By: Rabbi Ari Enkin
The Shema is comprised of 245 words. There is a tradition, however, to ensure that the reading of the Shema totals 248, the number of limbs in a person’s body.[1] In order to accomplish this, the one leading the services repeats the last three words of the Shema, “Hashem Elokeichem Emet”, thereby bringing the total number of words to 248 through this three-word recitation.[2] Indeed, common custom is to consider hearing the leader’s repetition of these words as if one had said them oneself.[3] One who wishes to repeat these words as well is entitled to do so, though this is not customarily done.[4]
One who is praying alone does not have the advantage of hearing someone else recite these three words. As such, there are a number of options for one who is praying alone to still benefit from a 248 word recitation of Shema. One of the options offered is for one to concentrate extra carefully on the first letter (“vav”) of each of the 15 words which follow the Shema of shacharit. This method numerically corresponds to God’s name three times. [5] Another more widespread practice is to recite the three words “El Melech Ne’eman” before reciting the Shema at both shacharit and ma’ariv.[6] Some always recite El Melech Ne’eman even when only reciting the first paragraph of shema, such as before going to sleep at night.[7] One who is praying with a minyan should not say this three word formula.[8]
Nevertheless, according to the Arizal one should not recite “El Melech Ne’eman” before the Shema, at any time.[9] This is out of a concern that doing so is an unnecessary, and therefore prohibited, interruption between the blessing that precedes the Shema and the Shema recitation itself.[10] So too, according to this school of thought, one is to fill in the missing three words of Shema at the end of its recitation, not at it’s beginning. As such, followers of the Arizal repeat the last three words of Shema -“Hashem Elokeichem Emet”- in order to arrive at 248 words.
There also exists a custom for the leader to repeat the words “Ani Hashem Elokeichem Emet”, due to the concern that the word “Emet” truly belongs to the prayer following the Shema, and not to the Shema itself. According to this approach, one would have not discharged the requirement to have 248 words. This custom, however, is hardly to be found.[11] One who is still in the midst of Shema when the leader appears ready to recite “Hashem Elokeichem Emet” should pause and listen to the leader, which will count towards one’s personal 248 word recitation of Shema.[12]
[1] Kaf Hachaim 61:10
[2] O.C. 61:3
[3] Kaf Hachaim 61:13
[4] Rema O.C. 61:3, Kaf Hachaim 61:14
[5] O.C. 61:3. See Rema for additional interpretations
[6] Rema O.C. 61:3
[7] V’shav V’rapeh 2:7
[8] Rema O.C. 61:3
[9] Kaf Hachaim 61:15,19
[10] Beit Yosef 61, Kaf Hachaim 61:19
[11] Beit Yosef O.C. 61
[12] Piskei Teshuvot 61:3
I remember counting a few times before realizing that the 245 word count does not include “emet.” So technically, the chazan isn’t repeating that word but saying it for the “first” time, even though everyone else has already said it. If that makes sense. 🙂
Nachum-
I dont understand. The chazzan also says it quietly just like everyone else….and then repeats “H.E.M”.
Ari Enkin
1) what is a human limb for the purpose of counting 248?
2) why does it matter that the shema should equal the limbs in the body?
3) how is el melech neeman not a hefsek?
4) why el and not kel (just curious, because you do write elokeichem
Abba-
1 – Machlokes
2 – This is mostly kabbala stuff. I aint touching it.
3 – Chelek min hamitzva is never a hefsek
4 – Maybe I should have. Thanks for the pointer.
Ari Enkin
See R. Binyomin Hamburger’s Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz for a comprehensive discussion of this issue (and I mean very comprehensive).
The repetition of the last three words is a medieval innovation first recorded in the Zohar. The old minhag Ashkenaz is either to say El Melekh Neeman always (even b’yahid), or to answer Amen to the chazzan’s beracha before Shema, as Amen is an acronym for El Melekh Neeman. I personally follow the last practice.
I tend to say Shema slower than the chazzan, so to listen out for his repetition of the last three words is very disruptive to my concentration. Also, some argue that listening that hearing the last three words out of order (i.e. in the middle of one’s recitation of Shema) doesn’t help anyway. See R. Hamburger’s sefer.
R’ Enkin:
Ah, I see. Sorry!
Hadarda”I — you seem to be a pristine observer of minhagei Ashkenaz, so this may not bother you, but you are no doubt aware that there are halakhic difficulties with answering amen to HaBoheir b’amo Yisrael b’ahava
(sorry, didn’t finish)
While Rema permits it, ShA does not, and MB recommends a compromise position in the form of saying the berakha together with the hazzan
Josh-
Why would a pristine observer of minahgei Ashkenaz be bothered by who forbids it, if the Rema himself permits it?!
I am extremely peeved that so many Ashkenazim feel the need to out-frum the Rema and not say “Amen” to that bracha.
Ari Enkin
See R. Freundel’s Why we Pray What we Pray pp. 72-74 (and note the original sources in the footnotes that you do not cite): Midrash Tanchuma, Kedoshim #6 and Zohar Hadash: Midrash Ruth 2:30b.
R. ENKIN:
“Chelek min hamitzva is never a hefsek”
is this really “chelek hamitzva”? if you don’t do it you haven’t performed the mitzva of kerias shema even lechatchila? or are you going to sidestep with the explanation that its part of kabbala 😉
(i’ve noticed over my schooling years that every subject has a particular answer that is always a good guess when you don’t know the answer to a question. i’ve come to realize that in taamei minhagim/halacha, the answer “kabbalah” is the safe answer wheneve one doesn’t know the answer to the question of “why”)
“I am extremely peeved that so many Ashkenazim feel the need to out-frum the Rema and not say “Amen” to that bracha.”
but isn’t your argument against the MB, not the so many ashkenazim? and why davka here, as opposed to other places we don’t follow the rama?
Abba-
Anything related to a mitzva, a hiddur, chumra, component of almost any kind, will often assume the status of that mitzva even tohugh, as you note, the three words are not a mitzva per se.
I dont like those who out-frum the Rema everywhere. Another good example is – if I am not mistaken (no Shulchan Aruch with me know) – the Rema allows tallit and tefillin from Alos but everyone is more machmir till misheyakir. etc. etc. etc.
The Mishna Berura’s entire halachic model is “cover all your bases”. That is his approahc almost everywhere, so it is not surprising. True, I cant argue with the Mishna Berura, but there is also no need for anyone at all to ‘fear’ following the psak of the Rema.
Ari Enkin
See Y. Ta-Shema’s article “El Melekh Neeman”. The issue, as he shows, is relevant for the dating of the Zohar.
Rabbi Enkin: I’m with IH and Hadarda”i on this. Why do you rely on such late secondary sources?
Please understand… My posts are not academic papers. They are merely to whet the appetite and stimulate further research and discussion.
My books are considerably more thorough.
Ari Enkin
I did a little Google digging and the sources I mention (with translation) are available in a source sheet from R. Freundel at TorahinMotion.org: http://tinyurl.com/7glqmdd
Are there in fact 248 bones in the body?
Ohalot 1:8.
The word used is “ever,” not “etzem.”
KSIL:
“Are there in fact 248 bones in the body?”
at some point along the way. we are born with 300 and change but they fuse over time till we have 200 and change.
Is there anything wrong if, after the chazzan repeats “Ani Elokeichem Emes”, if I begin with “Emes” (and not begin with “v’Yatsiv”)?
Someone put all those adjectives together – t really doesn’t sit right with me to start with “v’Yatsiv”.
> Nevertheless, according to the Arizal one should not recite “El Melech Ne’eman” before the Shema, at any time.[9] Why would a pristine observer of minahgei Ashkenaz be bothered by who forbids it, if the Rema himself permits it?! <
I dare say even more importantly, Minhag Ashk'naz far predates RMA. As for those who follow the advice of the CC in matters such as these, (a) they are violating minhag hamaqom if they loudly say the b'rachah with the SHaTZ in a place which follows the minhag noted by HaDarda"i; and (b) I have to ask if they also follow the CC in saying "bizman hazeh" (rather than "baz'man hazeh"), etc. 🙂
(My prior comment was not posted properly, so I’ll split it into two comments….)
Part I:
> Nevertheless, according to the Arizal one should not recite “El Melech Ne’eman” before the Shema, at any time.[9] <
Interesting, given that the Hirtz Siddur of 1560 (which I thought was al pi Qabbala — perhaps I'm wrong on that point) has it as part of the text (and see http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=6687&st=&pgnum=108&hilite= for details on why he considered EMN crucial).
Part II:
The minhag noted by HaDarda”i (in particular, the tzibbur saying “Amein” to the b’rachah of the SHaTZ just prior to Q’riyas Shma) is followed in KAJ/”Breuer’s” and in other q’hilos which maintain minhag Ashk’naz (as in W.Europe, not Ostjuden).
> Why would a pristine observer of minahgei Ashkenaz be bothered by who forbids it, if the Rema himself permits it?! <
I dare say even more importantly, Minhag Ashk'naz far predates RMA. As for those who follow the advice of the CC in matters such as these, (a) they are violating minhag hamaqom if they loudly say the b'rachah with the SHaTZ in a place which follows the minhag noted by HaDarda"i; and (b) I have to ask if they also follow the CC in saying "bizman hazeh" (rather than "baz'man hazeh"), etc. 🙂
Thank you R’ Enkin for the informative post.
As an aside, this issue provides a good snapshot in studying the ever growing influence of qabbala over the Sephardic world during the 16th Cent. transition period, particularly in the area of Tefila. In R’ Eliyahu Mizrahi (Chief Rabbi of the Ottoman Empire)’s teshuva (no. 1) on the issue, he comes out against repeating the 3 words at the end of Shema. The following excerpt is telling (loose translation):
Anything that is not mentioned in either the Talmud Bavli or Yerushalmi, nor is discussed in the Poseqim, upon whose words we live and upon whom we rely for all matters of our faith, we cannot mandate it, even though the ‘ba’ale haqabbalah’ mentioned it. For their words are merely hints (ramazim) that they surmised on their own, since they are experts in these matters. But today, in our abundant sins, we cannot be mindful in our tefilot upon such hints that are proper to have in mind. Would that we should concentrate on the simple understanding of the words that come out of our mouths! We (therefore) cannot oblige the masses on something that was (based on) an esoteric hint. And we have never heard a single one of the great and famous ba’ale haqabbalah who would require the masses to follow these types of things that are based on hints of the qabbalists to esoteric matters, unless it was mentioned in the Talmud or poseqim that followed it.
This teshuva was written in the early 16th Cent., but by the end of that Century, after the circle of Qabbalists in Safed was firmly established, one would find it inconceivable for a Sephardic poseq to write such words. Thereafter the influence of qabbalah over tefila became widespread and settled law amongst Sepharadim. Even Rav Ovadia Yosef, the Sephardic world’s most important poseq today, who’s MO is to never veer from the pesaq of Maran, goes against Maran in favor of the qabbalistically influenced practice in many instances pertaining to tefila.
It seems, btw, that what is meant by “remach (248) eivarim” (or 365 gidim) itself is not clear or consistent based on some quick research to satisfy my own curiosity.
Here’s an interesting use:
From: http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-brain-death-debate-a-methodological-analysis-part-1-yoma-passage-by-daniel-reifman/
As HaDarda”i commented earlier, there is lengthy discussion (over two hundred pages, across five chapters) related to this topic in שרשי מנהג אשכנז חלק ב, which is highly recommended. The English Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz synopsis volume also contains relevant material.
Additional good news is that the detailed table of contents of the (Hebrew original) volume and a nice sample of the pages can be seen online at http://www.moreshesashkenaz.org/mm/samples/Shorshei2Sample.pdf
IIRC, the origin of the idea of 365 gidim is medieval, perhaps the Zohar. Or is it just the idea of the 365 negative commandments corresponding to 365 gidim that is late? There is an extended footnote on the subject by Rav Hayyim Heller in his notes on the Rambam’s Sefer ha-Mitzvot.
I dont understand. The chazzan also says it quietly just like everyone else….and then repeats “H.E.M”.
I dont understand. The chazzan also says it quietly just like everyone else….and then repeats “H.E.M”.
Actually I think the MB brings a debate about this, and according to some opinions, the chazzan finishes (silently) with “ani hashem elokeichem”, and then he repeats aloud “hashem elokeichem emes” – this brings the count to 248.
