Berakhot 041

In Mishnah Five of Chapter Two, I explained that the right of a bridegroom on the first night of his marriage not to recite the Shema was defunct since it is now generally assumed that no would reach the optimum level of concentration anyway.

Ron Kaminsky asks:

Is there an explicit explanation of how this "situational distraction" differs from the types of distraction discussed in Chapter Two, Mishnah Four: his mind will be on possible damage to his source of income and that of Chapter Two, Mishnah Oone where the reciter is (presumably) concerned about the possible consequences of not greeting or responding to another's greeting? It would seem to me that the reasoning for the annulation of the bridegroom's exemption would at least apply to the employer of Mishnah Four; this would imply that he also should be allowed to recite while in the tree or on the scaffolding.

I respond:

I know of no "explicit explanation". As I see it, the labourers are permitted to recite the Shema perched wherever they are since they are used to this position and it would not affect their ability to concentrate. (Furthermore, their scrambling up and down the trees could damage the produce – but that is another concern unconnected with the Shema.) The difference between the employer and the bridegroom, it seems to me, is that the employer – once safely on the ground and his mind temporarily off the fate of his property – could be expected to reach a reasonable degree of concentration; the bridegroom because of his nervousness and sense of anticipation could not be expected to reach such a reasonable level. Once it has become accepted that most other people will not do so anyway that consideration becomes immaterial.

Richard Friedman has another angle on the issue of the bridegroom:

I agree that the traditional explanation of the bridegroom's exemption is unconvincing. An additional reason (though it's
based on a thematic-literary approach that you [Simchah Roth – SR] have criticized) is that if the reason were the groom's concern about performing the mitzvah of procreation, the appropriate place for that would be in the next chapter, whose subject is exemption from saying Shema because of a need to perform another mitzvah (ha'osek b'mitzva patur mimitzva.) The subject of this chapter is kavvanah, but the chapter makes clear that the real subject is the content of Shema – we must have kavvanah in order to focus on the content (2:1), and the order of the paragraphs is set based on priorities in meaning (2:2). Then, in 2:3, Rabbi Yosé's holding that one must hear Shema suggests that he understands the recitation of Shema as a communication of its meaning to the one who recites – that's why he/she must hear; Rabbi Yehuda, by contrast, may understand the ritual as a communication to others – that's why he holds that one must enunciate correctly.

Now, what about 2:5 and the bridegroom? Yes, the concern is that the bridegroom will not be able to concentrate, but that concentration deficit is still related to the meaning of Shema. I think the concern the rabbis had was that the bridegroom could not concentrate because he was in a state of mind inconsistent with recognizing God as King (the meaning of Shema). Why? Because a bridegroom, on his wedding night, is deemed to be a king himself. (This is certainly part of folklore and midrash. See also the mishna in Yoma that exempts two persons from the
prohibition on washing on Yom Kippur – the king and a bride.) Now the statement of Rabban Gamli'el makes more sense – other men on their wedding nights are in a mental state that really does nullify the kingdom of heaven, because they think of themselves as kings.

There is also have one more item concerning the Siddur Recommendations. Personally I was surprised that only one person even mentioned "Sim Shalom", the siddur published by the Rabbinical Assembly in New York: perhaps the Rabbinical Assembly should note this. Reuven Boxman has a comment to make about the Artscroll books in general (in a Conservative milieu) that I think should be considered.

I was distressed, but not surprised, at the numerous recommendations for the Art Scroll siddur, that I felt I must respond. Every time I read one of their publications I become increasingly angry! Their products are the extreme victory of form over content (and there are many lessons, both positive and negative, to be learned from that). What makes me angry is their translations, which distort the words to suit the editor's interpretations. I was most incensed at the butchering they did to the Song of Songs, where, for example, breasts become (in translation, not just in the commentary) tablets of the law, or whatever. Their commentary, rather than being orthodox, could best be described as bizarre, and of course ignores completely the historical development of Judaism.