Category: Prayer

Proper Prayer Rejoinders

or To Berich or not to Berich

Yaakov, a relative newcomer to Yiddishkeit, visited a new community and davened each prayer at a different shul. He noticed that in each shul, the responses to Kaddish were different, which he found surprising. His rabbi explained to him the background.

When hearing Kaddish, we say “Amen” at several places, in addition to saying the very important “Amen, ye’hei shemei rabba mevorach le’olam ul’almei almaya.” (The poskim dispute whether one should also add “yisbarach”to this sentence, the Shulchan Aruch [Orach Chayim 56:3] ruling that one should, and the Gr”a ruling that one should not.) In addition, Ashkenazim respond to the words, shemei dekudsha berich hu, His holy name, blessed is He, by repeating the Chazan’s words berich hu. (Nusach Sefard and Sefardim say Amen at this point.) However, most people do not realize how late this response of berich hu came into practice. People are also not familiar with the halachos regarding this response; depending on where one is up to in davening it may be forbidden to recite this response as it constitutes an interruption. The goal of this article is to explain both the historical background of berich hu, and when we should and should not recite it. We will also discuss when one is allowed to recite other responses of the Kaddish.

The Gemara (Berachos 3a; Sotah 49a) mentions Kaddish and lays special emphasis on responding Amen, ye’hei shmei rabba mevorach le’olam ule’almei almaya with fervent feeling. The poskim accentuate the importance of not talking while Kaddish is recited. One should pay careful attention to the recital of the Kaddish and know to which praise of Hashem one is responding (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 56:1).

CHRONICLE OF A RESPONSE

What exactly is berich hu?

The words berich hu, are Aramaic for “blessed be He,” and are a repetition of two of the words of the Kaddish just said by the chazzan at that point: veyis’halal shemei dekudsha berich hu le’eila min kal birchasa ve’shirasa…, exalted be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He Who shall be praised beyond all blessing and song.

When did responding berich hu become a standard part of davening? Surprising as this may seem, no early poskim mention a custom of responding with just these two words. The custom started about four hundred years ago when it was not unusual to find people responding at this point of Kaddish with a refrain similar to the one we recite. The Taz (Orach Chayim 56:3) reports a practice to accentuate the praise of Hashem by joining the chazzan at the point when he reaches the words shmei dekudsha, His holy name, by accompanying him when he recites the three words berich hu le’eila, which means that the congregation recited words that translate as Blessed is He above. The Taz condemns this practice harshly since these three words may imply an unintended blasphemous statement — that Hashem is blessed only above, but not below. Therefore, the Taz rules that one should continue by reciting the subsequent three words, thus resulting in the following praise, berich hu le’eila min kal birchasa, which translates as Blessed is He above all blessing. This clarifies one’s intent and removes any concern about blasphemy. However, contemporary Ashkenazic practice does not recite this elongated response, but instead reduces the response to the two words, berich hu, blessed be He, which also accomplishes praising Hashem with no hint of blasphemy. Some Hassidic circles indeed follow the advice of the Taz and recite berich hu le’eila min kal birchasa.

This explains the origin of the custom to recite berich hu to Kaddish. What we still do not know is when we may not recite it. Explaining these halachos requires some introduction.

BARUCH HU UVARUCH SHEMO

The response berich hu is similar to our response Baruch Hu uvaruch shemo, blessed is He and blessed is His name, which we recite upon hearing Hashem’s name articulated as part of a beracha. The first halachic authority to mention this practice is the Rosh, about 800 years ago. The Tur (Orach Chayim 124) states, “I heard from my father [the Rosh] that every time he heard a beracha he would say Baruch Hu uvaruch shemo. He based this practice on the pasuk that states, “When I call Hashem’s name, bring forth greatness to our G-d” (Devorim 32:3); thus, upon hearing Hashem’s name, one should add a praise of one’s own. The Rosh added another halachic source for this practice based on the following translation of the pasuk, “Remember a tzadik for blessing” (Mishlei 10:7). This verse teaches that even when mentioning the name of a righteous human being one should bless him; if so, one should certainly bless Hashem when mentioning His name.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 124:5) rules that one should respond Baruch Hu uvaruch shemo whenever one hears a beracha. Nevertheless, one may not answer this refrain during birchos keri’as shema or during Pesukei Dezimra (Magen Avraham 124:9; Mishnah Berurah 124:21). Why not?

WHAT RESPONSES ARE PERMITTED WHILE RECITING THE BIRCHOS KERI’AS SHEMA?

The part of davening following Borchu until the Shemoneh esrei is called the birchos keri’as shema, because it consists of the berachos established by the Anshei Keneses HaGedolah (the leaders of the Jewish people in the era of Ezra, Mordechai and Esther, during the period prior to and the beginning of the second Beis HaMikdash) before and after reciting Shema. The Mishnah (Berachos 13a) teaches that although usually one may not interrupt these berachos, there are some exceptional circumstances.

However, there is one place during this part of the davening that is so important that one should not interrupt unless it is a life-threatening emergency. This is while saying the pesukim of Shema Yisroel and Baruch shem kovod malchuso le’olam va’ed (Shulchan Aruch 66:1).

It is not clear cut what the halacha is regarding communal responses while one is davening. The Rishonim dispute whether one may respond to Borchu, to Kedusha, and Amen yehei shemei rabba during birchos keri’as shema. Those who prohibited this practice contended that one may not interrupt the berachos of keri’as shema for the sake of a different praise, such as responding to Kaddish or Kedusha. The Rosh (Berachos 2:5) disputes the opinion of his rebbe, the Maharam Rotenberg, who prohibited this practice. The Rosh holds that responding appropriately to Hashem’s praises is no worse than responding to the greeting of a person, which is permitted under certain circumstances, as mentioned above.

The poskim conclude that one may answer the following responses while reciting the birchos keri’as shema:

A. “Amen, ye’hei shmei rabba mevorach le’olam ule’almei almaya” in Kaddish.

B. “Amen” to the chazzan’s da’amiran be’alma in Kaddish, but not to other places in Kaddish (Chayei Odom 20:4).

C. “Boruch Hashem hamevorach la’olam va’ed” to Borchu, whether the Borchu before birchos keri’as shema or the one that precedes an aliyah (Magen Avraham 66:6).

D. “Kodosh kodosh…” and “Boruch kevod Hashem mimkomo” in Kedusha. However one should not respond to the other parts of Kedusha we traditionally say, even the sentence beginning Yimloch (Ateres Zekeinim).

E. “Amen” to the berachos of Ha’Keil Hakadosh and to Shema Koleinu (Rama 66:3).

F. The words “Modim anachnu Loch” recited in response to the chazzan’s saying Modim in the repetition of Shemoneh Esrei (Rabbeinu Yonah, Berachos 7b; Mishnah Berurah 66:20).

HALLEL AND MEGILLAH

The Gemara (Berachos 14a) discusses whether the same rules that apply to interrupting the birchos keri’as shema also apply to the full Hallel and to the recital of the Megillah. The Gemara questions why the rules governing the birchos keri’as shema should be stricter than those for Hallel and Megillah, since the requirement to recite keri’as shema is min haTorah, whereas the mitzvos of Hallel and Megillah are only rabbinic in origin. Alternatively, the Gemara suggests that since both Hallel and Megillah publicize miraculous events, perhaps the rules of interrupting them should be stricter. The Gemara concludes that we should treat the rules of birchos keri’as shema, Hallel and Megillah the same. Thus, all the responses listed above are recited when one is in the middle of birchos keri’as shema, Hallel, or hearing the Megillah.

AN ALIYAH

The poskim debate whether someone in the middle of the birchos keri’as shema may respond Amen when he hears someone recite the berachos before or after an aliyah. The Magen Avraham (66:6) rules that one should recite Amen to these berachos, whereas the Pri Megadim questions this practice. The Mishnah Berurah (66:18) concludes that he may recite Amen if he is between two of the berachos, such as he has just completed “Yotzeir HaMeoros” or “HaMaariv Aravim.”

This dispute is based on an interesting story. Someone was once delayed in davening, and was in the middle of the birchos keri’as shema when he was called up to the Torah for an aliyah. May he recite the berachos on the Torah even though it is an interruption in the middle of birchos keri’as shema?

The Sefer HaManhig ruled that he should accept the aliyah and recite the berachos (Tur 66). Not accepting an aliyah when one is called to the Torah is an insult to Hashem’s honor, and certainly Hashem deserves at least as much honor as the individual discussed earlier. Therefore reciting the berachos has the same status as greeting a person and may be recited during the birchos keri’as shema. The Magen Avraham apparently holds that answering Amen to the berachos of an aliyah has the same halachic status as the Sefer HaManhig’s aliyah case and therefore one should recite this Amen even in the middle of birchos keri’as shema. The Pri Megadim disputes the Magen Avraham’s view, suggestingh that this Amen is no different from Amen to any other beracha.

However, the Rashba (Shu”t HaRashba 1:185) disagrees with the Sefer HaManhig’s conclusion, ruling that someone in the middle of this part of davening who is called to the Torah should not go up, but someone else should take his aliyah instead (Beis Yosef, Orach Chayim 66). The Shulchan Aruch (66:4) follows the latter opinion, whereas most other opinions rule that he should take the aliyah and recite the berachos, but be careful not to interrupt in any other way (Magen Avraham 66:8).

