Policing Communal Worship: Form, Language, and the Boundaries of Legitimate Prayer (Mishnah Megillah 4:8-9; Megillah 24b-25a)
This sugya addresses the regulation of public prayer, Torah reading, and liturgical formulation, with a sustained concern for identifying and excluding practices associated with heresy, sectarianism, or improper conceptions of God and divine service.
The Mishnah opens with cases in which an individual disqualifies himself from serving as prayer leader by imposing idiosyncratic conditions on ritual performance. Refusing to lead prayer in colored garments, or only in sandals, is treated as a marker of deviant practice; such a person is barred from leading prayer under any circumstances.. The same logic governs rulings about tefillin:1 non-square tefillin, improper placement, decorative gold plating, or conspicuous external wearing are classified as dangerous, invalid, heretical, or characteristic of “outsiders.”
The Mishnah then turns from bodily practice to language. Certain prayer formulations trigger immediate silencing. Statements such as “May the good bless You” imply theological dualism;2 references to divine mercy toward specific commandments (“Your mercy reaches the bird’s nest”) risk misconstruing the nature of mitzvot; duplications like “Modim, modim” suggest divided authority.
The Talmud probes the rationale behind these rules. In the case of invoking mercy for the bird’s nest, two explanations are offered: either such language introduces jealousy into Creation by singling out one creature, or it falsely represents divine commandments as acts of compassion rather than sovereign decrees. Both explanations resist human moralization of God’s law. The tension between rule and intuition is sharpened by anecdotes in which respected figures initially praise prayer leaders for emotionally compelling language, only to be corrected by appeal to the Mishnah’s strict standard.
A related concern appears in the discussion of divine epithets. Expanding God’s praise beyond the fixed liturgical formula is framed as diminishment: since God’s greatness is infinite, any finite list of attributes trivializes rather than honors Him. The analogy of praising vast stores of gold with mention of silver underscores the point.
Further sections address repetition in recitation of Shema, euphemizing sexual prohibitions during Torah reading, and mistranslating verses to align with moral or ideological agendas. Repetition suggests divided authority or excessive familiarity with Heaven; euphemism and tendentious translation are treated as distortions of the Torah’s meaning and are met with silencing or rebuke.
Outline
Intro
The Passage - Policing Communal Worship: Form, Language, and the Boundaries of Legitimate Prayer (Mishnah Megillah 4:8-9; Megillah 24b-25a)
Mishnah (Megillah 4:8-9)
One who refuses to lead prayer in colored clothes may not lead even in white (suspected sectarian practice)
one who refuses in sandals may not lead even barefoot (suspected sectarian practice)
Round tefillin are dangerous and non-fulfilling
head-tefillin on forehead or arm-tefillin on palm is “way of heretics”
Gold-plating or wearing arm-tefillin outside the sleeve is “way of outsiders”
Prayer formulations that trigger silencing: “May the good bless You”; “Your mercy reaches the bird’s nest”; “May Your name be mentioned with the good”; “Modim modim”
One who euphemizes the Torah’s forbidden-sex passages is silenced
One who renders “you shall not give any of your seed to Molekh” as “you shall not give any of your seed to impregnate an Aramean woman (= a non-Jewish woman)” is silenced with rebuke - Leviticus 18:21
Talmud
R’ Yosei bar Avin / R’ Yosei bar Zevida (dispute) - Why silence “mercy to the bird’s nest”: (1) it injects jealousy into creation; or (2) it miscasts God’s commands as mercy rather than decrees
Anecdote of Rabba - Praises a prayer leader who says: “You had mercy on the bird’s nest / on ‘it and its offspring’; have mercy on us”
Anecdote of R’ Ḥanina - Rebukes excessive added divine epithets beyond “great, mighty, awesome”: even those 3 are only said because Moses wrote them and the Great Assembly fixed them; adding more is deprecatory - Deuteronomy 10:17; Nehemiah 9:32
Analogy of gold vs silver
R’ Ḥanina - “Everything is in the hands of Heaven except fear of Heaven” - Deuteronomy 10:12
R’ Zeira - Repeating “Shema, Shema” is like repeating “Modim, Modim” (ie, looks like 2 authorities - dualism)
Baraita - Repeating Shema is “reprehensible” (implies: not necessarily silenced)
Rav Pappa to Rava - Suggests benign motive: maybe he repeated because he lacked focus at first; Rava - Rejects: you don’t treat Heaven with that familiarity; if he lacks focus “we beat him with a blacksmith’s hammer until he focuses”
Rav Yosef - Defines the euphemizing of forbidden-sex passages: saying “the shame of his father/mother” instead of “nakedness” - Leviticus 18:7
R’ Yishmael’s School - Interprets the “Molekh” mistranslation as claiming the verse concerns a Jew who has sex with a non-Jew woman and sires a child for idol worship - Leviticus 18:21
The Passage
Mishnah (Megillah 4:8-9)
One who refuses to lead prayer in colored clothes may not lead even in white (suspected sectarian practice)
האומר: איני עובר לפני התיבה בצבועין —
אף בלבנים לא יעבור.
One who says: I will not pass before the ark to lead the prayer service in colored garments --
may not pass before the ark to lead the prayer service even in white garments.
There is concern that one who insists on wearing clothing of a specific color during his prayers is a heretic and therefore unfit to lead the service.
One who refuses in sandals may not lead even barefoot (suspected sectarian practice)
בסנדל איני עובר —
אף יחף לא יעבור.
Similarly, if one says: I will not pass before the ark wearing sandals --
he may not pass before it even barefoot (יחף),
as he is not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Sages.
Round tefillin are dangerous and non-fulfilling
העושה תפלתו עגולה —
סכנה,
ואין בה מצוה.
One who constructs his tefillin in a round shape --
exposes himself to danger3
and he does not even fulfill the mitzva to don tefillin4
Head-tefillin on forehead, or arm-tefillin on palm, is “way of heretics”
נתנה
על מצחו
או על פס ידו —
הרי זו דרך המינות.
If one placed the tefillin worn on the head
on his forehead,
and not in its proper place above his hairline,
or if he placed the tefillin worn on the arm on his palm,
and not on his biceps,
this is the way of the heretics5
Gold-plating or wearing arm-tefillin outside the sleeve is “way of outsiders”
(ציפן) [ציפה] זהב
ונתנה על בית אונקלי שלו —
הרי זו דרך החיצונים.
If one plated his tefillin with gold
or placed the tefillin worn on the arm on the outside of his sleeve [unkeli] --
this is the way of the outsiders (חיצונים),
i.e., those who do not take part in the traditions of the Jewish people.
Prayer formulations that trigger silencing: “May the good bless You”; “Your mercy reaches the bird’s nest”; “May Your name be mentioned with the good”; “Modim modim”
האומר: ״יברכוך טובים״ —
הרי זו דרך המינות.
If one says in his prayers: “May the good bless You” --
this is a path of heresy,
as heretics divide the world into two domains, good and evil.
״על קן צפור יגיעו רחמיך״,
ו״על טוב יזכר שמך״,
״מודים מודים״ —
משתקין אותו.
If one says the following in his prayers:
Just as Your mercy is extended to a bird’s nest, as You have commanded us to send away the mother before taking her chicks or eggs (see Deuteronomy 22:6–7), so too extend Your mercy to us;
Or: “May Your name be mentioned with the good”
or: We give thanks,6 we give thanks”, twice --
he is suspected of heretical beliefs and they silence him.
One who euphemizes the Torah’s forbidden-sex passages is silenced
המכנה בעריות —
משתקין אותו.
If one modifies (מכנה) the text while reading the laws of forbidden sex (עריות), i.e., he introduces euphemisms out of a sense of propriety —
they silence him.
One who renders “you shall not give any of your seed to Molekh” as “you shall not give any of your seed to impregnate an Aramean woman (= a non-Jewish woman)” is silenced with rebuke - Leviticus 18:21
האומר:
״׳ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך׳,
לא תתן לאעברא בארמיותא״ —
משתקין אותו בנזיפה.
Similarly, if one says while translating the verse:
“And you shall not give any of your seed to set them apart to Molekh” (Leviticus 18:21):
As “And you shall not give any of your seed to impregnate an Aramean woman”7 --
he is silenced with rebuke (נזיפה).
Talmud
R’ Yosei bar Avin / R’ Yosei bar Zevida (dispute) - Why silence “mercy to the bird’s nest”: (1) it injects jealousy into creation; or (2) it miscasts God’s commands as mercy rather than decrees
״על קן צפור יגיעו רחמיך״
מאי טעמא?
פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא:
רבי יוסי בר אבין
ורבי יוסי בר זבידא,
in the case of one who recites: Just as Your mercy is extended to a bird’s nest,
what is the reason that they silence him?
Two amora’im in the West, Eretz Yisrael, disagree about this question,
R’ Yosei bar Avin
and R’ Yosei bar Zevida.
חד אמר:
מפני שמטיל קנאה במעשה בראשית,
וחד אמר:
מפני שעושה מדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא רחמים, ואינן אלא גזירות.
One said that
this was because one who says this engenders jealousy in Creation (מעשה בראשית),
as it appears as though he is indicating that God favored one creature over all others.
And one said that
saying this is prohibited because one transforms the attributes of God into expressions of mercy (רחמים), and in fact they are nothing but decrees (גזירות) of God that must be fulfilled without inquiring into the reasons behind them.
Anecdote of Rabba - Praises a prayer leader who says: “You had mercy on the bird’s nest / on ‘it and its offspring’; have mercy on us”
ההוא דנחית קמיה דרבה,
אמר:
אתה חסת על קן צפור —
אתה חוס ורחם עלינו!
(אתה חסת על ״אותו ואת בנו״ —
אתה חוס ורחם עלינו.
The Talmud relates that a particular individual descended before the ark as prayer leader in the presence of Rabba,
and said in his prayers:
You have shown mercy to birds, as expressed through the mitzva to chase away the mother bird before taking eggs from its nest --
have mercy and pity upon us!
You have shown mercy to animals, as expressed through the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day --
have mercy and pity upon us!)
אמר רבה: כמה ידע האי מרבנן לרצויי למריה.
אמר ליה אביי: והא ״משתקין אותו״ תנן!
[...]
Rabba said: How much does this rabbi know to appease YHWH, his Master!
Abaye said to him: Didn’t we learn in the Mishnah that they silence him?!
[...]
Anecdote of R’ Ḥanina - Rebukes excessive added divine epithets beyond “great, mighty, awesome”: even those 3 are only said because Moses wrote them and the Great Assembly fixed them; adding more is deprecatory - Deuteronomy 10:17; Nehemiah 9:32
ההוא דנחית קמיה דרבי חנינא,
אמר:
״האל
הגדול
הגבור
והנורא
האדיר
והחזק
והאמיץ״.
With regard to additions to prayers formulated by the Sages, the Talmud relates that a particular individual descended before the ark as prayer leader in the presence of R’ Ḥanina.
He extended his prayer and said:
God,
the great,
the mighty,
and the awesome,
the powerful,
and the strong,
and the fearless.
אמר ליה:
סיימתינהו לשבחיה דמרך?!
השתא הני תלתא,
אי לאו דכתבינהו משה באורייתא,
ואתו כנסת הגדולה ותקנינהו —
אנן לא אמרינן להו.
ואת אמרת כולי האי!
When he finished, R’ Ḥanina said to him:
Have you concluded all of the praises of your Master?!
Even these 3 praises that we recite,8
had Moses our teacher not written them in the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:17),
and had the members of the Great Assembly not come and incorporated them9 --
we would not be permitted to recite them.
And you went on and recited all of these!
Analogy of gold vs silver
משל לאדם שהיו לו אלף אלפי אלפים דינרי זהב,
והיו מקלסין אותו (באלף) דינרי כסף.
לא גנאי הוא לו?!
It is comparable to a man who possessed many thousands of golden dinars,
yet they were praising him for owning 1,000 silver ones.
Isn’t that deprecatory toward him?!
All of the praises one can lavish upon God are nothing but a few silver dinars relative to many thousands of gold dinars. Reciting a litany of praise does not enhance God’s honor.
R’ Ḥanina - “Everything is in the hands of Heaven except fear of Heaven” - Deuteronomy 10:12
אמר רבי חנינא:
הכל בידי שמים
חוץ מיראת שמים,
שנאמר:
״ועתה ישראל מה ה׳ אלהיך שואל מעמך
כי אם ליראה״.
[...]
Tangentially, the Talmud cites an additional statement by R’ Ḥanina, concerning principles of faith.
R’ Ḥanina said:
Everything is in the hands of Heaven,
except for fear of Heaven. Man has free will to serve God or not,
as it is stated:
“And now, Israel, what does YHWH your God ask of you
other than to fear YHWH your God” (Deuteronomy 10:12).
The fact that God asks man to fear Him indicates that it is in man’s ability to do so.
[...]
