[Avodah] Keil melech neeman

[David E Cohen]

The old minhag Ashkenaz was to always say "keil melekh ne'eman," even
be-tzibbur. This was one of the minhagim that the talmidim of the Ramban
took issue with when the came to Provence, since they held that it was
a hefseik. The Me'iri defends it, in Magein Avos (a seifer written to
defend the classical minhagim of Provence against the attacks of the
talmidim of the Ramban), primarily by making the case that there was an
old mesorah for it. The Rokei'ach explains that the Ashkenazim didn't
consider it a hefseik, since "keil melekh ne'aman" is just an extended
"amein," and answering "amein" to one's own berakhah is permissible
at the conclusion of a series of berakhos, which they considered this
to be. The Sefaradim, at this point in time, didn't have the mesorah (*)
(first recorded in the Tanchuma) of having exactly 348 words, so they
simply weren't concerned with it.

The first mention of the chazzan's repeating "Hashem Elokeikhem Emes" is
in the Zohar Chadash (*). Prof. Ta-Shma surmises that this is an attempt
to reconcile the desire to reach 348 words (an idea that was imported
from Provence) with the concerns about hefseik that were expressed by
the talmidei ha-Ramban. The Zohar Chadash says explicitly that this
will only work be-tzibbur, and that one who says Keri'as Shema` on his
own will, in fact, miss out on the opportunity to have his entire body
protected by saying 348 words. In Shekel ha-Kodesh, R' Moshe de Leon
explains that just as a chazzan can repeat Shemoneh `Esreih without
concern for an appearance of praying to "shtei reshuyos," so, too,
there would be no problem for him to repeat "Hashem Elokeikhem Emes,"
since this also has a productive function, namely the protection of the
bodies of the congregants. The implication is that this is a special
license that is given to a shaliach tzibbur, and that if an individual
were to try this, there would be a problem of appearance of addressing
two reshuyos, similar to the problem in repeating "shema`" or "modim."

The current Ashkenazi "compromise" practice seems to originate with the
Rama (see Darkhei Mosheh on Orach Chayim 61). His implication seems
to be (**) that really, the concerns about hefseik have some validity,
and the Zohar's solution is the best, but in the event that one is saying
Keri'as Shema` alone, and does not have this option, he can always default
back to the classic minhag Ashkenaz of saying "keil melekh ne'eman."
Basically, the goal of reaching 348 words is important enough that if
there's no other way to do it, "yeish al mi lismokh" to disregard the
potential hefseik issue.


(*) Yes, the confluence of these two statements implies a certain
assumption that Prof. Ta-Shma z"l is making about the age of the Zohar --
not just its text, but the traditions contained therein.

(**) This reading of the Rama's logic is mine, not that of Prof. Ta-Shma.

Shavua` tov,
D.C.