This month’s Torah reading offers us the precious opportunity to take a closer look at one of the most often observed – yet, ironically, seldom discussed – mitzvot: the daily Shema recitation.
There are two sections of the Torah which the Torah itself explicitly commands us to read twice each day, in the morning and in the evening. The first, which begins with the famous verse of “Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokenu Hashem ehad,” appears in Parashat Vaet’hanan (Devarim 6:4-9). The second begins with the words “Vehayah im shamoa,” and is found in the next parashah, Parashat Ekev (Devarim 11:13-21). These two sections form the first two paragraphs of the daily Shema recitation. A third paragraph, from the Book of Bamidbar (15:37-41), is added because it concludes with a reminder about the Exodus from Egypt, and we are commanded to read about this event each day. Our discussion here will focus on the first two paragraphs, which we read this month.
Contrasting “Shema” With “Vehaya Im Shamoa”
Rabbis throughout the ages have noted a number of significant differences between these two pieces of Biblical text. Perhaps the most important, and most obvious, difference involves the notion of sechar ve’onesh – reward and punishment. This is the primary theme of the second paragraph, which promises great rewards for the faithful service of Gd, while warning of dreadful calamities for abandoning Gd in favor of foreign deities. The Torah in this section promises that the service of the Almighty is rewarded with plentiful rainfall, which will, in turn, lead to an abundance of produce and economic prosperity. It then proceeds to warn that the rejection of Gd will result in severe drought, thus causing widespread starvation, to the point where “you will be swiftly driven from upon the good land which Gd is giving you.” These promises and warnings do not appear in the first paragraph, which commands us to show unbridled devotion to Gd, but without speaking about the consequences of our loyalty or disloyalty.
The second discrepancy relates to the person or people being addressed. The first paragraph, “Shema,” is written in the singular form, addressing itself to individuals. (Thus, for example, this paragraph begins with the singular term “Shema,” as opposed to the plural “Shim’u” or “Tishme’u.”) By contrast, the second paragraph utilizes the plural form (e.g. “im shamoa tishme’u”), addressing itself not to each individual, but to the people collectively.
Finally, these two paragraphs seem to demand different levels of religious devotion. The first paragraph commands us to love Gd “with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your means.” By contrast, the paragraph of “Vehayah im shamoa” instructs that we must love and serve our Creator “with all your heart and with all your soul,” omitting the requirement to serve Him “bechol meodecha” – with all our financial resources.
What are we to make of these distinctions? What do these two different paragraphs – which we recite twice each and every day – teach us about our obligations to Gd?
Kollel vs. Work
Rav Chaim of Volozhin (Belarus, 1749-1821) explained that in these two sections, the Torah addresses two different groups of people.
The background to his understanding of the text is a question discussed by the Gemara in Masechet Berachot (35b) – and which is also discussed and debated quite often among our community members, who are perhaps unaware of the Gemara’s conclusion. We refer to the question of full-time learning versus working for a livelihood. Many strongly disapprove of married men who choose to spend their days in kollel learning Torah, and receive support from donors and/or family. The opponents of kollel life accuse such men of abdicating the most basic responsibility of a husband and father – to support his wife and children. By contrast, others frown upon those who spend their days in the office, engaging all day in mundane pursuits, rather than choosing to immerse themselves in the sanctity of the Torah.
Importantly, both these perspectives appear explicitly in the Gemara.
Rabbi Yishmael, as the Gemara cites, taught, “Hanheg bahem minhag derech eretz,” which, roughly translated, means, “Be normal.” According to Rabbi Yishmael, although there is clearly an obligation to spend time learning Torah each day and evening, a person should work for a livelihood. Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, however, objects, asking, “Torah mah teheh aleha?” – “What will happen to Torah”? If a person spends his time working, he will not have the time to master the large corpus of Torah, and will remain an ignoramus. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, one should devote himself fulltime to Torah study, and rely on Hashem to support him.
The Gemara concludes by observing, “Many acted like Rabbi Yishmael, and were successful; like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and were not successful.”
