[Avodah] Standing For Qri'at Shma`

[Zev Sero]

Gershon Dubin wrote:
jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F Shachter) writes:

> why was it so important to avoid the appearance that someone was 
> following Beit Shammai, if only as a xumra?

Because it *isn't* a chumra.  If BH's interpretation of the pasuk is
correct, then standing is not even a little bit better than sitting.
One posture is just as good as any other.  The only way standing would
be a chumra is if one entertains the possibility that just maybe BH's
understanding of the pasuk was mistaken, and the pasuk really does refer
to the reader's posture rather than to the time of day.

A key point here is that BS did *not* require standing out of respect.
On the contrary, for the evening Shma they required lying down, which
hardly seems respectful.  They required standing in the morning because
they understood the pasuk to require that posture in preference to all
others.  Once we reject that interpretation, then there simply isn't
any reason left to choose one posture over another.  Respect isn't an
issue.

Whereas if we take the question of standing for kaddish, nobody says
that this is a gezerat hakatuv, that standing is the preferred posture
for hearing kaddish.  Rather, those who stand do so out of respect;
as the KSA says, if Eglon Melech Moav stood up to hear Hashem's word,
how much more so should we do the same.  Now suppose BS came along and
said one must stand up to hear kaddish, and BH said no, it isn't
necessary, it's OK to sit.  In that case, since they're both talking
about the same thing, even BH would agree that it's better to stand,
and so it would be OK and even recommended to be machmir.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas