SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

By Rav Ezra Frazer

Over the generations, the Ten Commandments have earned a unique place in our religious consciousness. Yet this very distinction has given rise to the concern that, by bolstering the status of this section of the Torah, we implicitly lower the status of other sections, to the extent that it will even weaken belief in the rest of the Torah. This essay outlines this dilemma and its halakhic ramifications. The Ten Commandments Unique Status Our perception of the Ten Commandments as a particularly prominent part of the Torah did not develop without basis. In the Torah itself, the Ten Commandments appear at the center of the revelation at Sinai, and they are carved into the tablets for posterity. In addition to their prominent location in the Torah, R. Saadya Gaon argues that the Ten Commandments do not merely contain the mitzvot that they enumerate explicitly, but rather they also allude to all other mitzvot. Not surprisingly, therefore, they have long held a unique place in our religious consciousness.
1 2

1 Siddur Rav Saadya Gaon (p. 191). See also Higayon Ha-nefesh (p. 35b) and Kuzari (2:28). 2 Aseret Ha-dibrot Be-rei Ha-dorot, ed. Ben-Zion Segal (Jerusalem, 1986), addresses the role that the Ten Commandments have played in Jewish tradition throughout the generations. It was later translated into English under the title The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition.

81
Alei Etzion vol. 13 (Cheshvan 5765)

Reciting the Ten Commandments Daily The Mishna (Tamid 5:1) records that the kohanim would recite the Ten Commandments every morning in the Second Temple together with the three paragraphs of Shema. The Gemara (Berakhot 12a) questions why we do not recite the Ten Commandments in our own communities, just as the kohanim did in the Temple. Shemuel and R. Natan answer that Chazal indeed wished to establish this practice everywhere, but they refrained from doing so out of concern for taromet ha-minim (murmurings of heretics). The Gemara adds that R. Chisda and R. Ashi rejected attempts in Sura and Neharda, respectively, to enact this practice, arguing that [the Rabbis] already cancelled this practice in light of taromet ha-minim. The Talmud Yerushalmi (Berakhot 1:5) elucidates what precisely these heretics would claim:
3

R. Matna and R. Shemuel b. Nachman both said, In terms of pure law (be-din hava), people should recite the Ten Commandments daily. Why do they not recite them? Due to the claims of the heretics, lest [the heretics] say that only these [commandments] were given to Moshe at Sinai.

3 For another example of an enactment due to taromet ha-minim, see Pesachim 56a. Regarding the difference between the two cases, see Yesodei Yeshurun (vol. 1, pp. 249250).

82

From this passage, we clearly see that Chazal viewed the Ten Commandments daily recitation as a fundamentally desirable practice, yet they forbade it solely on account of external considerations. In fact, the Rosh (Tamid 5:1) writes that people actually used to recite the Ten Commandments outside the Temple, too, and Chazal only abolished this practice, as described in the Gemara, when concern for heretics arose in later generations. Accordingly, many communities sought ways to modify the Ten Commandments recitation in a manner that would allow it to continue without legitimizing the heretics claim against the authenticity of the rest of the Torah.
4 5

4 See also Sifrei (Devarim 6:7), which derives from the verses of the Shema that the Ten Commandments are to be excluded from the daily prayer service. 5 Although the Rosh does not cite any proof for his claim, perhaps he bases it on R. Chisda and R. Ashis words, that Chazal already cancelled this practice, which imply that the practice once existed. (See, however, Birkat Aharon, Berakhot, Maamar 83, who interprets the Gemaras language differently.) The Roshs position might also be supported by the Yerushalmis formulation, In terms of pure law (bedin hava), people should... which could hint that people once observed the pure law, before concern for minim arose. Interestingly, the Nash Papyrus (a document believed to be from the 2nd century, B.C.E., in Egypt) contains the text of the Ten Commandments immediately followed by Shema. Some scholars have pointed to this document as proof that people once recited the Ten Commandments adjacent to Shema even outside the Temple (see Prof. Ephraim Urbachs essay in Aseret Ha-dibrot Be-rei Ha-dorot, op. cit., pp. 127-145). Prof. Ezra Fleischer argues that this proof is inconclusive, as no one has proven that the Nash Papyrus was necessarily part of a prayer book, as opposed to some other form of religious article (Tefilla U-minhagei Tefilla Eretz Yisraeliyim Bitkufat Ha-geniza, Jerusalem, 1988, pp. 259-274).

83

The situation in Eretz Yisrael, however, may not have been as restrictive as one might expect. Manuscripts discovered in the Cairo Geniza indicate that Jews in Eretz Yisrael continued to recite the Ten Commandments for centuries after Talmudic times. Prof. Ezra Fleischer (Tefilla U-minhagei Tefilla: Eretz Yisraeliyim Bitkufat Ha-geniza pp. 259274) notes that this discovery initially shocked scholars who could not understand how the Jews of Eretz Yisrael clung to this practice so many years after Chazal explicitly banned it. Fleischer comments, however, that the Ten Commandments appear in the manuscripts between pesukei dezimra and the blessings of Shema, and they only appear in manuscripts that contain prayers for Shabbat or festivals. Based on these findings, Fleischer suggests that the Jews of Eretz Yisrael believed that Chazal only forbade reciting the Ten Commandments adjacent to Shema (as the kohanim did) on a daily basis. Thus, by limiting the Ten Commandments recitation to special occasions and by moving it back to before the Shemas blessings, they believed that they would prevent heretical claims concerning belief in the rest of the Torah. While the Rishonim do not mention the aforementioned practice in Eretz Yisrael, they nevertheless address the issue of continuing to recite the Ten Commandments even after the Gemaras ban. The Rashba (Teshuvot 1:184 and 3:289) was approached by a community that wished to institute the daily recitation of the Ten Commandments. He sent them a brief responsum prohibiting this custom as an express violation of the Gemara. Surprisingly, though, the Tur (Orach Chaim 1) writes that it is proper (tov) to recite the Ten Commandments daily, along with passages from the Torah about the manna and the akeida. The Beit Yosef explains that the Tur interprets the Gemara as prohibiting public recitation of the Ten Commandments, which may spawn accusations from heretics. On the other hand, the Tur believes that no harm will result from reciting them privately. Quite to the contrary, this private recitation will actually strengthen the individuals faith in the revelation at Sinai. 84

The Maharshal (Teshuvot 64) differs from the Beit Yosef in his understanding of the Turs view. He argues that even public recitation of the Ten Commandments only implies that we do not believe in the rest of the Torah when we recite them prominently, adjacent to Shema. However, reciting them separately even in public does not undermine the rest of the Torah. Consequently, the Maharshal enacted a practice wherein his community would recite the Ten Commandments together immediately before Barukh She-amar. Similarly, the Kisei Eliyahu (Orach Chaim 1:3) records a custom for the whole community to study the Ten Commandments together after shacharit. Although this practice initially bothered the Kisei Eliyahu, he justifies it based on the Maharshals view.
6

The Rema (Orach Chaim 1:5) adopts the Beit Yosefs interpretation of the Tur, prohibiting any public recitation of the Ten Commandments. Accordingly, most later authorities assume that we do not permit the Maharshals custom of reciting the Ten Commandments as a community before Barukh She-amar. The Tzitz Eliezer (14:1) further asserts that the Tur only endorses reciting the Ten Commandments privately because he also encourages reciting other passages daily (the manna and akeida), but reciting the Ten Commandments alone would present a problem even in private. Who Were the Minim? The Gemara offers no details about the minim (heretics) who prevent us from reciting the Ten Commandments daily. The Jerusalem Talmud told us what they would claim - Only these [commandments] were given to Moshe at Sinai - but it, too, provided no information about these minims historical background or identity.

6 See, however, Yaskil Avdi (Orach Chaim 2:1), who claims that the Kisei Eliyahu did not need to cite the Maharshal. The Yaskil Avdi suggests that even one who rejects the Maharshals position could still justify studying the Ten Commandments daily because only their ritual recitation implies that they alone were given by God.

85

Rashi (Berakhot 12a s.v. ha-minin), as his comments appear in standard printings of the Gemara, identifies these minim as Gentiles (akum - literally, idolaters). R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes (Berakhot 12a) suggests that Rashi does not link these minim to any Jewish sect because the heretical Jewish sects that Chazal often mention (such as the Sadducees) only deny the Oral Law, but they would never challenge the Written Torahs authenticity by claiming that only the Ten Commandments were given to Moshe. However, the Dikdukei Soferim notes that the original text of Rashi reads students of Jesus, and this phrase was only replaced with Gentiles due to censorship. Similarly, the censored text of Machzor Vitri (16 s.v. Bikshu) copies Rashis comments verbatim and reads students of ... confirming that the original text of Rashi read students of Jesus. Although R. Chajes based his explanation on an incorrect text, his explanation may nevertheless be correct; Rashi did not identify the minim as Sadducees because the Sadducees never disputed the Written Torahs authenticity.
7 8

7 See Tzelach (Berakhot 12a) and Shem Mi-shimon (4) for alternative explanations of Rashis view assuming that the correct text of Rashi reads Gentiles. See also Peri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav, Orach Chaim 1:5), whose censored text of Rashi apparently read idol-worshiping Sadducees. 8 See also Rambam (Teshuvot 263), who warns against confusing the minim with Karaites because the Karaites only deny the Oral Law.

86

Many modern scholars agree with Rashi that the minim are early Christians, and they note that the blessing which was added to the amida against the early Christians similarly bears the title Birkat Ha-minim. Interestingly, though, it seems that the Ten Commandments status was already generating debate much earlier in history. Prof. Yigal Yadin dates tefillin shel rosh from Qumran containing the Ten Commandments (in addition to the traditional four passages and several other additional passages) to the middle of the first century, B.C.E. (Eretz Yisrael vol. 9 pp. 60-83). Chazal, on the other hand, go out of their way to reject the notion of including the Ten Commandments in tefillin:
9

Kadesh Li and Ve-hayah Ki Yeviacha (passages from Shemot Chapter 13), which were preceded by other mitzvot, are included in the tying [of tefillin]. Hence, the Ten Commandments, which were not preceded by any other mitzvot, should surely be included in the tying [of tefillin]! In response to this logic the verse states, And you shall tie these words [of Shema in your tefillin] (ukshartam) these words are included in the tying [of tefillin], but the Ten Commandments are not included in the tying [of tefillin]. (Sifrei Devarim 6:8)

Standing for Public Reading Over the generations, poskim have debated whether the prohibition against reciting the Ten Commandments daily also applies to other customs that treat them differently than the rest of the Torah. The best-known example of this phenomenon is the custom in many congregations to stand when the Ten Commandments are read from the Torah.
9 See Aseret Ha-dibrot Berei Ha-dorot (pp. 127-145), where Prof. Ephraim Urbach seeks to determine the specific era when minim began claiming that only the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai. He searches for passages in the New Testament that distinguish between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Torah and also cites midrashim that attribute this heretical belief to Korach.

87

The custom to stand when the Ten Commandments are read appears in a responsum of the Rambam (263) as a long-standing practice in Baghdad. Many later sources also record this custom. In Algiers, the community stood for the reading of the Ten Commandments from Shemot (20:1-13) but not for the Ten Commandments in Devarim (5:6-17). In order to explain this custom, the Devar Shmuel (276) notes that we stand while reciting Kiddush Levanah because we are greeting the Divine Presence (Sanhedrin 42a). Here, too, as we read the Ten Commandments we reenact the events at Sinai where the Jewish People greeted Gods Presence, so we should stand.
10 11

In the Rambams responsum, he vehemently opposes the custom to stand for the Ten Commandments reading. Although this custom is not entirely analogous to the Ten Commandments daily recitation described in the Gemara, the Rambam nevertheless urges its abolition, arguing that it leads people to believe that the Torah consists of different levels, such that some of it is better than the rest. Using scathing language, the Rambam commends a rabbi who negated the custom in his community, equating the custom with an illness and urging the healing of those communities where it exists; the custom must be prevented from spreading elsewhere.
12 13

10 Shaarei Ephraim (7:37), Siddur Yaavetz (Orach 2 Le-yom Tov Shel Atzeret 19), Devar Shemuel (276). 11 Otzar Dinim U-minhagim (Aseret Ha-dibrot). R. Ephraim Greenblatt (Rivevot Efraim 5:209) cites additional sources that further discuss the custom in Algiers. 12 The Kaf Ha-chaim (Orach Chaim 494:30) notes that Sephardic communities traditionally sit when the Ten Commandments are read, just as they do for all Torah readings. Interestingly, though, he offers a completely different rationale than the Rambam does, suggesting that it is easier to concentrate while sitting. 13 See also R. Yisrael Algazi (Emet Le-yaakov p. 30a), who opposes the practice for the entire congregation to stand when reading the Ten Commandments but does not cite to the Rambams responsum. R. Algazi adds that individuals may stand for the Ten Commandments just as individuals may recite the Ten Commandments every day.

88

Throughout the following centuries, however, poskim continued to discuss the custom to stand for the Ten Commandments reading without knowing the Rambams responsum. These poskim generally justified the custom by noting several differences between reciting the Ten Commandments daily, which the Gemara clearly prohibits, and standing when the Ten Commandments are read. R. Alexander Shor (Bekhor Shor, Berakhot 12a) goes further, however, claiming that the minim referred to by the Gemara no longer exist, so even daily recitation of the Ten Commandments does not present a problem nowadays. Although the Rashba clearly rejects this approach, as we have noted that he prohibited a community from reciting the Ten Commandments daily, the Bekhor Shor claims that the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh all disagree with the Rashba because they do not record the prohibition against the Ten Commandments recitation. Accordingly, if these Rishonim believe that we need not worry about the Gemaras ruling against reciting the Ten Commandments, surely we need not extend that prohibition to include standing when the Ten Commandments are read from the Torah.
14

14 See also Levush (Ateret Zahav 494). He discusses how Chazal permitted eulogizing and fasting on the day after Shavuot (isru chag) when Shavuot fell out on Shabbat. Although we do not normally eulogize or fast the day after a holiday, Chazal sought to separate themselves from heretical Second Temple sects who believed that Shavuot must always take place on Sunday. The Levush rules that nowadays we may never fast or eulogize on isru chag because these heretical sects no longer exist. R. Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvot Ve-hanhagot 1:144) equates the Levushs ruling with those who claim concern for minim no longer applies to the Ten Commandments because the minim no longer exist. However, this should depend on the identity of the minim in each case. As we have seen, R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes disassociates minim from any of the Second Temple sects, reading into Rashi, perhaps, a more general and universal Gentiles. As for the uncensored version of Rashi, we must ask whether modern Christians are to be identified with their early Christian predecessors of Rashis comment, or, alternatively, are they a distinct historical sect, lacking meaningful association with their modern counterparts.

89

The Chida (Tuv Ayin 11) suggests that reciting the Ten Commandments alone might lead people to question the Torahs authenticity because they will wonder why we are only reading certain verses. However, considering that we read the entire Torah over the course of a year, and we never read the Ten Commandments without also reading their surrounding verses, standing for the Ten Commandments in no way casts aspersions on the rest of the Torah. Elsewhere (Kisei Rachamim, Tosafot to Soferim 12:6), the Chida proves this principle from R. Abahus view that we only recite a blessing over Torah reading when reading the Ten Commandments (Masekhet Soferim 12:5-6). Although the Halakha does not follow R. Abahu, his opinion nevertheless shows that reading the Ten Commandments in a unique manner does not present a problem, provided that we also read the rest of the Torah.
15 16

R. Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:22) cites and accepts his son R. Dovid Feinsteins defense of the custom to stand for the Ten Commandments reading. R. Dovid Feinstein explains that most communities today stand for the readings of several passages, such as Shirat Hayam (Shemot 15:1-19). Accordingly, nobody will mistakenly think that we only believe in the Ten Commandments sanctity because we stand when reading many sections of the Torah.
17

15 Daily recitation of the Shema did not arouse concern that heretics would claim that Moshe only received the Shema because the Shemas text states that it should be read twice daily, so the fact the we indeed recite it twice every day does not indicate anything beyond a desire to fulfill the Shemas own text (Avudraham, Dinei Keriat Shema s.v. Garsinan). 16 In Kisei Rachamim, the Chida does not address the custom to stand when reading the Ten Commandments, but R. Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Daat 1:29) notes that the Chidas rulings in both places depend upon the same principle. 17 R. Aharon Epstein (Kapei Aharon 39) adopts a similar line of reasoning. See, however, Shem Mi-shimon 4, who rejects this approach. He argues that we cannot assume that everyone always attends shul. Accordingly, someone might be present on Shavuot and see that the congregation stands for the Ten Commandments but not attend the week of Shabbat Shira to see that everyone also stands for Shirat Ha-yam. Hence, the Shem Mishimon writes that he stands for the entire Torah reading on days when the Ten Commandments are read, so that someone who only attends for that day will not detect a difference between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Torah.

90

Dealing with the Rambams Responsum R. Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Daat 1:29) dismisses all of the above defenses of the custom to stand for the Ten Commandments reading because they ignore the Rambams responsum, which explicitly condemns the custom. Moreover, the Rambams responsum clearly refutes the Bekhor Shors logic. The Bekhor Shor equated several Rishonims omission of the prohibition against reciting the Ten Commandments daily with the belief that the prohibition no longer applies. However, the Rambam, one of the Bekhor Shors examples, clearly does not fit this interpretation because he unequivocally applies concern for modern minim in his responsum despite omitting it in the Mishneh Torah. We must wonder if other Rishonim similarly omitted this concern in their works simply because the practice to recite the Ten Commandments daily no longer existed in their times, but not because they permitted the Ten Commandments daily recitation. Rav Ovadya concludes that if the many poskim who defend the practice to stand for the Ten Commandments reading had seen the Rambams responsum they never would have endorsed the custom. Thus, now that the Rambams responsum has been published, we must abolish the custom to stand for the Ten Commandments reading.
18

18 The Tzitz Eliezer (14:1) also notes that the Rambams responsum refutes the idea that he thought concern for minim no longer applies.

91

Despite the Rambams harsh words, some poskim continue to justify the custom to stand for the Ten Commandments reading even after seeing his responsum. The Yaskil Avdi claims that the Rambam should have mentioned concern for minim in the Mishneh Torah if he truly thought that it still applies. Hence, the Yaskil Avdi argues that the Rambam essentially contradicts himself by omitting in the Mishneh Torah what he writes in his responsum. Furthermore, the Yaskil Avdi accepts the Bekhor Shors assertion that the Rif and Rosh do not mention concern for minim because they believe that the minim no longer exist. The Yaskil Avdi therefore permits standing for the Ten Commandments reading despite the Rambams harsh responsum.
19 20

R. Menashe Klein (Meshaneh Halakhot 11:118) accepts Rav Ovadyas basic premises, namely that the Rambam unequivocally prohibits standing during the Ten Commandments reading and that later poskim would not normally disagree with an explicit ruling of the Rambam unless other earlier sources already challenge his position. Nevertheless, R. Klein suggests that here later poskim would not have hesitated to defend standing for the Ten Commandments even had they seen the Rambams responsum because this custom predated the Rambam (as is evidenced from his responsum about its abolition). Although none of the Rambams contemporaries endorse the custom, it presumably needed some rabbinic support in order to begin. Consequently, we cannot assume that later authorities who support the custom would have retracted their words upon seeing the Rambams responsum.

19 Orach Chaim 7:1. For the complete correspondence between the Yaskil Avdi and the rabbi who consulted him, see Halikhot Sheva (1:25-30). 20 R. Ovadia Yosef (ibid.) strongly rejects the Yaskil Avdis position because he considers it absurd to interpret the Rambams silence in Mishneh Torah as if he explicitly contradicted his responsum.

92

R. Chaim David Halevi (Aseh Lekha Rav 6:21) argues that had the poskim who justified the custom to stand seen the Rambams responsum, there is no guarantee that they would have retracted; they might have simply distinguished between his era and their own. For example, R. Halevi notes that in his area (he served as Chief Rabbi of Tel-Aviv-Yafo) virtually all Jews believe in either all of the Torah or none of it, so nobody would come to think that the Ten Commandments alone are holier than the rest of the Torah. By contrast, perhaps the Rambam lived in a community where people might have believed in the Ten Commandments but not the rest of the Torah. On the other hand, Rav Halevi acknowledges that the Rambams responsum might have impacted other poskim. R. Halevi thus concludes that new synagogues should not institute the custom to stand when the Ten Commandments are read, but communities who already follow this custom need not alter their practice. R. Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvot Ve-hanhagot 1:144) adopts a compromise position. He suggests that communities who wish to maintain the practice of standing for the Ten Commandments reading while not violating the Rambams position, should simply stand earlier in the Torah reading and remain standing through the Ten Commandments. In this manner, they will stand for the Ten Commandments reading but will avoid implying that the Ten Commandments are qualitatively superior to the verses that precede them. R. Ephraim Greenblatt (ibid.) also encourages this practice.