R’ Zeira - Repeating “Shema, Shema” is like repeating “Modim, Modim” (ie, looks like 2 authorities - theistic dualism)
אמר רבי זירא:
האומר ״שמע שמע״ —
כאומר ״מודים מודים״ דמי.
[...]
R’ Zeira said:
One who repeats himself while reciting Shema and says: “Listen Israel, listen Israel” --
is like one who says: “We give thanks, we give thanks”
[...]
Baraita - Repeating Shema is “reprehensible” (implies: not necessarily silenced)
הקורא את שמע וכופלה —
הרי זה מגונה.
מגונה הוא דהוי,
[...]
It was taught in a baraita:
One who recites Shema and repeats it10 --
it is reprehensible (מגונה)
[...]
Rav Pappa to Rava - Suggests benign motive: maybe he repeated because he lacked focus at first; Rava - Rejects: you don’t treat Heaven with that familiarity; if he lacks focus “we beat him with a blacksmith’s hammer until he focuses”
אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא:
ודלמא
מעיקרא
לא כוין דעתיה
והשתא
כוין דעתיה?
Rav Pappa said to Rava with regard to this halakha:
And perhaps
initially
he did not focus his attention (כוין דעתיה) on the recitation of Shema and therefore had to repeat it,
and now
he focused his attention.
אמר ליה:
חברותא כלפי שמיא?!
אי לא מכוין דעתיה --
מחינא ליה בארזפתא דנפחא עד דמכוין דעתיה.
Rava said to him:
Can one have that degree of familiarity with Heaven,11 to the extent that he can take his words lightly and say them however he likes?!
If he did not focus his attention --
we beat him with a blacksmith’s hammer (ארזפתא) until he focuses his attention,
as conduct of that sort is unacceptable.
Rav Yosef - Defines the euphemizing of forbidden-sex passages: saying “the shame of his father/mother” instead of “nakedness” - Leviticus 18:7
המכנה בעריות --
משתקין אותו.
תני רב יוסף:
קלון אביו וקלון אמו.
We learned in the Mishnah: If one modifies the text while reading the laws of forbidden sex --
they silence him.
Rav Yosef taught that
this is referring to one who says: “The shame (קלון) of his father and the shame of his mother”
instead of: “The nakedness (ערות) of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:7).
R’ Yishmael’s School - Interprets the “Molekh” mistranslation as claiming the verse concerns a Jew who has sex with a non-Jew woman and sires a child for idol worship - Leviticus 18:21
האומר: ״ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר וכו׳״.
תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל:
בישראל הבא על הגויה
והוליד ממנה בן לעבודה זרה
הכתוב מדבר.
We learned in the Mishnah: If one says, while translating the verse: “And you shall not give any of your seed to set them apart to Molekh” (Leviticus 18:21): And you shall not give any of your seed to impregnate an Aramean woman, he is silenced with rebuke.
A Sage from the school of R’ Yishmael taught:
One who translates the verse in this manner maintains that the verse speaks of
a Jew who has sex with a non-Jew woman
and fathered from her a son who will be raised to engage in idol worship.
For a general discussion of tefillin, see the sugya in my two-part “Tzitzit, Tefillin, and Mezuza: The Power of Everyday Ritual Objects (Menachot 43b-44a)“, final part here.
For more on the Talmudic concern about theological dualism, see for example these pieces of mine, among many other examples:
Three-part series “Defending God, Biblical Monotheism, and Jewish Distinctiveness: Twelve Dialogues Between Sages and Challengers in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b-39a)”, final section here.
“Refuting Heresy: Talmudic Responses to Heretical Claims of Divine Multiplicity in Scripture (Sanhedrin 38b)“, especially section “R’ Yoḥanan’s Responses to Six Heretical Claims of Plurality in Biblical Verses“
“Monotheism Defended: The Story of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi Debating a Theistic Dualist (Chullin 87a)“
סכנה.
Ed. Steinsaltz explains:
during times of persecution, when foreign governments (=Rome) impose a ban on the mitzva of tefillin
On the (purported) Roman ban on wearing tefillin, compare also the story of Elisha “man of wings”, cited in my recent “Pt1 Anecdotes in Shabbat and Eruvin: A Selected Anthology“, section “Elisha “Man of Wings” - Elisha defiantly wore tefillin under Roman persecution and was miraculously saved - Shabbat 130a“.
Ed. Seinsaltz explains:
as tefillin must be square.
