The rabbis are discussing intention. And there is a discussion over the language in which the Shema must be said. With regard to the second and third paragraphs, the question is left open whether these parts of the shema need be said in the exact language of the text or whether something approximating that text would suffice. What is the question at stake here - essentially the question being asked pits two different approaches against each other - On the one hand, Rebbi seems to believe that the exact words are necessary - for him the exactitude of the ritual is the defining factor. On the other hand, the Rabbis seem to suggest that a roughly similar passage with a similar message (or according to some commentators a different language) would be sufficient. This is essentially an argument between "קבע" (exact practice) and "כוונה" (intention or meaning).
The Gemara does not conclude which side of this argument is correct - why? In our post-modern age, "Liberal" commentators will always side with meaning over ritual exactitude, while "Orthodox" commentators will tend to choose ritual exactitude over meaning. By presenting both arguments and not choosing which is correct, the Talmud reminds all of us that whichever approach appeals to us more naturally ("קבע" or "כוונה") we must be willing to understand the logic of the other side. Even if i am a spiritual seeker of meaning, I am encouraged to explore the spiritual practice of "קבע". Even if I am someone who desires the order of fixed ritual, I must still attempt to create meaning each time anew.
Spiritual extremism seems to be frowned upon by the Talmud.
No comments:
Post a Comment