The poskim dispute whether one may recite Amen to a any other beracha that one hears when he is between two berachos of birchos keri’as shema. Some contend that he may recite Amen after hearing any beracha, since he is currently between berachos (Pri Megadim, Eishel Avraham 66:7). Others contend that he may recite Amen only to the beracha that he just recited, such as he heard the end of the beracha from the chazzan or from a different individual (Chayei Odom 20:4).

A THUNDERING BERACHA

The poskim also dispute whether one may recite the beracha on thunder while in the middle of birchos keri’as shema. Magen Avraham 66:5 rules that he should, whereas the Bechor Shor (Berachos 13a) disagrees, contending that one should not interrupt one praise of Hashem, the Shema, with another, the beracha on thunder. The Chayei Odom reaches a compromise, ruling that one should recite the beracha if he is between the berachos of keri’as shema, but not in the middle of a beracha. This last dispute remains unresolved (Mishnah Berurah 66:19). Thus, if someone hears thunder while reciting Hallel or the birchos keri’as shema, or reading or hearing the Megillah, it is his choice whether to recite the beracha or not.

ASHER YATZAR

Although usually one should recite the beracha Asher Yatzar immediately after washing one’s hands when leaving the lavatory (see Shulchan Aruch 165:1), one should not recite it during birchos keri’as shema but should postpone its recital until after Shemoneh Esrei (Mishnah Berurah 66:23). The same policy should be followed during Hallel or Megillah: he should wait to recite Asher Yatzar until after Hallel and Megillah and their concluding berachos are completed.

TALIS AND TEFILLIN

What if someone did not have talis and tefillin available before davening, and they became available during birchos keri’as shema? May he recite a beracha prior to donning them or does the beracha constitute a hefsek during the berachos?

The Rishonim debate this issue. Rashi’s rebbi, Rabbi Yitzchak the son of Rabbi Yehudah, indeed recited the beracha before donning both his talis and his tefillin, and brought proof to his actions from the Gemara (Berachos 14b):

The great Amora Rav once began reciting keri’as shema and its berachos without having tefillin. Right after he completed Shema, his messenger brought him tefillin, so Rav immediately donned the tefillin prior to reciting Shemoneh Esrei,. Rabbi Yitzchak, Rashi’s rebbi, presumes that Rav recited the beracha before putting on the tefillin even though he was in the middle of the birchos keri’as shema.

Similarly, Rabbi Yitzchak the son of Rabbi Yehudah reasoned that in a similar situation when one first receives his talis immediately before Shemoneh Esrei, he should recite the beracha before donning either one. Tosafos (ad loc.), however, disagrees with Rabbi Yitzchak the son of Rabbi Yehudah, reasoning that one is required to wear tefillin while davening and therefore donning them is a requirement of the tefillah. As such the beracha on the tefillin also is not an interruption. However, one is not required to wear a talis during davening, and therefore the beracha before donning it should not preempt the laws of hefsek.

How do we conclude?

The Shulchan Aruch (66:2) rules like Rabbi Yitzchak the son of Rabbi Yehudah that he should recite both the beracha on the talis and the beracha on the tefillin; this is the practice of the Sefardim. The Rema rules like Tosafos that he should only recite the beracha on the tefillin but not on the talis.

WHAT RESPONSES ARE PERMITTED DURING PESUKEI DEZIMRA?

The Anshei Keneses HaGedolah established that one should recite daily, at the beginning of davening, praises written by Dovid HaMelech (Zohar, Parshas Terumah). We introduce these passages of praise, Pesukei Dezimra, with the beracha of Baruch She’amar and conclude them with the beracha of Yishtabach. The beracha of Yishtabach does not begin with a beracha because it is linked directly to the beracha of Baruch She’amar. Since these two berachos are linked, one may not interrupt between them for anything that is not part of the davening. For this reason, it is strictly forbidden to talk during Pesukei Dezimra (Tosafos, Berachos 46a s.v. kol; Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 51:4). Similarly, it is forbidden to answer Baruch Hu uvaruch shemo during this part of davening (Magen Avraham 124:9; Mishnah Berurah 124:21). Although it is appropriate to praise Hashem this way when His name is mentioned, one does not interrupt when one is praising Him already in order to do so.

Some poskim contend that interrupting Pesukei Dezimra is halachically equivalent to interrupting the birchos keri’as shema. According to this opinion, one may not answer Amen to a beracha that one hears during Pesukei Dezimra (Shu”t Mishkenos Yaakov, Orach Chayim #68). Other poskim contend that one may answer Amen to any beracha while in the middle of Pesukei Dezimra, and even while in the middle of the beracha of Baruch She’amar (Magen Avraham 51:3). The consensus is that, although it is clearly forbidden to talk during the Pesukei Dezimra, answering Amen to any beracha is permitted. Furthermore, someone who needs to recite Asher Yatzar, or to recite the beracha on thunder or lightning, may do so during Pesukei Dezimra. One may certainly answer during this part of davening the responses listed above of Kaddish, Borchu and Kedusha (Mishnah Berurah 51:8. The Chayei Odom [20:3] rules that one should not recite Asher Yatzar until after Shemoneh Esrei.) However, reciting berich hu during Pesukei Dezimra is similar to reciting Baruch Hu uvaruch shemo and constitutes an interruption during Pesukei Dezimra.

Thus, although many people are unaware of this halacha, someone in the middle of Pesukei Dezimra when the chazzan begins reciting the Kaddish before Borchu may not answer berich hu to the Kaddish. On the other hand, he should answer Amen, ye’hei shmei rabba mevorach le’olam ule’almei almaya and the Amen at da’amiran be’alma. He may also answer Amen to the beracha of Yishtabach. However, since the Amen after “Yisgadal veyiskadash shmei rabba” (and in Nusach Sfard after “meshichei”) is only custom, he should not recite these either while in the middle of Pesukei Dezimra and certainly not while in the middle of birchos keri’as shema.

AFTER YISHTABACH

One may not interrupt between completing Yishtabach and beginning the next part of the tefillah (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 51:4), although if one needs to recite a beracha it is better to do so after completing Yishtabach before answering (or saying) Borchu than during the Pesukei Dezimra. For this reason, if someone did not have tzitzis or tefillin available before davening, and they become available during davening (or if he must begin davening when it is too early to recite a beracha on them) he should put them on immediately after Yishtabach and then recite the berachos on them. Better to recite these berachos between Yishtabach and Borchu than to do so afterwards.

APPRECIATING KADDISH

For the many years Reb Zalman Estolin spent as a slave laborer in Soviet Siberia, he obviously had no minyan, nor any opportunity to answer Amen, ye’hei shmei rabba. Upon his redemption from the Soviet Union, he moved to Eretz Yisroel as an old, ill man. The very first morning in Eretz Yisroel, he arose early to walk to shul on his crutches, full with the excitement that he would be davening with a minyan for the first time in decades!

Two hours after davening should have been over, Reb Zalman had not yet returned to his host’s home. The concerned family sent someone to look for the old man, and discovered him sitting in the shul. When asked why he was still there, Reb Zalman answered, “When my minyan ended, another began. And then another. I just could not bear to miss the opportunity to recite Amen, ye’hei shmei rabba one more time” (Just One Word by Esther Stern).

We should always be zocheh to recite Amen, ye’hei shmei rabba with this type of enthusiasm!

Do I say Retzei, Ya’aleh Veyavo or both?

Since Rosh Chodesh falls on motza’ei Shabbos, I thought it appropriate to again share our discussion about:

Is it Shabbos versus Rosh Chodesh?

“When Rosh Chodesh begins on motza’ei Shabbos, do I say Ya’aleh Veyavo in bensching at seudah shelishis when I finish it after it is dark?”

Introduction

When we recite Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos, Yom Tov, Chol Hamoed, Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah and Purim, we include special prayers to commemorate the holiday. On Shabbos, we recite a passage beginning with the word Retzei; on Yom Tov, Chol Hamoed and Rosh Chodesh, the opening words are Ya’aleh Veyavo; and on Chanukah and Purim, Al Hanissim.

In a different article, I discussed whether one recites these additions when one’s meal started on Shabbos or a holiday and finished on a weekday, or vice versa – i.e., one began the meal on a weekday and completed it on the holiday. Does one recite the special addition to commemorate the holiday when this happens, or does one omit it? We discovered that there are several opinions as to what to do. These are the earliest opinions that I found:

1. When one bensches

The Rosh rules that one recites the version of Birkas Hamazon appropriate to when one bensches, regardless as to when one ate the meal. In his opinion, one who finished seudah shelishis after nightfall does not recite Retzei. Similarly, one whose Purim seudah ends after Purim does not recite Al Hanissim. The Rosh also holds that someone who completed a meal before Rosh Chodesh and bensches after it is dark should recite Ya’aleh Veyavo.

2. The beginning of the meal

The Maharam, as understood by the Bach and the Aruch Hashulchan, maintains that the text of the bensching is established according to what was correct when the meal began. Therefore, one who finished seudah shelishis after nightfall recites Retzei, since his meal began on Shabbos. Similarly, if he finished his Purim seudah after Purim he recites Al Hanissim.

There is an exception – if he did something to declare that Shabbos is over, such as he recited havdalah, davened maariv, or even simply answered borchu to maariv, he does not recite Retzei any more, as it is therefore inconsistent to mention Shabbos in bensching.

3. All of the above

The Maharam, as understood by the Taz, contends that one adds the special prayer if either the meal began on the holiday or one is bensching on the holiday. Thus, one who finished seudah shelishis after nightfall recites Retzei, and someone who completed a meal before Rosh Chodesh and bensches after it is dark should recite Ya’aleh Veyavo.

The halachic conclusion

The halachic consensus regarding someone who began his meal on Shabbos or Purim and continued it into the night is that one recites Retzei or Al Hanissim, following the position of the Maharam and not the Rosh.

Conflicting prayers

The topic of our current article adds a new aspect to this question – what to do when Rosh Chodesh or Chanukah begins on motza’ei Shabbos, and seudah shelishis started on Shabbos and was completed on Rosh Chodesh or on Chanukah. According to the Rosh, one should recite Ya’aleh Veyavo or Al Hanissim. However, the consensus of halachic later authorities follows the opinion of the Maharam. Those who understand that the Maharam ruled that one should always recite the text of Birkas Hamazon appropriate to the beginning of the meal, one should recite Retzei. Yet, many authorities follow the second interpretation of the Maharam mentioned above, that one adds the special prayer if either the meal began on the holiday or one is bensching on the holiday. What complicates our question is that there may be a requirement to recite both Retzei and either Ya’aleh Veyavo or Al Hanissim, yet mentioning both in the same bensching might be contradictory in this instance, since, technically speaking, the holiday begins after Shabbos ends. As we will soon see, whether or not this is a problem is debated by the authorities.

The earliest authority that I found who discusses this predicament is the Bach (end of Orach Chayim, 188). Regarding what to recite when seudah shelishis continues into Rosh Chodesh, he concludes that one should say Retzei and not Ya’aleh Veyavo, because the beginning of a meal determines the exact text of its Birkas Hamazon. As I mentioned above, this is the way the Bach understands the Maharam’s position – that the proper bensching is always determined by the beginning of the meal. Since the halacha follows the Maharam’s position, the Bach rules according to his understanding of the Maharam, that one recites Retzei and not Ya’aleh Veyavo.

The Magen Avraham (188:18; 419:1) analyzes the issue differently from the way the Bach does. First, he considers the possibility that one can recite both Retzei and Ya’aleh Veyavo. This is based on his understanding of the Maharam’s position that ending a meal on Rosh Chodesh or a different festival is reason to recite the holiday additions, even if the meal started on a weekday. However, the Magen Avraham concludes that one cannot recite both Retzei and Ya’aleh Veyavo in this instance, because this is an inherent contradiction: If it is already Rosh Chodesh, it is no longer Shabbos, and if it is still Shabbos, it is not yet Rosh Chodesh. Because of this conundrum, the Magen Avraham concludes that one should follow the Rosh’s opinion, that one recites whatever is appropriate to be said at this moment, which means to recite only Ya’aleh Veyavo.

The Magen Avraham contends that this is done only when one continued his meal into Rosh Chodesh and ate bread on Rosh Chodesh. If he did not eat bread on Rosh Chodesh, he should recite only Retzei, following the Maharam’s opinion that the special prayers are determined by the beginning of the meal.

Chanukah on motza’ei Shabbos

The Magen Avraham also rules that there is a difference in halacha between Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah. When Chanukah begins on motza’ei Shabbos and seudah shelishis extended into the beginning of Chanukah, he rules that one should recite only Retzei and not Al Hanissim, even if he ate bread on Chanukah.

Why is Chanukah different from all other nights?

The Magen Avraham explains that, whereas when bensching on Rosh Chodesh one is required to say Ya’aleh Veyavo (notwithstanding that forgetting Ya’aleh Veyavo does not require you to repeat the bensching, the Gemara (Shabbos 24a) states that Al Hanissim in bensching of Chanukah is optional and not required. Therefore, continuing the Shabbos meal into Chanukah does not annul the responsibility to recite Retzei.

More opinions

At this point, we have seen two opinions concerning what to do for the bensching of a seudah shelishis that extended into Rosh Chodesh:

(1) The Bach: Recite Retzei; ignore Ya’aleh Veyavo.

(2) The Magen Avraham: If he ate bread on motza’ei Shabbos, he should recite Ya’aleh Veyavo; otherwise he should recite Retzei.

A third position, that we have as yet not discussed, is that once it is Rosh Chodesh he should recite Ya’aleh Veyavo and not Retzei (Maharash of Lublin, quoted by Shelah and Taz 188:7). The Maharash maintains that since it is Rosh Chodesh at the time that he bensches, the requirement to recite Ya’aleh Veyavo is primary and preempts the requirement to recite Retzei, which he considers to be secondary, since it is no longer Shabbos.

Both!

A fourth position is that of the Taz (188:7), who challenges the assumption that one cannot recite both Retzei and Ya’aleh Veyavo in the same bensching. Although Rosh Chodesh falls only after Shabbos ends, the Taz concludes that since Retzei is recited first and Ya’aleh Veyavo afterward, it is not contradictory to first recite Retzei and then Ya’aleh Veyavo. Saying Ya’aleh Veyavo first would be a problem, because that would imply that Shabbos is over. Therefore, one who ate on Shabbos and is bensching on Rosh Chodesh should recite both additions. In this approach, the Taz disagrees with all the other early acharonim in his contention that there is nothing wrong with mentioning both additions.

To sum up, someone whose meal began on Shabbos and is bensching on Rosh Chodesh, should:

Recite Ya’aleh Veyavo, according to both the opinion of the Rosh and that of the Maharash.

Recite Retzei, according to the opinion shared by the Bach and the Aruch Hashulchan.

Recite both Retzei and Ya’aleh Veyavo, according to the conclusion of the Taz.

According to the ruling of the Magen Avraham, if he ate bread after Rosh Chodesh arrived, he should recite Ya’aleh Veyavo. If he did not, he should recite Retzei.

Rabbi, what should I do?

The Mishnah Berurah (188:33), when recording what to do, implies that one should follow the position of the Magen Avraham. He then mentions the Taz as an alternative approach – that one should say both Retzei and Ya’aleh Veyavo. This is consistent with the Mishnah Berurah’s general approach of following the Magen Avraham, except when the latter’s position is opposed by most later authorities.

The Aruch Hashulchan, on the other hand, concludes neither as the Magen Avraham nor the Taz, but that what one recites is always determined by the beginning of the meal. Therefore, in this situation, he rules to recite Retzei and omit Ya’aleh Veyavo, regardless of whether one ate on Rosh Chodesh.

Since there are many conflicting positions as to which additions to recite when Rosh Chodesh begins on motza’ei Shabbos, many people avoid eating bread after nightfall. They eat all the bread that they intend to eat towards the beginning of the meal, and upon completing the seudah, recite bensching including Retzei and omitting Ya’aleh Veyavo. This approach follows the majority of halachic authorities (Bach, Magen Avraham, Aruch Hashulchan, Mishnah Berurah [according to his primary approach]), although it runs counter to the opinions of the Maharash and the Taz. Those who want to avoid any question recite Birkas Hamazon before the arrival of Rosh Chodesh.

Conclusion

In our daily lives, our hearts should be full with thanks to Hashem for all He does for us. Birkas Hamazon provides a regular opportunity to elicit deep feelings of gratitude for what Hashem has done in the past and does in the present. All the more so should we should acknowledge Hashem’s help on special holidays.

What If I Goofed and Said Tikanta Shabbos by Mistake?

Question: In the middle of davening Musaf on Shabbos Rosh Chodesh, I realized that I was reciting the Musaf for a regular Shabbos rather than the special Musaf for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh. What should I have done?

Answer:

This Shabbos is also Rosh Chodesh, requiring the recital of a special text for the middle beracha of Musaf. This special Musaf includes elements of the usual Shabbos Musaf, the usual Rosh Chodesh Musaf, and a special introductory passage. This passage, beginning with the words Atah Yatzarta, actually bears close resemblance to the introductory part of the Yom Tov Musaf rather than to Musaf of either Shabbos or Rosh Chodesh. The rest of the middle beracha of Musaf combines elements of both Shabbos Musaf and Rosh Chodesh Musaf.

I once edited an article in which the author quoted several anthologies, each of which ruled that someone still in the middle beracha of shemoneh esrei should immediately stop where he is, and go to the beginning of Atah Yatzarta, and recite the entire beracha. However, I believe that this ruling is in error, which I will explain shortly. But first…

I attempted to trace the sources quoted in the article to see if perhaps I was missing some logic or information that I would clarify in the course of my research.

What I did discover was that each source was simply quoting a previous one, and that they all traced to one obscure 19th century work, which did not explain at all the reason for the ruling. Classic group-think.

I will now explain why I believe this ruling is in error, and what one should do. My major concern is that the approach that these works advocate results in repeating many parts of the shemoneh esrei, and that this repetition constitutes a forbidden interruption in the tefillah. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, there is no essential requirement to recite this middle beracha of the shemoneh esrei precisely in order. Obviously, one should maintain the order as is, but there is ample evidence from major halacha authorites that, in general, mistakenly rearranging the order of a beracha is not calamitous (see, for example, Rosh, Taanis 1:1; Shu”t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 4:18 and 4:70:14). Thus, when left with the choice of rearranging the order of a beracha to avoid repetition, or repeating parts of the beracha and ignoring what was already said, one should follow the first approach (cf., however, Biur Halacha 127:2 s.v. Aval).

Based on the above, it appears that someone who discovers that they began reciting Tikanta Shabbos rather than Atah Yatzarta should mention only those parts of the beracha that they had as yet not recited, but not repeat any theme or part of the beracha that one has already said. Although fulfilling this may be confusing to someone unfamiliar with the beracha, this should provide us with a valid reason to pay more attention to the details of this beracha and understand its different parts.

In order to explain how one does this correctly, I will divide the beracha of Atah Yatzarta into its constituent parts, so that we can identify which parts we should not repeat. We can divide it into the following seven sections:

1. The introduction – from the words Atah Yatzarta until (and including) the words shenishtalcha (some recite the text hashelucha) bemikdashecha.

2. The prayer for our return – beginning with the words Yehi Ratzon – until (and including) the word kehilchasam.

3. The sentence that introduces the mention of the pesukim of the Musaf –Ve’es Musafei Yom HaShabbos hazeh… until (and including) the word ka’amur.

4. Mention of the pesukim of the korban Musaf of Shabbos.

5. Mention of the pasuk of the korban Musaf of Rosh Chodesh and the passage Uminchasam… until (and including) the word kehilchasam.

6. The paragraph Yismechu Vemalchusecha that concludes with the words zeicher lemaasei vereishis.

7. The closing of the beracha — Elokeinu Veilokei avoseinu.

On a regular Shabbos we recite the following sections: I have numbered them in a way that parallels the previous list:

1. Tikanta Shabbos – the introduction.

2. Yehi Ratzon – the prayer for our return. This passage then introduces the mention of the pesukim of the Musaf, which includes only the pesukim of Shabbos.

3. Ve’es Musaf Yom HaShabbos hazeh… until the word ka’amur.

4. Mention of the pesukim of the korban Musaf of Shabbos.

6. The paragraph Yismechu Vemalchusecha that concludes with the words zeicher lemaasei vereishis.

7. The closing of the beracha — Elokeinu Veilokei avoseinu. We should note that the closings of the Shabbos and the Shabbos Rosh Chodesh shemoneh esrei prayers are very different. On Shabbos Rosh Chodesh we recite a version that is almost identical to what we recite on a weekday Rosh Chodesh, but we insert three passages to include Shabbos.

See chart next page.

Parts 2, 4 and 6 of the two brachos are identical, whether it is Shabbos or Shabbos Rosh Chodesh. Therefore, one should not repeat these sections if one has said them already.

Part 1 on Shabbos Rosh Chodesh, Atah Yatzarta, is very different from what we usually recite on a regular Shabbos. Therefore, someone who mistakenly said the regular Shabbos beracha should go back and recite this passage (part 1).

If someone missed part 5, which mentions the pesukim of Rosh Chodesh, and is still in the middle of this section, they should recite – the pasuk that describes the korbon of rosh chodesh and introduce it with part 3 above, which introduces the Musaf korbanos. However, if they already recited the pesukim of Shabbos korban Musaf (part 4) above, omit the reference to Shabbos in this piece and only mention Rosh Chodesh. In the latter case, one should change the plural Musafei to a singular Musaf since now he is now referring only to the Rosh Chodesh Musaf.

Having explained the rules governing these halachos, I will now present the conclusions in a hopefully clearer way, depending on when you discover your mistake:

A. If you were still reciting the beginning of Tikanta Shabbos, and had not yet reached Yehi Ratzon:

Return to Atah Yatzarta and recite the beracha in order, without any changes.

B. If you had already begun Yehi Ratzon, but are before Ve’es Musaf Yom HaShabbos hazeh:

Complete the Yehi Ratzon until Ve’es Musaf; then recite Atah Yatzarta until the words Yehi Ratzon, then resume from the words Ve’es Musafei Yom HaShabbos hazeh veyom Rosh Hachodesh hazeh from the Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Musaf and continue through the rest of the tefillah.

C. If you had just begun Ve’es Musaf Yom HaShabbos hazeh:

Add the words Ve’es Musaf Yom Rosh Hachodesh Hazeh, then continue in the Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Musaf until Yismechu Vemalchusecha. Immediately prior to saying Yismechu Vemalchusecha insert the words from Atah Yatzarta until the words shenishtalcha bemikdashecha (part 1). Then return to Yismechu Vemalchusecha and recite the rest of the tefillah in order.

D. If you are already in the middle of Ve’es Musaf Yom HaShabbos hazeh:

Recite Uveyom Hashabbas… until veniskah. Then insert the words from Atah Yatzarta until the words shenishtalcha bemikdashecha. Then return to the words Ve’es Musaf but say the following: Ve’es Musaf Yom Rosh Hachodesh hazeh until the word ka’amur. Then say Uverashei Chadsheichem in the Shabbos Rosh Chodesh section and continue in order.

E. If you are in the middle of Yismechu Vemalchusecha, complete it until Zecher lemaasei vereishis, and then insert the words from Atah Yatzarta until the words shenishtalcha bemikdashecha. Then return to the words Ve’es Musaf but say the following: Ve’es Musaf Yom Rosh Hachodesh hazeh until the word ka’amur. Then say Uverashei Chadsheichem in the Shabbos Rosh Chodesh section. Then go to Elokeinu Veilokei avoseinu (after Yismechu Vemalchusecha) and finish the end of the beracha.

F. If you are already in the middle of the closing part of the beracha (Elokeinu Veilokei Avoseinu) complete the clause that you are saying, and then insert the words from Atah Yatzarta until the words shenishtalcha bemikdashecha. Return to the words Ve’es Musaf but say Ve’es Musaf Yom Rosh Hachodesh hazeh until the word ka’amur. Say Uverashei Chadsheichem from the Shabbos Rosh Chodesh section. Then return to chadeish aleinu beyom haShabbos hazeh es hachodesh hazeh and finish the end of the beracha in the Shabbos Rosh Chodesh section.

If he completed the entire beracha of Tikanta Shabbos, but mentioned in the middle of the brocha some reference to the korban Musaf of Rosh Chodesh, he has fulfilled the requirements of his prayer and he should continue Retzei (see Mishnah Berurah 423:6). If he completed the beracha of Tikanta Shabbos but did not yet begin Retzeih, he should say “venaaseh lefanecha korban Rosh Chodesh hazeh” – “and we shall do before You this Rosh Chodesh offering” – and then continue with Retzeih (ibid.).

Conclusion

Although all this may sound confusing, if you spend a few minutes familiarizing oneself with the divisions of this beracha that I have made, you will easily realize how the parts of the Shabbos and Shabbos Rosh Chodesh davening are aligned. Then you will be ready to make the necessary adjustments should you find that you have erred. This readiness has, of course, a tremendous value on its own: It familiarizes one with the shemoneh esrei, something we always should do, but, unfortunately, is something to which we often do not pay adequate attention.

Understanding how much concern Chazal placed in the relatively minor aspects of davening should make us even more aware of the fact that davening is our attempt at building a relationship with Hashem. As the Kuzari notes, every day should have three very high points — the three times that we daven (or four times on days that we recite Musaf). Certainly, one should do whatever one can to make sure to pay attention to the meaning of the words of one’s Tefillah. We should gain our strength and inspiration for the rest of the day from these prayers. Let us hope that Hashem will accept our tefillos together with those of Klal Yisrael!

Channah’s Prayer

Question #1: Channah the Posek

How great a posek was Channah?

Question #2: Mistaken Impression

If someone mistakenly thinks that you did something wrong, should you correct their misimpression?

Question #3: Shemuel Halevi

How do we know that Shemuel was a Levi?

Question #4: Way to Pray?

How many ways are there to pray?

Introduction:

The Gemara (Megillah 31a) teaches that the haftarah read on the first day of Rosh Hashanah is the story and prayer of Channah, the mother of Shemuel Hanavi. The reason for this practice is that on Rosh Hashanah, Sarah, Rachel and Channah were all “remembered” — their prayers to bear a child were answered (Rosh Hashanah 10b). To the best of my knowledge, according to all customs of Klal Yisrael, we read this haftarah on Rosh Hashanah, although there are varying approaches as to exactly where the haftarah starts and ends.

The haftarah teaches us that Elkanah had two wives, Peninah, who had many children, and Channah, who was childless. Elkanah had first married Channah and, after ten barren years, he married Peninah, who bore him ten children (Yalkut Shimoni).

Targum Yonasan (Shemuel I 1:1) explains that Elkanah was one of the disciples of the prophets, those who were striving to reach a level of prophecy. Apparently, he later succeeded, since Rashi, in his commentary to the Gemara (Megillah 14a), states that Elkanah was a prophet. The verse that Rashi quotes occurs later in the Book of Shemuel, implying that, eventually, Elkanah reached his goal. From Elkanah we can learn that persistent and consistent striving to a spiritual goal is the most likely way to achieve it.

Returning to our story:  On the regalim, Elkanah would bring his family, including his brothers, sisters and extended family, to Shiloh, which at the time was the location of the Mishkan. They would make a very large display of their travels in order to encourage others to join them and thereby also fulfill the mitzvah of aliyah laregel and other related mitzvos (see Chagigah). Every year, the crowd joining them on their way to Shiloh grew, until dozens of families would accompany them. Each year they followed a different route from the mountains of Efrayim to Shiloh in order to pass through new areas and attract new people to join them. In this manner, Elkanah influenced huge numbers of Jews to observe mitzvos. The midrashim teach us that as a reward for spreading Yiddishkeit and bringing Jews closer to Hashem, he was granted a very uniquely gifted son, Shemuel, who traveled throughout the country and created an impact on the entire nation to keep the Torah properly (Tanna Debei Eliyahu, Eliyahu Rabbah, end of Chapter 8; Yalkut Shimoni, Shemuel #74).

Our haftarah teaches that, one year, after the family had celebrated Yom Tov together, Channah went to the Mishkan to pray. Eili, the kohen gadol, was there, sitting near the gates, in his place of honor. Channah was very anguished about her childlessness and prayed to Hashem while weeping. She made a vow to Hashem, the G-d of Hosts, ה’ צבאו-ת, meaning that Hashem is Lord over the entire Universe and all it contains, each part of which performs what Hashem commands it to do. The Gemara explains that Channah was the first one in history to address Hashem this way. This attribute of Hashem demonstrated that Channah was not davening for herself, for her own gift of a child. She was davening to be allowed to have her own tiny little role to play in the grand scheme of Hashem’s magnificent Universe. Hashem created her to be a woman, and she desired to be able to play her role as a mother to contribute her part in honoring Hashem. She begged not to be forgotten, but to be granted a son whom she vowed to give to Hashem, to serve Him all his days.

Channah prayed for a long time, speaking “to her heart” – inaudibly, her lips moving, but her voice not heard. Eili thought that she was drunk, and spoke to her, rebuking her for her drunkenness. To this, Channah answered: “No, my lord, I am a woman in a difficult emotional place. I have not drunk any wine or intoxicating beverage. I am pouring out my soul to Hashem.” The posuk continues with Eili telling her to go in peace and that Hashem would grant her request (Shemuel I 1:9-17).

Channah the posek(es)

At this point, we can address our opening question:“How great a posek was Channah?”

The Gemara (Berachos 31a-b) devotes an extensive discussion to the above-quoted passage and derives many halachos from the verses of Channah.

“Behold, she is speaking ‘on her heart.’” from here we derive that whoever prays must be certain to have proper focus. All prayer should be accompanied by kavanas haleiv.”

In various places, the Gemara, the rishonim and the halachic authorities devote much discussion concerning the requirement of having proper kavanah and what to do to achieve it. Among the halachos taught is that one should not start davening immediately after having engaged in an intense Torah discussion. This is because the individual praying will be distracted by thinking about the questions and observations and will not focus on the kavanah necessary for tefillah. Rabbonim are often faced with this when well-meaning congregants come to ask them questions before davening, not realizing that they are creating a predicament for the rav. Halachically, he may be required to tell the congregant to have the patience not to ask his question until after davening, but some individuals are offended when their rav does not immediately attend to their question or need.

Returning to our passage of Gemara regarding the halachos that we derive from Channah’s behavior, the Gemara then notes that, while praying, only her lips were moving. The Gemara notes that we derive from Channah’s actions that a person must be careful to actually enunciate his prayers and not just think or read them.

“Yet, her voice was not heard.” The Gemara notes that Channah thereby teaches us that prayer should be said quietly. In a different part of Mesechta Berachos, the Gemara notes that praying aloud demonstrates that someone’s faith in Hakadosh Baruch Hu is weak (Berachos 24b), because he implies that prayer is heard only if one raises his voice!

A different passage of Gemara (Sotah 32b) teaches an additional reason to pray quietly: “For what reason did Chazal establish that prayer should be quiet? In order not to embarrass those who have sinned,” who, during their prayers, will be confessing to Hashem for their misdeeds. This lesson can be inferred from the halacha that the chatas offering, which is brought as atonement for sinning, is slaughtered in the northern part of the Beis Hamikdash or Mishkan Courtyard, the same place as the korban olah,a much more frequent offering that is brought to bring oneself closer to G-d. In both instances, the owner of the korban rests his weight on the head of the animal, semicha, immediately before it is slaughtered, because of the rule of teichef lismicha shechitah. Since most korbanos slaughtered in the northern area are korbanos olah, people in the northern part of the Courtyard will assume that the occasional person bringing a chatas is there to offer an olah, thus saving the chotei from great embarrassment.

Channah has taught us the halacha that we should pray quietly. How quietly? Some understand this to mean so quietly that you do not hear what you are saying, although the words must be enunciated and not just thought (Yesh Omrim quoted by Tur, Orach Chayim 101 and many others). Most contend that it is better if the person praying can hear his own words of prayer (Rashba, Berachos 31a; Tur, Orach Chayim, 101; Mishnah Berurah). All agree that you should pray quietly enough that someone else should not hear what you are praying, even when that person is standing right next to you (Mishnah Berurah).

The halacha is that, on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, when everyone is praying from a machzor, it is permitted to daven a bit louder, if this assists someone to have greater kavanah. Still, we must be careful not to daven so loudly that it disturbs anyone else.

Four amos

The Gemara derives another halacha from Channah’s words when she returned with Shemuel after weaning him. She said to Eili: Ani ha’isha hanitzeves imcha bazeh, “I am the woman who was standing with you here.” The implication is that Eili was also standing, and from this we learn the halacha that one is not allowed to sit down within four amos (about seven feet) of someone who is davening. Tosafos quotes the Teshuvas Ha’ge’onim that this applies only if the person who wishes to sit is not involved in reciting birkas keri’as shema or some similar holy activity. In the latter cases, it is permitted to sit, and this ruling is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 102:1). Also, the halacha permits someone weak to sit down within four amos of someone praying, particularly if there is nowhere else where he can sit down. In addition, the halacha permits someone who was already sitting to remain so, even if someone else begins davening within his four amos.

Giving tochacha

The Gemara discusses further the conversation that transpired between Eili and Channah. Since Channah’s lips were moving, but she did not appear to be saying anything, Eili assumed that she was intoxicated and mumbling incoherently. Eili tells her: “For how long will you be drunk? Remove your wine from you!”

The Gemara derives from his inquiry that, upon seeing someone doing something improper, I am responsible to bring it to his attention, even if the action does not necessarily violate a Torah prohibition (Tosafos, Berachos 31b, s.v. Davar).

Admonishing a drunk

At this point, we can ask a question on our own behavior. When we pass someone intoxicated on the street, do we point out to him his unbecoming manners, demeanor and lifestyle? Why don’t we follow the instructions of the Gemara, based on what Eili did?

There are several correct answers to this question. One possibility is that it is obvious that walking around in the Mishkan while intoxicated is inappropriate, and therefore anyone doing so should be rebuked. Another possibility is that Eili perceived that Channah would accept his admonition, and only when someone will listen to our tochacha should we admonish them (see Beitzah 30a). This is taught by Mishlei (9:8): Do not admonish a scoffer lest he hate you; admonish a wise man and he will love you.

Channah explained to Eili that she was praying and had not been drinking. From this act of hers we derive the halacha that if someone erroneously suspects us of doing something wrong, we should correct the misimpression. We see that this is true, even if it is a gadol hador who misunderstood our action. Rashi (Shemuel I 1:9) explains that, in addition to being kohein gadol, Eili had just been appointed the shofeit, or chieftain, over the Jewish people(see Ralbag ad loc.). [We should note that, upon Eili’s death after the destruction of Mishkan Shiloh, Shemuel assumed this position and became the last of the zekeinim or shoftim who ruled over the Jewish people, and the first of the spiritual era referred to, in the opening words of Pirkei Avos, as the period of the Nevi’im.]

The Gemara notes that Eili subsequently blessed Channah; this act teaches that, if you wrongly suspected someone of a misdeed, you are required to pacify him and also to bless him.

Mistaken impression

At this point, we can address the second of our opening questions: “If someone mistakenly thinks that you did something wrong, should you correct their misimpression?”

The answer is that you should explain his error to him in an appropriate way, even if the person who erred is one of the gedolei hador.

Shemuel Halevi

At this point, let us discuss the third of our opening questions: How do we know that Shemuel was a Levi? The Book of Shemuel makes no reference to Elkanah or Shemuel being Levi’im; it describes Elkanah as a resident of the Heights of Efrayim. I would have thought that he was from the tribe of Efrayim, except that Divrei Hayamim (I 6:19-23) seems to identify him as a Levi descended from Korach (see also Rashi and Ralbag, Shemuel I 1:1). Apparently, one of the 48 cities of the Levi’im was located on the mountains of Efrayim, and that was where Elkanah and his family lived (Rabbeinu Yeshaya).

An early midrash teaches the following story: “Every day, a heavenly voice (Bas Kol) would spread loudly across the world, saying, ‘A tzadik will arise whose name is Shemuel.’ Every woman who gave birth to a boy named her son ‘Shemuel.’ However, as the boy developed, they would say ‘this is not Shemuel.’ When Channah’s son was born and they saw how he acted, they all said, ‘This seems to be Shemuel’” (quoted by Rashi 1:23 and Yalkut Shimoni).

I know of no other period of time or any other individual in which many people heard a heavenly voice instructing that a great person bearing a certain name will soon be born. Presumably, this unique event reflects the exceptional roles that Shemuel played in Jewish history. The Gemara refers to him as “The Teacher of the Prophets” (Yerushalmi, Chagigah 2:1). Shemuel oversees the transfer of the mesorah from the shoftim, also called the zekeinim,to the prophets, the nevi’im. He also oversees the political change of Klal Yisrael to becoming a malchus, and its development from being twelve disparate tribes to becoming one nation. Perhaps we can now understand why Shemuel is compared to Moshe and Aharon – as the posuk says in Tehillim (99:6) – Moshe, and Aharon with his kehunah, and Shemuel with his announcing Hashem’s Name, call to Hashem and He answers them. In many ways, Shemuel’s role in Klal Yisrael was as significant as that of Moshe and Aharon.

Serving Hashem

As I mentioned above, the Gemara notes that Channah was the first to pray to Hashem as “the G-d of Hosts, ה’ צבאו-ת.” As Rav Hirsch explains, this Name refers to Hashem as the Guide, Leader and Master of a Universe filled with mammoth diversity. Hashem created this diversity and made it into an army of soldiers under His direct command, each with its specific place, equipment and function.  His plan assumes significance when all its tasks are carried out faithfully. Referring to Hashem as the “G-d of Hosts,” means accepting my mission to my assigned duty as a constituent of this vast army.

Channah requests a son, not for herself, but to dedicate to Hashem. She recognizes that we must entreat to attain nearness to Hashem by requesting assignment to our unique role in His army. Channah wants only to be able to be a handmaid to Hashem. When eventually she is granted her wish, she gives her all for this purpose. She even refrains from traveling to the Mishkan, so that the traveling should not interfere with her ability to nurse Shemuel properly. She understands that this is her specific assignment, even as a prophetess.

Rav Hirsch explains how all of this is Channah’s focus in serving Hashem. She does not request a special relationship with Hashem. She prays to have a small role in His vast Creation. She requests a role that is limited, to be one tiny cog in His immeasurable, cosmic army. And for that reason, when she weans Shemuel, she “donates” him to the Mikdash (Collected Writings of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume II, page 60).

Channah was also a prophetess, as mentioned in the Gemara (Megillah 14a). It appears that Shemuel was one of the very few individuals in world history whose parents were both prophets, and probably the last one after the generation of Yaakov Avinu.

Conclusion

Hebrew has over a dozen different verbs to describe prayer, each with a different nuance. By comparison, Yiddish, for example, has only two, daven and betten. Therefore, a tefillah described as a ze’akah is different from one described as techinah, which is again different from a prayer described as itur or sicha.

When Yitzchak and Rivkah pray to have a child, the Torah says va’yetar; itur is a verb that means a prayer that works like a pitchfork, pitching, changing a Divine decree, turning it upside down. Yet, a bitter-souled  Channah’s crying and praying to Hashem for a child is called a tefillah, va’tispallel, the most common, generic word for prayer, which has the connotation of judging myself, standing in front of Hashem and comparing His greatness relative to my tiny size, acknowledging all the ways that I am dependent on Him and all the chesed that Hashem has done for me. But why does the Torah use a special, relatively unusual verb to describe the prayers of Yitzchak and Rivkah, whereas it uses a generic word for prayer when describing Channah’s pleas?

I suspect that the reason for the difference is halachic. Had the navi used the word itur, we would have thought that the detailed laws taught by Channah’s prayer apply only to va’yetar-type prayers. The Navi wants us to apply these laws to all varieties of prayer, since Channah is an outstanding role model from whom to learn how to pray to Hashem. To apply all these halachos to all prayer requires that Channah’s entreaties be described as the quintessential, but regular prayer.

The Last Parsha of Shema

Parshas Va’eschanan contains the mitzvah of reciting the Shema morning and evening.

Question #1: Parshas Tzitzis and Shema

“Why is parshas tzitzis included in our daily recital of kerias Shema?”

Question #2: Mitzvos in Parshas Tzitzis

“How does parshas tzitzis remind us of all the mitzvos?”

Question #3: Women and Parshas Tzitzis

“Must women say parshas tzitzis daily?”

Answer

The very end of parshas Shelach, the maftir reading of the parsha, is usually called parshas tzitzis, which constitutes the last of the three paragraphs of the Shema. This section discusses the mitzvah of tzitzis; while doing so, the Torah notes that the mitzvah of tzitzis reminds us to keep all of Hashem’s mitzvos, and not to be swayed by “our hearts” and “our eyes” from fulfilling Hashem’s Will. The Gemara, itself, records an instance when someone was dissuaded from violating a serious prohibition of the Torah by his tzitzis (Menachos 44a). In this context, it is interesting to note a custom attributed to the Ariza”l of kissing the tzitzis when one recites the words acharei levav’chem ve’acharei eineichem.

(Some authorities raise an interesting question: Assuming that our forefathers observed the mitzvos before the Jewish people were commanded, how could Yehudah have been successfully tempted by Tamar – was he not wearing tzitzis? Rav Shelomoh Kluger, who raises this question, answers that Yehudah was indeed not doing anything sinful, since this act fulfilled the concept of yibum [Shu”t Ha’elef Lecha Shlomo, Even Ha’ezer #82].)

Tzitzis when not davening or not in shul

The Semag (Rav Moshe of Coucy, one of the baalei Tosafos, who wrote an extensive halachic work based on the 613 mitzvos) notes that the importance of remembering the message of the tzitzis is not primarily when davening, but during the workday, when we are exposed to all sorts of foreign influences – then, we need to remember our special relationship with Hashem.

Why is this part of the Shema?

What is special about parshas tzitzis that merited its inclusion in our daily recital of Shema? We easily see from the words of the first chapter of the Shema why this paragraph became part of a daily mitzvah. The first chapter of the Shema includes not only the most important credo of the Jew, the pasuk that begins Shema Yisroel, but also includes many important messages. One of them is that the words of the Torah are to be performed and studied when we wake up and when we go to sleep, thus teaching that there is a daily mitzvah to recite the Shema.

The second paragraph of the Shema, Vehayah im shamo’a, also includes most of the important themes that are in the first paragraph, so we can readily understand why this was made part of the daily recital of Shema. However, this does not explain why we should also recite the parshas tzitzis every morning and evening.

The Rambam (Hilchos Kerias Shema 1:2) explains that the reason we include parshas tzitzis in our daily reading of Shema is because it includes a commandment to observe all the mitzvos. A slightly variant approach predates the Rambam: The Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachos 1:5) explains that the three paragraphs of the Shema, together, include allusions to the entire aseres hadibros. Thus, all three paragraphs are necessary for us to be reminded daily of the Jewish people’s relationship and responsibility to Hashem.

All the mitzvos

The Torah teaches that looking at the tzitzis reminds us to keep all of Hashem’s mitzvos. How does looking at the tzitzis accomplish this? Rashi explains that the gematria of the word tzitzis is six hundred, and each of the tzitzis has eight threads and five knots, thus totaling the 613 mitzvos.

However, the Ramban takes issue with Rashi’s counting, noting that the word tzitzis is always spelled in the Torah tzadi, yud, tzadi, saf — without the second yud — which is a gematria of only 590, not 600, and therefore Rashi’s calculation comes up short. The Ramban also notes that not all tanna’im conclude that there must be eight strings in our tzitzis, and, furthermore, the requirement for five knots is not min haTorah. He concludes that the reminder of all the mitzvos is because of the techeiles thread, whose color reminds us of Heaven and our responsibilities to Hashem.

To resolve Rashi’s approach, the Semag explains that although the gematria of the word tzitzis is only 590, there is a midrash that states that although in the three iterations of the word tzitzis the second yud is not present, there is an extra lamid (whose numerical value is thirty) when the Torah states vehayah lachem letzitzis (it could have said simply vehayah lachem tzitzis); this lamid replaces the missing ten of each of the times the Torah records the word tzitzis. The midrash concludes with Rashi’s statement that there are eight threads and five knots to complete the number 613. Thus, Rashi’s source for his statement is a midrash of Chazal.

Order of Shema

Why do we recite the three paragraphs of Shema in the order that we do, first the passage beginning with the words Shema Yisroel, then the passage beginning with Vehayah im shamo’a and, finally, parshas tzitzis? The Mishnah (Berachos 13a) and Gemara (Berachos 14b) provide us with two explanations for our practice. The first reason is that the parsha of Shema Yisroel emphasizes that we are to accept the rule of Hashem, whereas the parsha of Vehaya im shamo’a mentions only the observance of mitzvos. Obviously, we must first recognize our connection to Hashem in order for us to realize the basis of our requirement to observe mitzvos. The parsha of Vehayah im shamo’a is recited prior to parshas tzitzis, because the mitzvos the second parsha emphasizes apply both by day and at night, whereas the third parsha emphasizes tzitzis, which is a mitzvah that applies only in the daytime. Nevertheless, we recite the parsha third also at night because it includes remembering the Exodus from Egypt. Including parshas tzitzis in the Shema recited at night fulfills the mitzvah of remembering the Exodus from Egypt also at night. Therefore, someone who davens maariv before nightfall should be careful to recite all three paragraphs of Shema after it gets dark.

A second reason why we recite these three sections in this order is because the first parsha emphasizes three different aspects of our relationship to Torah — to study, to teach and to perform mitzvos. The second emphasizes teaching and performing mitzvos, but does not stress studying.The third parsha discusses observing mitzvos but does not mention either studying Torah or teaching it.

How many themes?

How many different themes are mentioned in parshas tzitzis? The Gemara (Berachos 12b) notes that it includes six different themes:

1. The mitzvah of tzitzis.

2. Remembering the Exodus from Egypt.

3. The responsibility to observe all the mitzvos.

4. To withstand the temptation to be led astray by thoughts.

5. To withstand the temptation to be led astray by pleasure.

6. To avoid the temptation of idol worship.

(We should note that some texts of the Gemara state “five” themes, apparently combining the temptation of idol worship with one of the previous two themes.)

The Exodus from Egypt

The Torah requires that we mention the Exodus from Egypt every day. We are all familiar with the dispute among tanna’im discussed in the Seder whether there is a requirement to mention this every night, also. Our reciting the third parsha of Shema at night reflects the accepted opinion that requires us to mention yetzi’as Mitzrayim also at night.

