[Avodah] Keil melech neeman

[Micha Berger]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 09:11:38PM +0200, David E Cohen wrote:
: 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.

This is how the Mei'ri describes it (Magein Avos 1 "Minhagei qodem").

Aside from the Rokei'ach's (and the Kolbo's) "amein" defense, the Ramban's
objection doesn't appear to me to be that strong. (I wonder if the power
of the Rokei'ach's answer won the day because the talmidim of the Ramban
would be likely to accept his rebbe's sevarah.) It's based on his shitah
that birkhas ahavah is a birkhas hamitzvah and therefore must be said
oveir la'asiyasan. But as there is no "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav",
it's non-trivial to insist it's a birkhas hamitzvah rather than shevach.
The berakhah's content is shevach as well.

Not that this would make ahavah unique. Birkhas haTorah raises the same
machloqes. But certainly this doesn't make the Ramban's shitah muchrach.
And in fact, the Y-mi Berakhos 1:3 says the kohenim made birkhas haTorah
before saying Shema. And if you said ahavah, R' Yehudah besheim Shemu'el
(Berakhos 11b) says you can skip haTorah. So maybe it's the same
she'eilah ("shailah").

If we treat it as shevach, then the problem of hefseiq between ahavah
and shema is only in terms of (1) breaking the matbei'ah of the siddur;
and (2) hesekh hada'as -- neither would apply.

So I'm kind of surprise with the Me'iri's "I don't know why it's okay but
since it has been approved of for centuries it must be." I don't know why
so many have a problem with it. Just join those who are choleqin with the
Ramban on the nature of birkhas ahavah.

A second problem -- the gemara (11b, ibid) doesn't require a particular
order to the berakhos. So the entire birkhas yetzirah (yotzeir or) can be
said between ahavah and shema!

...
: 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 [2]48 words (an idea that was imported
: from Provence)...

That is the reason given in the Kolbo (9, "Umaschilin Q"Sh). To fulfill "Kol
atzmosai tomarnah". In the name of the Rosh he mentioned using "Keil Melekh
Ne'eman" in particular to complete the count, and says it's a shemirah for
the Rama"ch eivarim.

How can the Prof attribute it to the Zohar Chadash (published to include
material found in Tzafas)? It's already in the Machzor Viri (89, "Barukh
Atah" tr. mine):
And he says Q"Sh with care (diqduq) in its letters and words. And he must
have kavanah to their heart (libum, not libo) to finish the words
corresponding to the rama"ch eivarim. ... And he should put space between
the attachable: Keil Melekekh Ne'eman. Shema Yisrael ... and thereby he will
complete the 248 words. Therefore do not stop between "E-lokeikhem" and
"Emes".

Also, the Avudraham (ad loc) mentions both solutions to the 248 word problem,
he's 14th cent.

(I ellided the material not about KMN except for the last phrase. I do not
understand it. If someone can explain how not stopping helps complete 248
words if one already said KMN, I would appreciate it.)

I have the following from Buber's Medrash Agadah (Devayim 5:11 "Lo sisa")
tr. mine:
And know that the Aseres haDevarim have in them 613 mitzvos, and Qeri'as
Shema has in them 613 mitzvos. But when you cound them [together] there
are 610 words. Therefore tiqnu that before one says shema one says three
words -- and they are "Keil Melekh Ne'eman" -- in order to complete 613
words corresponding to the 613 mitzvos.

So it would seem that KMN is far older than the idea of doing it for
the 248 words. But we don't know how old, since it's unclear that the
manuscript in Aram Tzovah that Buber chose to call "Medrash Agadah"
actually is tanaitic. In any case, we do know it's well before the
rabbanim in this machloqes.

BTW, the davening by the kohanim in bayish sheini is described (same inyan
as in the Y-mi above) as being centered on the Aseres haDiberos and Shema.
Thus justifying the desire to complete their combined count (if you too
were saying the diberos).

On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 12:18:48PM +0100, Minden wrote:
: isn't this whole capitalisation a decidedly Christian thing anyway? Are
: there any tshuves about it, other than those about writing God's name
: in non-Hebrew letters and the like?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Xian" beyond simply that the languaage
in question was invented by and for Xians.

All nouns used to be capitalized. When English shifted to only
capitalizing proper names, references to G-d were left as-is out of
respect. (And "I" stayed capital for narcissistic reasons, I guess.)

It's not about the word, and whether the word should be used as a name
of G-d. We do it for King, Him, (or the "One" on the next line) etc...
when speaking of G-d. It's respect for the One being named, which I
can't see being more Xian than Jewish.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha at aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach