The Mishna in Sota(3a) includes the Shma in the list of those declarations that can be said on any language. In fact, there is a disgreement between Rabbi and “Rabbanan” about this fact. I quote:” ‘The Shma(must be said) as it is written(Rashi -in the Holy Tongue)’- the words of Rabbi. The Sages say:”in any language”.What is the reasoning of Rabbi? It states: ...and these words shall be... As they are, they should be.And the Sages, what is their reasoning? Hear, O Israel-in any language that you understand.’ ”(Brachot 13a)[1].
Despite this unambigous source, the Rif is quoted by Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim 63) as proscribing recitation of the Shma in languages other than Hebrew based on a passage in Shabat 12a where R.Yochanan states:” A person should not ask his needs in the Aramaic language for the angels (who carry the prayers ) do not understand Aramaic[2]. This version of the Rif clearly implies that the Shema is a type pf prayer. Only if it is a prayer would the passage in Shabbos apply to it.
The Beit Yosef objects that the recitation of the Shma is in no way “asking his needs”, meaning that it si not a parayer and should not be restricted by the statemetn of R. Yochanon. I do not believe that the Beit Yosef disagrees with the premise that the Shema can be viewed as a form of prayer for he himself writeds in Orach Chaim 57 that” the words of the Shma are words of Prayer". A prefferable explanation of the Beit Yosef’d position relies on the distinction between communal and private aspect of prayer.
The Rosh in Brachot(Ch.2,2) restates the problem that occupied many of his predecessors in relation to the above quoted passage in the tractate Shabbat. The women in Ashkenaz were not in the habit of attending public prayers and many of them did not know Hebrew[3]. They prayed at home and in the vernacular. This practice appears to contradict what we just read from tractate Shabbos, for prayer in other languages should not be permitted to anyone, men of women. The justification offered by many Rishonim was that women’s prayers are 'formal', of a specific text, and thus analogous to those of the public and are acceptable in any language. Only those prayers that are completely original and individual are included in the statement of R. Yochanan.[4].
We see, however, from this issue that the mainstream position is to accept the Shema as being to at least some extent and for at least ceratain purposes a form of prayer. It is less clear what kind of prayer it may be, as it does not fit neasily into conventional framework of supplication, praise or thanksgiving.
The Beit Yosef certainly appears to posit that its character is that of a of communal prayer. That would make sense if we define prayer Ias being not only a personl but also a communal and formal rite. If so, any text that is accepted by teh community to be used in formal apryers is simply "prayer", even if it has nothing to do with personal conversation between GOd and man. If so, such parayer is not limited by restrictions that apply to original and individual prayers and can be recited in any language. One need not , however, go as far as to see the Shma as only formal in origin, for we know from common practice that it is as much a communal as a private prayer. Rather, the communal element is another strand in the multifaceted nature of this basic and unifying prayer.
[1] The disagreement appeats to be about the meaning of the word “Shma” as used in this verse. The root S’MA is used in the Tanach to sometimes mean “understand”or “accept” and sometimes to “hear” or “listen”. Both meanings are nicely presented in Rashi to Genesis 33,27. See also Sipporno .
[2] Our text in the Rif does not appear to bear out this version of his position.
[3] Tosafot Brachot 45b sv Sheani.
[4] This can be best explained by the principle espoused by Rav Y.D> Sooloveitchik based on his explanation of Berakhot 29b ck in Kavana in prayer. To paraphrase him, an insignificant, lowly, sinful individual has no right to approach his Creator alone but only as a member of the community. It is for this reason that all our prayers are phrased in plural. The Rav said that the Gomel blessing represents the only exception to this rule(but see Siddur Chazon Ovadia, beginning note 69) and that only because it includes the phrase”...who has dealt kindness to the sinners”. As noted in Magen Avrahm 219,1 no one has a right to call others sinners while standing before G-d in prayer. This is why we phrase this blessing in singular even if the intent is still for plural.
Comments