of the Sanhedrin lost courage. Only Shemaiah was brave enough to say: "He who is summoned here on a capital charge appears like one who would order us to execution straightway if we should pronounce him guilty. Yet I can blame him less than you and the king, since ye permit such a travesty of justice. Know then that he before whom ye now tremble will some day deliver you to the executioner." This tradition is found in Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews xiv. 9, sect. 4.

Neither was Shemaia's relationship with the Priestly aristocracy any smoother. Once, when the high priest was being escorted home the close of Yom Kippur, Yoma 71b relates that the crowd deserted him upon the approach of Abtalion and Shamaia and followed them. When the two Sages came to greet the High Priest he told them: Let tthe descendents of Gentiles go in peace. (Rashi explains that the High Priest spoke in tones of contempt because they were of the descendants of Sennacherib, as mentioned in Gittin). The Gemara continues: "They said to him, 'the descendents of the other peoples greet you in peace, because they are like Aaron who loved peace and pursued peace. But you who are the descendant of Aaron do not behave like Aaron."

(This episode reminds us of the teaching that Shamaiah was a gilgul of prophet Zechariah, who was killed by the Yoash, of whom this High Priest is said to have been as well a gilgul. Interestingly, Avtalion was a gilgul of Aristotle - but we will discuss this later)

This mishna uses terms that are specific and uncommon. We will take up the exact meanings of "melacha", rabbonus", " reshus" later. What we can say, however, is that Shemaia carried the teachings of Shimon ben Shetach even farther, eschewing any participation or co-operation in the corrupt temporal power structure of his time.

Shemiah and Avtalion are presumably "one Nasi and one the Head of the Court" (Chagiga, beginning of the 4th chapter). However in Pesachim 66a they are described as "Gedolei Hador", the great ones of the generation, a term suggesting acceptance by acclamation and not an official position (see Pesachim 49b). Perhaps the description in Chagiga refers to the other "zuggos" and not to these two, for as descendents of converts, they would not be eligible to hold the posts of Nasi and Court President (as Kneses Hagedolah to Choshen Mishpat 7 asks). In Shalsheles Hakkabola this problem is sidestepped by positing that their mothers may have been Jewish by birth, but this contradicts Rambam's explanation of Eduyos 1:3 that as converts they could not prononce the letter "hei" (I assume because this sound does not exist in Greek).

Perhaps, in conformity to their teachings on the nature of rabbinic authority, Shemaia and Avtalion declined to serve in the official capacity on the court system, leading by advice and example, a function that converts can certainly perform, and as the passage in Yoma 71b implicitly suggests.

Matisyahu - Menorah Lighting - 12/8/07 Warsaw, Brooklyn

Kuzari: Nitel and Kuzari Principle

Download Nitel and the Kuzari Principle

Suffering enlarges

Psalm 118, from the Hallel prayer.

Dedicated to all those who suffer -May they be saved from their straits and may our portion be with them.

ה  מִן-הַמֵּצַר, קָרָאתִי יָּהּ;    עָנָנִי בַמֶּרְחָב יָהּ.	5 Out of my strait I called upon the LORD; He answered me with great enlargement.

Human beings have a capacity to contain great pain. Oftentimes, however, suffering washes over a person, suddenly, without preparation,  in a torrent of destruction. Those not tempered by past pain,  can break and shutter under the immense burden of anxiety, fear, dread and loss.

Such a state is called, "strait", in singular.

When the children of Israel groaned under the burdens of Egypt, "they could not listen to Moshe from the narrowness of spirit (kotser ruach (Ex. 6:9)". Rashi explains: "All those whose spirit is narrow and his soul is narrow and he cannot extend his breath"

If he is worthy, suffering enlarges and widens man's capacity to suffer. Within the mind and the soul there are many levels of toleration and forbearance, many expanses of hope, faith and trust, innumerable prayers and a great capacity for acceptance. These are called "depths", in plural.

Dovid HaMelech, in perhaps the most renowned chapter of Tehillim (Chapter
130) begins “Shir HaMaalos Mi’maa’makim--a Song of Ascents.  From the depths I
called you…”  This teaches us that there are many depths within a person's heart.  Similarly, it says in Jeremiah 13:17: "But if you do not listen,  I will weep in secret  places...", again in plural, for suffering and pain opens and reveals to a person the many hidden places within his soul, spaces in which suffering can be contained and accommodated, places of which he was not previously aware.

This is what the second part of the verse says to us: "You have answered me with great enlargement" - that is the enlargement of my spirit, of my capacity to contain and to bear, of my knoweldge of how to cleave to You from the midst of darkness and despair.

The literal translation of 'bamerchav Yah", is that you answered me with the" widening of God". This form of speech is often nonliterally translated as "great", as, for example, in Genesis 1:2, and the spirit of the Lord, that is, the great wind,  was hovering over the waters. However, here it can mean something far more profound.

Suffering does not ennoble. But suffering can broaden our concepttion of the personal God. It tests our committment to "hanging in there"  with the Almighty even as He appears to abandon us to the cruelties of fate and the darkness of suffering and loss.    

To go from "depth" to "depths", to open and discover new spaces within the heart and heretofore  unknown reserves or hope and trust - this is one answer that God gives to suffering.

    

The meaning of Maccabee

A nice post from Seforim on the etymology of the word Machabee. I found this to be entirely new to me and so I share this excerpt.

One of the earliest persons to deal with the meaning of the word Machabee was R. Azariah Di Rossi, in his Me'or Eynaim. 

According to Samotheus, "Maccabee" is a Greek word that is translated as paladino (fighter) in Italian.  But I have been told by others that he received the designation Maccabee because it was inscribed on his banner and derived from the acrostic based on the words Mi Kamokha Ba-elim Hashem.  But this interpretation is not consistent with the fact that On the Maccabees is the title Josephus gave to the work in which he describes the sufferings of Eleazar and Hannah and her seven sons, and this episode predated the rise of Hasmonean dynasty.  But the first explanation would fit, since they, too, [i.e. Eleazar and Hannah who suffered martyrdom] were also fighters.

Me'or Eynaim, Imrei Binah, section two, chapter 21.  Now, Weinberg, in her translation which the above was taken from with one minor alteration, explains that Somatheus is Johannes Lucidus Samotheus and this appears in his Opusculum, bk. 2, ch. 10, 25v.  Di Rossi accepted Samotheus' explanation that Machabee means fighter and is a Greek word.  Although not discussed by Di Rossi, Greek origin of the word makes sense in light of the fact that it was not only Judah who had a title, but his other brothers as well and those titles are Greek. Returning to Di Rossi, Di Rossi rejects the other explanation that Machabee is an acrostic because it was applied by Josephus to a story that long pre-dated Judah's existence.  It is worth noting that the second and rejected explanation is perhaps the more well known explanation of the word, Weinberg in her translation, however, admits that "I do not know the source for this explanation."  p. 343 n.12.  This rather surprising as the source for this understanding of Machabee appears in numerous sources, including the Rokeach (Pirush Siddur ha-Teffilah le-Rokeach, Jerusalem 1992, 219 & n.105), Tzoror ha-Meor (Parshat Veshahan), Shelah as well as many others. It is unclear why Weinberg was unable to locate any of these sources.  

Although Di Rossi had a good reason for rejecting the Mi Kamokha explanation, it didn't stop some from holding on to it. R. David Ganz, in his Tzemach David, argues that perhaps while Judah was the main person to use Machabee, the term may have been applied to earlier persons as well.  Levin, in his Mi-Boker ad Erev, rejects this. Levin states, "with all respect to R. David Ganz, however, does this make any logical sense? In general, is it possible to prove that the son of Matisyahu was called "Judah Mi Kamokha Ba-elim Hashem" and even if one is to assume that this was his slogan?  Further, if one is going to argue that Machabee is an abbreviation can't the word be explained in hundreds of different ways, for example, Mattisyahu Kohen ben Yochanan.  This intrepretation, of Mattisyahu Kohen ben Yochanan, makes the least sense, as anyone with a brain will admit that it makes no sense that Judah the son of Mattisyahu's name was called "Judah Mattisyahu Kohen ben Yochanan." 

A lesser known explanation was offered by Solmon Zeitlin who explained that during the Hellenistic period many people were called based upon their appearances. For example, Antichos VIII referred to Grippas as "the nose" due to his large nose.  Zeitlin accepts that Machabee is based on makbas, a hammer and thus, in keeping with the norms Judah had a hammer shaped head  - a block head.  Thus, Judah was Judah the Hammer Head. 

Levin, cites other explanations including that if makbas means a hammer it is not a large hammer but instead a small one used by a blacksmith. According to this explanation, Machabee refers to Judah's occupation a blacksmith.   Indeed, if one looks to the story of Yael, she used a makabas which assuming she was of normal strength was probably not a huge hammer but a small one. Ultimately, Levin rejects this.  Levin also rejects Munks explanation that Machabee refers to Hammer as used as an honorific for Charles Martel - Martel the Hammer - for his victory over the Muslims between Tours and Poitiers.  Another explanation is that Machabee refers to a place - but then it should read mi-chabani. 

 

Comment: I believe (will check later)  that In 1 Kings, 6, the word makabas, as in "and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any iron tool heard in the house while it was being built", Rashi translates makbas as "dloto b'lashon rus". In modern Russian, this is the word for a narrow tipped chisel.

Interesting, this use of Russian by Rashi!

Prayer as sacrifice

Ulla said:” He who recites the Shma without Tefillin, he as if tesitifies falsely agains himself (R. Yona - for he recites the passages that require putting on tefillin while not wearing it ). RabbimYochanan said :” as if he brings the sacrifice of Olah without meal flour and the sacrifice of Shlomim without libations. Rabbi Yochanan said: He who wishes to receive the complete Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven will relieve himself and wash his hands and put on Tefillin and read the Shma and pray. R. Chiya bar Abba said that R. Yochanan said that every manl who who relieves himselve, washes his hands, puts on Tefillin, reads the Shma and prays, the verse considers it for him as if he build an altar and brought upon it a sacrifice for it says: I will wash in purity my hands and I will encircle your altar, O G-d.”(Brachot 15a).

The Rambam quotes only the statement of Ulla(Tefillin 4,26)[1]. It is noteworthy and I believe highy significant that he selcts the opinion of Ulla over that of R. Yochanan in deviation of the accepted preference for the opinion of R. Yochanan over that of Ulla.

Careful consideration of the different import of Ulla’s statement provides us with an important insight. As R. Yona points out, whereas Ulla criticizes a worshipper who says the Shma without Tefillin, he in no way suggests that this creates a deficiency in the fulfillment of the Mitsva of the Shma. R. Yochanan,  on the other hand, clearly indicates that not wearing Tefillin detracts in some way from the Mitsva. Fartermore, Ulla’s statement does not deal with the Shmone Esrei, whereas for R. Yochanan, it is an integral part of the enchances definition of  receiving the complete yoke of the kingdom of heaven. In addition, R. Yochanan views this complete yoke in the context of the sacrificial order hereas Ulla does not[2]. The approach is internally consistent for the Shmone Esrei prayer is in place of the Tamid sacrifice(Brachot 26b). Since it is an integral part of the complete yoke, Shmone Esrei prayer imparts a quasi-sacrificial character to the entire order of the morning prayers, of which the Shma is an integral component[3]. He probably sees the Tefillin and the Shma as building the basis, an altar, for the Shmone Esrei experience , a sacrificial entity within the paradigm of Temple service.

 I would like to suggeat that the Rambam, based on his approach to the nature of  Shma as being a pardigm of Torah study, or a declaration of faith and not of prayer, could not cite the words and the approach of R. Yochanan who saw the amalgalm of Shma and Smone Esrei , along with hand washing and Tefillin, as constutuents of the expanded and enchanced process of receiving the Yoke of Heaven. He could much easier accept the approach of Ulla that saw wearing Tefillin as a  “side issue” that did not impact on the Mitsva performance and did not involve the paradigm of sacrifices..

The Talmud continues:”... for R. Chisda rebuked those who search for water at the time of prayer. This is for Shma but for Shmone Esrei (one is required to travel ) up to (a distance) of a mil(Brachot 15a).” The Rambam codifies this distinction verbtim(Shma 3,1[4]). The Tosafot, on the other hand write:”...it appears that we do not accept this text for it should be the same also for prayer for what is the difference between the Shma and Prayer.” Although these words are open to several interpretations, elsewhere the Tosafot state explicitly that the Talmudic definition of  the term “prayer” includes the Shma(Sabbath 11a s.v. kgon). I think that the Tosafot do view the Shma as an integral part of the Shmone Esrei process and do also see it within the context of prayer process as sacrifice. We appear then to have here a disagreement on both textual and conceptual levels regarding the identity of the Shma and the Shmone Esrei between the Tosafot and the Rambam.

---

[1] Curiously, there is the only reference in the Mishne Torah where the law of the Shma and Shmone Esrei is quoted together.Although standard in the Talmud, in the works of the Rambam the two are almost always discussed separately. This curious insistence on separating the two prayers provides additional evidence to the suggestion that the Rambam viewed the Shma and the Shmone Esrei as different in essence as well as in routine.

[2] Similiarly, the morning washing of hands is viewed by the Rambam(Laws of Prayer 4,2) solely in terms of assuring cleanliness for prayer. There is no mention of the requirement of using a vessel, pouring the water three times, puring out of a vessel instead of sticking one’s hand into a container,or of water, rather than other cleansing agents. There is no sacrificial symbolism to morning hand washing; it is of a purely utilitarian nature. The Rosh to Brachot 60b employs a similiar approach, although a priori he does require that a vessel be used. However, the vessel is only required to conform to the text of the blessing which is modeled after the ablutions before eating bread, where a vessel is required. I am aware of one other positon of the Rosh where he states that the halakhot follow the text of the blessing and not vice versa. In the commentary to Pesachim 115 , the Rosh requires an olive size of Maror based solely on the text of its blessing-”on eating maror(halachic eating is often defined as constituting a size of an olive).

Ther are, however,  a number of Rishonim that explicitly pattern the morning ablutions after the service of the High Priest in the Temple(c.f.Kaffih’s commentary to the Mishe Torah) and do require the elements that I mentioned. Note also Teshuvot HaRashba, 191. 

[3] I heard R, Shimon Schwab of blessed memory suggest that the whole of morning liturgy can be viewed as a symbolic/experiential piligrimage to the Temple, concluding with the Shmone Esrei.This piligrimage begins with the Akeida, a description of a trip to Moount Moraih and proceeds with the chapters of Ketores and Eilu Mkomon, selecting the appropriate sacrifice to be brought to the courtyard

The worshipper then proceeds past the Soreg, a cross lattice around the Temple Mount, where only Jews are permitted to enter(Keilim 1,8). This corresponds to the blessing of “...sanctifies his nation Israel”. This a blessing delineates the uniqueness of the people of Israel and is followed by Pesukei D’zimra that allude    to  the Songs of Ascent(Psalms 120-34  )and their assiciation with the steps that lead into the Coutyard of Israelites(Middot 2,5). Rabbi Schwab’s views  have been partially recorded by the Khal Adath Jeshurun and put out as a two tape series.

[4] The Rambam’s view as to nature of obligation to wash one’s hands before prayer is not germane to our purpose. The distinction that he makes between washing for the morning prayer and at other times is probably  best understood along the lines of the distinction between washing only one’s hands for the purpose of ritual cleanliness( where any means of cleansing is post facto acceptable) and that of purifying one’s whole body, including feet and face(Brachot 4,2-3 and Tefilla 4,3 )