Not to stray after your heart

What is included under the heading of lo sosuru acharei levavchem, “not to stray after your heart”?

The Gemara (Berachos 12b) states that “after your heart” refers to heretical ideas (minus), which the Semag (mitzvas lo saaseh #15) explains to mean that we are required not to focus our thoughts in ways that might cause us to have or accept wrong beliefs about Hashem and the Torah. For example, someone questioning whether Hashem is One, or what is above, below, in front or behind Him are all examples of obviously wrong ideas. Similarly, it is prohibited to deliberate concerning whether the Oral Torah is from Heaven. Through these methods, the Satan influences a person to deny proper beliefs. The Semaq, a later rishon, also includes in this prohibition someone who doubts the words of Chazal and someone who attempts to analyze deeply the pesukim in the Book of Yechezkel that Chazal forbade us from analyzing because of the high risk of error (Semaq, mitzvas lo saaseh #12). The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah #387) broadens the prohibition to include considering any ideas that are opposed to essential beliefs of the Torah, since these can direct a person to unacceptable beliefs (see also Biur Halacha 1:1 s.v. Hu).

What should someone if he feels himself inclined towards wrong ideas? The Sefer Hachinuch advises him to stop the trend of thought that he feels is going in the wrong direction and think about true and correct Torah beliefs. The author of the Ben Ish Chai composed a special prayer regarding the proper observance of this mitzvah, which is to be recited daily and is published in many editions of Sefardic siddurim.

We should note that the Rambam, based on the Sifrei, counts the mitzvah of lo sasuru as one of the 365 negative prohibitions of the Torah (lo saaseh #47). It is also important to note that this is one of only six mitzvos that one can fulfill at any time, the mitzvos temidios (see also Biur Halacha 1:1 s.v. Hu).

After your eyes

What is included under the heading of lo sosuru… acharei eineichem, “not to stray… after your eyes”?

This means not to allow ourselves to be led in the way of temptation, and to realize that this way is not going to lead to any long-term happiness. The Sefer Hachinuch notes that someone who follows such a path destroys himself, not only spiritually but also physically and emotionally. Furthermore, this leads his life in a very negative direction, and he will stray farther and farther from his life’s goals.

Among specific examples, Rabbeinu Yonah rules that someone looking at a married woman in a way that he enjoys her appearance violates this lo saaseh. This approach is codified by the Beis Yosef (Even Ha’ezer 21).

The Chofeitz Chayim broadens the prohibition of lo sosuru… acharei eineichem to include pursuing other pleasures and desires of this world. When a person experiences pleasure, he should have in mind that this is to enable him to stand in the King’s courtyard and not be too weak to serve Him. Thinking sinful thoughts and chasing after physical pleasures are sins that push a person out of this world and contaminate his entire body and spirituality (Sefer Hamitzvos Hakatzar, Mitzvah #31).

The temptation of idol worship

Among the topics mentioned in parshas tzitzis, the Gemara (Berachos 12b, quoted above) includes specifically a separate category, which is not to be tempted to worship idols. As the Sefer Hachinuch codifies this, “It is prohibited to direct your thoughts, conversations or even your glances toward idolatrous ideas, since these thoughts and acts can cause you to believe in idolatry…. Studying, because of curiosity, how they thought that this star accomplishes x, or this incense or this method of worship or this image is used to accomplish y, in order to understand how the idolaters worship their idols, is included under this prohibition (Sefer Hachinuch, Mitzvas lo saaseh #213). It is also interesting to note that the Gemara states that Hashem does not include a Jew’s evil thought to do something wrong as a deed, with the exception of someone who planned to worship idols, when the thought is combined with the deed and he receives punishment for both (Kiddushin 40a).

Women and Shema

Are women obligated to recite the Shema? After all, reciting Shema is a time-bound mitzvas aseih, and the general rule is that women are exempt from time-bound positive mitzvos.

The Mishnah (Berachos 20a) states that women are exempt from the mitzvah of reciting the Shema.

Notwithstanding that they are exempt from reciting the Shema, they are required to understand and accept all the concepts of the Shema, including that we constantly accept the responsibility of following Hashem’s instructions and rules. This is codified by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 70:1) in the following way: “Women… are exempt from reading the Shema, because it is a positive mitzvah that is time-bound. Yet, it is proper that they accept upon themselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.” To this the Rema adds, “And they should recite at least the first pasuk.”

The Bach rules that they are required to recite the first pasuk, but the Mishnah Berurah, citing the Gra, Levush, Olas Tamid and other authorities, notes the majority opinion that it is technically not a requirement for women to recite the Shema daily, but it is a proper thing for them to do.

The Magen Avraham, however, rules that women are obligated to mention the Exodus from Egypt, contending that since there is never a time that this mitzvah does not exist, it is not considered a time-bound mitzvah. The Sha’agas Aryeh disagrees with the Magen Avraham’s conclusion, contending that the daytime mitzvah of mentioning the Exodus and the nighttime mitzvah are both time-bound, and therefore women are exempt from this requirement. The Sha’agas Aryeh rallies support to his approach from the prevalent custom: in general, women do not have the practice of making sure that they mention yetzi’as Mitzrayim every day and every night. I leave it to each reader to discuss with her rav or posek to decide whether she is required to do so.

Do the six themes of parshas tzitzis fit together to explain one overall perspective? Indeed they do.

1. The mitzvah of tzitzis. A person’s goal in life is to serve Hashem and attain as close to perfection in this endeavor as he can. The message of tzitzis is to constantly remind ourselves of the Heavens and the Throne of Glory. We need to connect the outer manifestations of ourselves – our clothing – and the external expressions of our personality – our character traits, our actions and our emotions – to our inner spiritual goal, our purpose, in the same way that our clothes have special threads of tzitzis and techeiles.

2. Remembering the Exodus from Egypt. Yetzias Mitzrayim expands this theme. We are no longer slaves, subject to physical and moral repression. A slave cannot set goals for himself, since he is not under his own control. But liberation from slavery allows us to elevate ourselves and aspire toward our spiritual calling.

3. The responsibility to observe all the mitzvos. Practical mitzvos perpetuate the same message. All of our actions should connect with our overall objective. Thus, we attain completion in all aspects of our existence: our intellect, our conduct and our emotions.

The last three themes deal with avoiding three obstacles to this guideline

4. To withstand the temptation to be led astray by thoughts. This is the pitfall of heresy. The desire to avoid moral responsibility can lead to denial of Hashem or His Oneness.

5. To withstand the temptation to be led astray by pleasure. Without an objective and direction, the soul naturally seeks some other occupation, which leads it to the second pitfall: attraction to base and corrupt actions.

6. To avoid the temptation of idol worship. In the end, however, a self-indulgent lifestyle leaves the soul with feelings of insufferable emptiness. The soul recognizes that a life without meaning is a contradiction to its very essence. But since it has already lost its rational beacon by rejecting the light of truth, the soul seeks purpose and meaning in foreign cultures. It tries to find spiritual sustenance in broken cisterns, in idolatrous worship.

Thus, these three different obstacles each emphasize a different shortcoming. Heresy is against our intellectual honesty to Hashem; the temptation to be led astray by pleasure defies our proper conduct in Hashem’s ways; and the temptation of idol worship rules our emotions against Hashem’s will.

Conclusion

Thus, we see that this short passage includes the fundamental themes of Judaism. It describes that which gives our lives meaning and direction, and the major obstacles that can lead the soul astray. It is a fitting conclusion to our acceptance of Hashem’s Kingship in the Shema prayer.

How Many Should Be Saying Kaddish?

Question: Is it better that each mourner recite only one kaddish, or that all the mourners recite all the kaddeishim?

Answer: Most people are under the impression that whether the “mourner’s kaddish” (kaddish yasom) is recited by only one person or whether many recite it simultaneously is a dispute between the practices of Germany and those of Eastern Europe. However, we will soon see that this simplification is inaccurate. There were many communities in Eastern Europe where kaddish was said by only one person at a time, and this was the universal Ashkenazic practice until about 250 years ago.

The custom that many people recite the mourner’s kaddish simultaneously was accepted and standard Sefardic practice (meaning the Jews of North Africa and the Middle East), going back at least to the early 18th century (see Siddur Yaavetz, comments after Aleinu), although when this custom was instituted is uncertain. But before we explore the issue of whether more than one person may say kaddish simultaneously, let us first examine the origins of reciting the mourner’s kaddish altogether.

Origins of kaddish

Although the Gemara refers to kaddish in numerous places (Brachos 3a, 57a; Shabbos 119b; Sukkah 39a; Sotah 49a), it never mentions what we call kaddish yasom,the kaddish recited by mourners, nor does it recommend or even suggest, anywhere, that a mourner lead the services. The Gemara, also, makes no mention of when kaddish is recited, with the exception of a very cryptic reference to kaddish recited after studying aggadah (see Sotah 49a). A different early source, Masechta Sofrim, mentions recital of kaddish before borchu (10:7) and after musaf (19:12). The fact that the Gemara says nothing about a mourner reciting kaddish or leading services is especially unusual, since the most common source for these practices is an event that predates the Gemara. The Or Zarua, a rishon, records the following story:

Rabbi Akiva once saw a man covered head to toe with soot, carrying on his head the load that one would expect ten men to carry, and running like a horse. Rabbi Akiva stopped the man, and asked him: “Why are you working so hard? If you are a slave and your master works you this hard, I’ll redeem you. If you are so poor that you need to work this hard to support your family, I’ll find you better employment.”