Rav Chaim of Volozhin explains this conclusion as expressing that halachah actually accepts both views – that of Rabbi Yishmael, and that of Rabbi Shimon. For “the many,” the proper approach to follow is Rabbi Yishmael’s prescription. The vast majority of people are not suited for Rabbi Shimon’s lifestyle. Spending all day intensively studying intricate, complex texts is exceedingly difficult, as are the significant financial sacrifices entailed – kollel stipends, even when supplemented with parental assistance, do not provide much income, and they require the family to live simply. The majority of people cannot possibly be expected to choose such a lifestyle. They are thus commanded to set aside time for Torah learning each day and night, while spending the rest of their time working for a living.
Significantly, however, the Gemara speaks of “many” who were unable to adhere to Rabbi Shimon’s prescription – clearly indicating that a minority of people could. Those with the intellectual abilities, self-discipline and motivation needed to devote themselves fulltime to Torah learning, and to make the necessary sacrifices, should do so. And the gainfully employed with the means of helping to support these scholars should donate generously to this critically important cause of facilitating Torah scholarship.
Two Legitimate Paradigms
With this in mind, Rav Chaim of Volozhin explains the differences between the first two paragraphs of Shema.
The first is written in the singular form because it speaks to the rare, exceptional student, who diligently applies himself to fulltime Torah learning. He is called upon to serve Gd even “bechol meodecha,” with his money, to compromise material standards for the sake of pursuing Torah scholarship. In this paragraph, there is no mention of rewards of economic prosperity, because the person being addressed has no interest in material blessing. He is focused exclusively on spiritual greatness, on success in his academic pursuits, and so the Torah here does not need to promise financial rewards for his devotion to Hashem. For him, the joy and exhilaration of spending his days in the bet midrash is itself the greatest reward he could possibly want.
The second paragraph, however, is written in the plural form, because it is directed toward the majority of the people, who involve themselves in mundane activities, pursuing a livelihood (while of course allocating time each day for Torah study). In this section, the Torah cannot demand serving Gd “bechol meodecha,” with all one’s money, because the majority of people are not expected to make the same financial sacrifices that are expected of the nation’s spiritual elite. And the reward for faithful devotion to Gd in this section is economic prosperity, the success of the people’s endeavors to earn a livelihood to comfortably support themselves and their families.
These two paragraphs thus address two different groups of Jews, who lead two different – but equally acceptable – lifestyles. Our daily Shema recitation speaks to the two paradigms of religious life, each of which is right, depending on a person’s capabilities.
Bringing the Two Groups of Together
What I find especially significant about this insight is that in the siddur, these two paragraphs are brought together. In the Torah, as mentioned, they appear separately – one in Parashat Vaet’hanan, and the other later, in Parashat Ekev. But in our daily morning and evening prayers, we recite them together – teaching us that members of the two groups belong together, in the same shul, in the same community.
We do not need – and should not need – separate synagogues for the different groups of Jews, for those who devote themselves to Torah learning and for those who choose to work for a living. This is not an “either/or” issue, a question of “good” versus “bad.” Both groups are equally important and equally precious components of Am Yisrael, provided that they are genuinely devoted to the service of Hashem through each individual’s chosen path. We need people committed to halachic observance and to making time for Torah alongside their professional and commercial pursuits, as well as a group of accomplished scholars, who preserve and perpetuate our Torah tradition. And we need them all to join together, with mutual respect and affection, to fulfill our mission as Gd’s treasured nation.
More generally, the combination of these two paragraphs in the daily Shema recitation shows us that different kinds of Jews belong together, and do not need to live divided, as though in parallel universes. Am Yisrael consists of many different groups, who are very different from one another, and this is ok. This is how it is supposed to be. We aren’t meant to be all identically alike. But we are meant to join together in unity, respecting one another and working together for our common goals.
Like the two paragraphs of Shema printed side-by-side in our siddurim, let us come together even with those who are different from us, and join forces to build the Jewish Nation into the extraordinary people that we are supposed to be.