93

If one follows the Rambam and sits for the Ten Commandments reading, R. Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Daat 6:8) adds that, nevertheless, one may not sit when the Ten Commandments are read in a congregation where everyone else stands, for this shows disrespect for the Ten Commandments and the congregation. Moreover, R. Moshe Feinstein (ibid.) notes that sitting in a congregation where everyone stands would not even solve the Rambams concern. The Rambam claims that standing for the Ten Commandments leads the masses to view them as superior to the rest of the Torah. If the masses see an entire congregation standing for the Ten Commandments, Rav Moshe explains that one individual sitting by himself will not alter their perception in any meaningful way.
21

Reading the Ten Commandments Responsively

21

See Tuv Ayin (11) and Derekh Eretz Rabba (end of Chapter 7).

94

Besides the well-known custom to stand when the Ten Commandments are read, various communities had the baal korei and congregation read the Ten Commandments responsively. R. Yaakov Emden (Siddur Yaavetz, Orach 2 Lyom Tov Shel Atzeret 18) records two variations of this custom. In some communities, the congregants would read simultaneously with the baal korei, and the baal korei would recite just the last verse after everyone else had finished reading. In other places, the congregation would recite the entire Ten Commandments, after which the baal korei would read them. R. Yaakov ben Shmuel (Teshuvot Beit Yaakov 125) records a third variation, whereby the baal korei would recite each verse after the congregants completed reading it aloud. The first practice seems especially problematic, as the congregation only hears the last verse of the baal koreis reading, but all the practices raise the same issue of concern for minim that was discussed regarding standing for the Ten Commandments.
22

22 See Terumat Ha-deshen (Teshuvot 24) for a defense of this custom. He notes that it is less problematic on Shavuot because the congregation hears the Ten Commandments read properly during the year, the week of Parashat Yitro. On the other hand, R. Yaakov Emden (ibid.) encourages the customs complete abolition.

95

The Beit Yaakov (125) distinguishes between Shavuot and the rest of the year, arguing that people know on Shavuot that this special manner of reading serves to help us re-live the revelation at Sinai and does not call the rest of the Torahs authenticity into question. However, when we read the Ten Commandments during the weeks of Yitro and Va-etchanan we should not use this responsive form lest people think that we only believe in the Ten Commandments. The Mateh Yehuda (1:6) justifies this unique form of reading even during the year, asserting that the surrounding verses clearly indicate that the Ten Commandments were given with miraculous thunder and lightning. Thus, even during the year people realize that we are simply trying to dramatize the reading of a thrilling event, not trying to cast aspersions on the rest of the Torahs genuineness. The Mateh Yehuda adds that concern for minim arises when we recite the Ten Commandments without other verses, but reading them in a unique manner does not create a problem, because we also read their surrounding verses in the Torah.
23

Displaying Two Tablets

23 See Hilkhot Chag Be-chag (Dinei U-minhagei Chag Ha-shavuot p. 140), who distinguishes between reading the Ten Commandments with the standard notes and punctuation (taam tachton) and reading them in the special notes that divide them by commandment rather than by verse (taam elyon). He suggests that standing is appropriate only when reading taam elyon because the taam elyon recalls the experience at Sinai. By contrast, the taam tachton resembles the notes for any other passage, so standing when reading in the taam tachton conveys the mistaken impression that we honor one seemingly routine passage more than the rest of the Torah. According to this distinction, all communities would stand for the Ten Commandments on Shavuot, and only those communities who read the taam elyon during the year would stand for the Ten Commandments year-round. However, no earlier sources distinguish between the cantilations regarding the custom to stand.

96

The practice in many synagogues to display two tablets either on the ark or in front of the building created yet another area of debate regarding concern for minim. The Shem Mi-shimon (Teshuvot 4) and Teshurat Shai (1:3) prohibits placing tablets anywhere in a synagogue, noting that many Reform synagogues display tablets. The Shem Mi-shimon reasons that even if the minim of Chazals time no longer exist, contemporary non-Orthodox denominations still deny that Moshe received the entire Torah. Especially considering that these groups display tablets of the Ten Commandments in their synagogues, he argues that displaying them in Orthodox synagogues endorses the non-Orthodoxs denial of the complete Written Torahs authenticity. The Kemo Ha-shachar (Ayin 23) adds that even tablets which do not contain the actual text of the Ten Commandments, such as those that merely show the first ten letters of the Hebrew alphabet, still may not be displayed. In fact, the first Munkaczer Rebbe reportedly actively sought to remove these tablets from any synagogue where he wielded influence (Nimukei Orach Chaim 1:4). As a precedent for their opposition to the tablets, many of these poskim point to a ruling of the Magen Avraham (1:9), who prohibits printing special pamphlets that contain just the Ten Commandments for the entire congregation.
24 25