Daniel: That is the minhag of the Gra.
Ari Enkin on May 15, 2012 at 8:05 am
Josh-
Why would a pristine observer of minahgei Ashkenaz be bothered by who forbids it, if the Rema himself permits it?!
I am extremely peeved that so many Ashkenazim feel the need to out-frum the Rema and not say “Amen” to that bracha.
Ari Enkin
Until now was the quote.
The Eliyahu Rabah and Shaarei Teshuvah (quoted in MB 59:25) feel the need to out-frum the Rama.
(I personally do say amen, though.)
“Josh on May 15, 2012 at 7:59 am
Hadarda”I — you seem to be a pristine observer of minhagei Ashkenaz, so this may not bother you, but you are no doubt aware that there are halakhic difficulties with answering amen to HaBoheir b’amo Yisrael b’ahava”
I heard an explanation from Rav Hamburger shlit”a some time ago explaining why it is not a problem according to Minhag Ashkenaz to answer amein in cases such as this and after the chazan says בא”י גאל ישראל.
He said that in the conception of minhag Ashkenaz, rather than being an extraneous interruption, which is detrimental, not only is such an amein not a hefsek and out of place, but it actually adds to and strengthens the brocho. He illustrated this with a moshol (parable) of someone making a speech and listeners responding with shouts of hurray, expressing support for and cheering the speaker’s message.
Is that response hurting, opposing the speaker’s message, or strengthening and supporting it? Obviously the latter. Similarly, in minhag Ashkenaz, saying amein is viewed as identifying with and strengthening the effect of the preceding bracha, rather than diminishing it.
Gil: Does the Chazan then say “Emet” a second time?
Dovid –
The ’emet’ you say while waiting for the chazzan essentialy begins the next section. Hence, you did indeed recite ’emet’ before ‘vyatziv’. It would make no sense to repeat that work and the double repetition could be deemed a hefsek.
Ari Enkin
Nachum: The minhag ha-Gra is that the chazzan only says “emes” the second time and not the first.
It would make no sense to repeat that word
R’ Ari — I don’t buy that. Repetition is a liturgical (and poetic) tool. Halachic quibbling to the side, I think it works very very nicely from a liturgical/poetic perspective.
Adonai Eloheichem Emet.
Emet, ve’Yatziv, ve’Nachon, ve’Kayam …
The repetition of “Emet” then becomes a bridge, that enhances smicha rather than causes hefsek. I, for one, find it very meaningful.
R’ Ari and IH – full disclosure: I set those 16 words to music . As IH points out, from the poetic point of view, it’s difficult to chop up the words. But I will, bli neder, investigate the halachic question. Thanks.
Hiruhurim: “Nachum: The minhag ha-Gra is that the chazzan only says “emes” the second time and not the first.”
I’ve never understood the other opinion, that the chazzan says it twice (which seems to be the more prevalent custom). The count of the words then comes out to 249! Perhaps the first time he says “emes” it’s not counted since it’s really part of the next paragraph?
Thanks, Gil.
Daniel – in fact the Aroch HaShulchan (61:11) says that it is the second emes that does not count because it belongs to the next paragraph.
He also recommends (61:12) that a yachid should repeat the 3 words “eschem me’eretz mitzraim” rather than kel melech neeman or Hashem elokeichem emet (to avoid repeating Hashem’s name).
What is the source for there being 613 mitzvot in the first place?
I know Chazal use that number, but why?
Shlomo-
See Makkot 23b. It seems to be the earliest source for such a concept.
Ari Enkin
Despite R. Eliyhu Mizrahi’s comment, the authority of the Zohar etc was set above that of the Yerushalmi by R. Joseph Caro in Bet Yosef, OH no. 31.
Despite R. Eliyhu Mizrahi’s comment, the authority of the Zohar etc was set above that of the Yerushalmi by R. Joseph Caro in Bet Yosef, OH no. 31.
Jeffrey:
This is false. If you read your reference carefully you will see that R’ Y Karo holds that we should follow the Zohar where the rule is not stated openly in either the Talmud Bavli or Yerushalmi. But clearly he does not hold that the Zohar was set above the Yerushalmi. He reiterates this position in OH 141.