Latest revision as of 09:19, 25 May 2010

There appears to be a difference of custom between the Land of Israel and Babylon (outside the Land of Israel). Talmud Megilah 22b says:

The text [above stated] 'Rav happened to be in Babylon on a public fast. He came forward and read in the scroll. He made a blessing before commencing, but made no blessing after finishing. The whole congregation [subsequently] fell on their faces, but Rav did not fall on his face'. Why did not Rav fall on his face? – There was a stone pavement there and it has been taught: 'Neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land to bow down upon it: (Leviticus 26:1) Upon it ye may not bow down in your land, but you may prostrate yourselves on the stones in the Temple'; this teaching is in accord with the opinion of 'Ullah, who said: The Torah [here] is forbidding only a pavement of stone.

If that is the case, why is only Rav mentioned? All the rest should equally have abstained? – It was in front of Rav. But could he not have gone among the congregation and fallen on his face? – He did not want to trouble the congregation [who would all have risen]. Or if you like I can say that Rav usually spread out his hands and feet [when he fell on his face], and he followed the opinion of 'Ulla, who said, The Torah forbade only the spreading out of the hands and feet. But could he not have fallen on his face without spreading out his hands and feet? – He did not care to change his custom. Or if you like I can say that for a distinguished man the rule is different, as laid down by R' Eleazer; for R. Eleazar said: A man of eminence is not permitted to fall on his face unless he is [sure of being] answered like Joshua son of Nun, as it is written, Wherefore now are thou fallen upon thy face. (Joshua 7:10).

From the above episode there are several things that we can learn:

First since we are talking about a fast day, the discussion centers around Nefilat Apaym (falling on the face) and not the Shemoneh Esrei.

We see that Babylonian Jews did a full prostration (hishtakhaweh) for the fast day prayer (tachnun).

We see that Rav, from the Land of Israel, remained standing. The first explanation offered is that full prostration on stone floors outside the Temple is forbidden.^[1] We learn that the prohibition is limited to full prostration (spreading out of the hands and feet). We learn that prostration on dirt or dust (where the congregation stood) was not included in the prohibition.

Most importantly we learn that the choice of full prostration (hishtakhaweh) or partial prostration (qidah) was a matter of personal custom. In fact the commentaries indicate that in the land of Israel the custom was not to prostrate at all. The explanation being that the words "in your land" in the key verse (Leviticus 26:1) indicated that there was a difference between the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel, concerning prostration. This prohibition however, seems to have taken effect only after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE and the Synagogues began to become the center of Jewish life, appearing as mikdash me'at (small Temples) with stone floors.

Some historians note that this difference coincides with the rise of Christianity and the need for Jews to differentiate from Christians. But in fact the Christians appeared to have discontinued prostration at the same times as the Jews, for their own reasons.^[2] Jews continued to do an abbreviated prostration without actually touching the ground and Christians knelt without bending forward to touch the ground. In Babylon both partial prostration (qidah) and full prostration (hishtakhaweh/sajda) continued.

And more details are given by Shevuot 16b:

Rava said: They did not teach this [that if he prostrated himself quickly, without tarrying the period that prostration should take, he is liable] except when he prostrated himself facing inwards; [toward the Holy of Holies in the west]. But if he prostrated himself facing outwards, then only if he tarried is he liable, be if he did not tarry, his not liable… What is considered prostration in which there is tarrying and what is considered prostration in which there is no tarrying? Where there is no tarrying, that is mere kneeling; where there is tarrying, that is the spreading out of hands and feet.

This indicates that "full prostration" (extending arms and legs) included a length of time for it to be liable. This would seem to indicate a qualitative difference between bowing for the tachnun prayer and the short "kneeling" done for the Shemoneh Esrei blessings.

References

1. ↑ Sifra, Behar, end; support the ruling in Megillah 22b
2. ↑ Believing that the destruction of the Temple confirmed the mission of Jesus, they saw no need for prostration during prayer. Christians retained prostration in very limited circumstances related to showing honor to elders and religious leaders.