24 Prof. Daniel Sperber (Minhagei Yisrael 2:108-113) summarizes this debate in his discussion of customs concerning the Ten Commandments. 25 The Shem Mi-shimon even objects to including an image of two tablets in ones signet.

97

In defense of displaying these tablets in Orthodox synagogues, R. Yechiel Gold (Measef Le-khol Ha-machanot 1:62) cites those who distinguish between placing the tablets directly over the ark or elsewhere. When placed over the ark, the tablets actually convey a positive message: just as the Ten Commandments were undoubtedly given to Moshe, so, too, he received the entire Torah scroll that resides inside the ark. The Birkat Aharon (Berakhot, Maamar 82) further notes that the synagogues of many Torah scholars included tablets, despite the compelling logic to prohibit their display; so, apparently, these scholars permitted displaying the tablets. R. Chaim David Halevi (Aseh Lekha Rav 4:44) also argues that tablets over the ark should not be equated with the pamphlets that the Magen Avraham prohibited because tablets containing the first couple of words from each verse remind us of the revelation at Sinai, whereas one might erroneously think that a pamphlet with the full text of the Ten Commandments contains the entire authentic Torah.
26

Other Points of Debate We have already discussed the main cases that have generated concern of leading people to think that we do not believe in the rest of the Torah. In addition to these cases, individual poskim object to specific situations that have not yet been debated thoroughly.

26 Those who support this position compare it with R. Saadya Gaons aforementioned notion that the Ten Commandments allude to all 613 mitzvot.

98

R. Ovadya Yosef (Yabia Omer, vol. 2 Yoreh Deah 16:3) addresses the practice in some communities to auction aliyot for donations. In such places, the gabbai sometimes tries to increase the bids on a particular aliya by highlighting that passages particular significance. While Rav Ovadya does not prohibit this practice in general, he cautions against announcing that the Ten Commandments are contained in a particularly beautiful aliya. He explains that the Rambams objection to standing for the Ten Commandments - that people will say that some parts of the Torah are qualitatively superior - undoubtedly applies to praising the Ten Commandments as more beautiful than other passages.
27 28

As we mentioned above, the Magen Avraham (1:9) prohibits printing special pamphlets for the entire congregation that contain just the Ten Commandments. Based on his ruling, the Tzitz Eliezer (14:1) sharply criticizes some people who printed sheets with just the Ten Commandments, even though they meant well by hoping to teach the Ten Commandments to the masses. The Tzitz Eliezer similarly objects to siddurim that print the Ten Commandments in the lettering of a Torah scroll with the taamei hamikra (cantilations). Although it makes sense for siddurim to print the Ten Commandments after Shacharit for those who recite them daily, such fancy lettering leads people to erroneously believe that they are superior to the rest of the Torah. The Tzitz Eliezer adds that even those who stand for the Ten Commandments public reading should still oppose these printings. He explains that no special reason justifies printing the Ten Commandments alone or in an especially fancy font, whereas standing for the Ten Commandments reading served to commemorate the experience at Sinai.

27 See Eruvin 64a for the general issue of whether praising particular words of Torah implicitly denigrates other words of Torah. For the specific issue of praising the Ten Commandments, R. Ovadya cites the Kitzur Shelah (53d). 28 One wonders whether those poskim who permit standing when the Ten Commandments are read would object to announcing that the Ten Commandments are contained within a particularly beautiful aliya.

99

Conclusion Throughout the generations, authorities have sought to maintain a balance between the legitimate desire to relive the momentous experience of receiving the Ten Commandments and the danger of casting aspersions on the rest of the Torahs authenticity. To this day, no clear formula exists for striking this balance, so customs vary regarding issues such as standing for the Ten Commandments reading and displaying images of two tablets in the synagogue.

100