On this, see the explicit discussion in Menachot.35a.11-12, which cites our Mishnah here:
תנא:
תפילין מרובעות –
הלכה למשה מסיני
It is taught in a baraita:
The requirement that tefillin be square (מרובעות) —
אמר רב פפא:
בתפרן ובאלכסונן
Rav Pappa says about this halakha:
Square means along their seams (תפרן) and their diagonals (אלכסונן),
i.e., they must be perfectly square where the compartments are sewn to the titora.
לימא מסייע ליה:
העושה תפילתו עגולה –
סכנה
ואין בה מצוה
The Talmud suggests: Let us say that a Mishnah supports this opinion (Megilla 24b):
One who fashions his tefillin in a round shape —
exposes himself to danger,
and it does not enable him to fulfill the mitzva of tefillin.
אמר רב פפא:
מתניתין דעבידא כי אמגוזא.
Rav Pappa said:
This is no support, as one can say that the Mishnah is referring to tefillin that are fashioned like a nut (אמגוזא),
i.e., their underside is rounded, and therefore there is a danger that if he strikes his head on a wall the underside will press into his head and injure him. By contrast, if the underside is flat one might have thought that it is fit despite the fact that it is not square. Therefore, the baraita teaches that tefillin must be square.
מינות.
Ed. Steinsaltz explains:
i.e., those who reject the tradition of the Sages (=rabbis) with regard to the proper placement of the tefillin.
For more on the term min, see my discussion in “The Divine Providence of Galut: A Talmudic Perspective on the Jewish Diaspora As A Shield Against Genocide of the Jewish Nation (Pesachim 87b)“.
Compare also the term used for heretics/heteredox in the next section: “outsiders” (חיצונים).
מודים.
Note that this word is the typical way of referring (=incipit) to the 17th of the 19 blessings in the Amida / Shemoneh Esreh (ברכת ההודאה); this may or not be related to the meaning here in our context.
ארמיותא - i.e. a non-Jewish woman.
i.e. “the great, the mighty, and the awesome”. See the next footnote.
Ed. Steinsaltz explains:
into the Amida prayer (see Nehemiah 9:32)
This is referring to the fact that the first 3 descriptors (out of 6; see the previous footnote) are found in the first blessing of the the Amida / Shemoneh Esreh (ברכת אבות).
For that verse in Nehemiah (9:32), see my “Public Reading, Ritual Joy, and Liturgical Retelling of Israel’s History: Ezra, Nehemiah, and the People’s Rediscovery of Torah, Sukkot, and Covenant in Nehemiah 8-9“, section “Suffering“.
And see also the sugya in Yoma.69b.14-15, cited and discussed in my extended footnote in “Pt2 Mourning Rituals and Communal Practices: Blessings, Wine, and Rabban Gamliel’s Burial Reform (Ketubot 8b)“, on section “Addition and Repeal of More Cups“. I summarize there:
The full aggadic sugya referred to (Yoma.69b.14-15) discusses the interpretation of God’s attributes—great, mighty, and awesome—as expressed in prayer:
Moses’ Original Phrase: Moses in Deuteronomy 10:17 described God as great (גדול), mighty (גבור), and awesome (נורא).
Jeremiah‘s Omission: Seeing the destruction of the Temple and foreign invaders desecrating it, Jeremiah questioned God’s awesomeness and omitted the term awesome from his prayers (Jeremiah 32:18).
Daniel‘s Omission: Witnessing the subjugation of the Jewish people, Daniel questioned God’s might and omitted the term mighty from his prayers (Daniel 9:4).
The Response of the Great Assembly: They restored the original phrase, arguing that true might is shown through self-restraint (כובש את יצרו)—God’s patience (ארך אפים) with evildoers rather than immediate punishment. Similarly, His awesomeness is evident in the Jewish people’s survival despite hostility from surrounding nations.
And see also the discussion of this series of descriptors in my “Appendix - The Nine Sacred Names of God That Must Not Be Erased and the Ten Divine Descriptives Permitted to Erase (Shevuot 35a)“, and my notes there.
כופלה - literally: “doubles it”.
חברותא כלפי שמיא - literally: “friends towards Heaven”.
This idiom is used elsewhere as well, see my “Pt2 Book of Job in Talmudic Interpretation: Job’s Contested Righteousness and Satan’s Character (Bava Batra 15b-16b)“, section “Rav - Job’s speech was disrespectful to God - Job 6:2“.