The man replied, “Please do not detain me, lest those appointed over me get angry at me.”

Rabbi Akiva asked him: “Who are you, and what is your story?”

The man answered: “I died, and every day they send me like this to chop and carry these amounts of wood. When I am finished, they burn me with the wood that I have gathered.”

Rabbi Akiva asked him what his profession was when he was alive, to which he answered that he had been a tax collector (which, in their day, meant someone who purchased from the government the contract to collect taxes) who favored the rich by overtaxing the poor, which the Or Zarua calls “killing the poor.”

Rabbi Akiva: “Have you heard from your overseers whether there is any way to release you from your judgment?”

The man responded: “Please do not detain me, lest my overseers become angry with me. I have heard that there is no solution for me, except for one thing that I cannot do. I was told that if I have a son who would lead the tzibur in the recital of borchu or would recite kaddish so that the tzibur would answer yehei shemei rabba mevorach…, they would release me immediately from this suffering. However, I did not leave any sons, but a pregnant wife, and I have no idea if she gave birth to a male child, and if she did, whether anyone is concerned about teaching him, since I have not a friend left in the world.”

At that moment, Rabbi Akiva accepted upon himself to find whether a son existed and, if indeed he did, to teach him Torah until he could fulfill what was required to save his father. Rabbi Akiva asked the man for his name, his wife’s name, and the name of the town where he had lived. “My name is Akiva, my wife’s name is Shoshniva and I come from Ludkia.”

Rabbi Akiva traveled to Ludkia and asked people if they knew of a former resident, Akiva, the husband of Shoshniva, to which he received the following answer: “Let the bones of that scoundrel be ground to pulp.” When Rabbi Akiva asked about Shoshniva, he was answered: “May any memory of her be erased from the world.” He then inquired about their child, and was answered: “He is uncircumcised — for we were not interested in involving ourselves even to provide him with a bris milah!” Rabbi Akiva immediately began his search for the son, whom he located — it turned out that he was already a young adult. Rabbi Akiva performed a bris milah on him and attempted to teach him Torah, but was unable to do so. For forty days, Rabbi Akiva fasted, praying that the child be able to study Torah, at which time a heavenly voice announced: “Rabbi Akiva, now go and teach him Torah!”

Rabbi Akiva taught him Torah, shema, shemoneh esrei, birchas hamazon, and then brought him to shul in order for him to lead the tzibur by reciting kaddish and borchu, to which the tzibur responded, Yehei shemei rabba mevorach le’olam ule’olmei olemaya and “Baruch Hashem hamevorach le’olam va’ed.”

At that moment, Akiva, the husband of Shoshniva, was released from his punishment. This Akiva immediately came to Rabbi Akiva in a dream and told him: “May it be Hashem’s will that you eventually reach your eternal rest in Gan Eden — for you have saved me from Gehennom.” (This story is also found, with some variation, in the second chapter of Masechta Kallah Rabasi.)

Other versions

When a different rishon, the Rivash, was asked about this story, he reported that it is not found in the Gemara, but perhaps its origin is in Midrash Rabbah or Midrash Tanchuma. He then quotes a story from the Orchos Chayim similar to that quoted by the Or Zarua. In conclusion, the Orchos Chayim emphasizes that, for the twelve months of mourning, a mourner should recite the last kaddish of the davening, maftir on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and lead the services for ma’ariv every motza’ei Shabbos (Shu’t Harivash #115).

A similar story is recorded in an earlier midrashic source, the Tanna Devei Eliyahu, where the protagonist is not Rabbi Akiva but his rebbe’s rebbe, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai (see Rambam, Peirush Hamishnayos, end of the fifth chapter of Sotah). In this version, the man was punished until his son turned five and was educated to the point that he could answer borchu in shul (Eliyahu Zuta,Chapter 17). No mention is made of the son reciting kaddish. However, the halachic sources all quote the version of the Or Zarua, in which the protagonist of the story is Rabbi Akiva.

Merits for the deceased

This story serves as the basis for the practice that a mourner leads the services and recite kaddish. Relatively little of this topic is discussed until the time of the Maharil, who was asked the following question:

“Should someone who is uncertain whether his father or mother is still alive recite kaddish?”

To this question, frequent in earlier times when cell phones were not so commonplace, the Maharil replied that he is not required to recite kaddish and he should assume that his parent is still alive (see Mishnah, Gittin 3:3). Once the parent reaches the age of eighty, one should view it as uncertain whether the parent is still alive. Upon this basis, I am aware of a gadol be’Yisrael who had escaped Hitler’s Europe before the war, who began to recite kaddish for his parents once the Nazis invaded the part of Russia where his parents were living.

The Maharil continues that if there are two people in shul, one reciting kaddish for a deceased parent and one who is uncertain whether his parents are still alive, the second person should not recite kaddish. This is because of the halachic principle of ein safek motzi midei vadai, someone who has a questionable claim does not preempt someone who has a definite claim or right — the person whose parents might still be alive should not recite kaddish, rather than someone whose parents are known to be deceased. This ruling of the Maharil assumes that kaddish is recited by only one person at a time.

The Maharil explains that, for this reason, he himself did not say kaddish when he was uncertain whether his parents were still alive. He then explains that someone who is not sure whether his parents are still alive and is capable to lead the services properly should lead the services in honor of his parents (Teshuvos Maharil #36).

Conclusions based on the Maharil

We see from the Maharil’s discussion that:

–          Only one person recites kaddish at a time.

–          Someone with living parents should not recite mourner’s kaddish because he is pre-empting mourners from reciting kaddish.

–          When no mourner will be leading the services, someone uncertain if he is a mourner should do so, provided he can do the job properly.

Obligatory versus voluntary kaddish

The Maharil (Shu’t Maharil Hachadoshos #28) was also asked how may a minor recite kaddish if it is a required part of davening, as only one obligated to fulfill a mitzvah may fulfill a mitzvah on behalf of others. The Maharil answered that the kaddeishim that are recited by the shaliach tzibur as part of davening cannot be recited by minors. These kaddeishim are obligatory and must be recited by an adult, who fulfills the mitzvah on behalf of the community. However, non-obligatory kaddeishim, such as kaddish derabbanan and the kaddeishim recited at the end of davening, may be recited by minors. As a curious aside, the Mesechta Sofrim (10:7) explains that these kaddeishim were established primarily as make-up for people who arrived late and missed the kaddeishim that are required.

It is curious that, already in the time of the Maharil, people assumed that the mourner’s kaddeishim are more important than those of the chazzan. The Maharil points out that this is incorrect, since the kaddeishim recited by the chazzan are required, and it is greater to perform a mitzvah that is required than something non-obligatory (gadol ha’metzuveh ve’oseh mimi she’eino metzuveh ve’oseh). There is greater merit to recite the kaddeishim of the chazzan that are part of davening.

Since minors cannot be chazzan, the Maharil rules that they should be called up for maftir, which a minor may receive, since they thereby recite borchu in front of the tzibur.

Mourner’s kaddish on weekdays

It appears from the Maharil’s responsum that, prior to his era, kaddish yasom was recited only on Shabbos and Yom Tov. In his day, a new custom had just begun in some communities to recite mourner’s kaddish on weekdays. The new custom enabled minors to recite kaddish daily and accommodated adults whom the tzibur did not want leading services.

Which kaddeishim should be said?

The Maharil writes that although the following kaddeishim are not required but customary, they should still be recited: after a shiur is completed, after bameh madlikin on Friday evening, and after pesukim are recited, such as when we recite kaddish after aleinu and the shir shel yom. He rules that someone whose parents are still alive may recite these kaddeishim. However, if his parents do not want him to recite these kaddeishim, he should not.

One at a time

At this point, let us address our opening question: Is it better that each mourner recite only one kaddish, or that all the mourners recite all the kaddeishim?

It appears that, initially, whoever wanted to recite what we call today the mourner’s kaddeishim would do so. Knowing the story of Rabbi Akiva, it became an element of competition, with different people trying to chap the mitzvah. This situation sometimes engendered machlokes and chillul Hashem. To resolve this problem, two approaches developed for dealing with the issue. Sefardim followed the approach that all who wanted to say kaddish recited it in unison. This practice is praised by Rav Yaakov Emden in his commentary on the siddur (at the end of Aleinu). Among Ashkenazim, the approach used was to establish rules of prioritization, whereby one person at a time recited kaddish.

These prioritization rules are discussed and amplified by many later Ashkenazi authorities, implying that the early Ashkenazi world had only one person reciting kaddish at a time. We do not know exactly when the custom began to change, but by the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century, several major Ashkenazi authorities, among them the Chayei Odom (30:7) and the Chasam Sofer (Shu’t Orach Chayim #159; Yoreh Deah #345), discuss a practice whereby kaddish was recited by more than one person simultaneously. About this time, we find another custom in some communities, in which the mourner’s kaddish was said by only one person, but where everyone who chose could join in the recital of a kaddish derabbanan that was recited at the end of the daily morning prayer (see Shu’t Binyan Tziyon #1:122), presumably after the rav taught a shiur in halachah.

Merged community

With this background, we can understand the following mid-nineteenth century responsum. An Ashkenazi community had two shullen and several shteiblach. The main shul was in serious disrepair, so an agreement was made to close all the smaller shullen in order to pool resources and invest in one large, beautiful new shul and have no other minyanim. Part of the plan was that the new shul would permit all mourners to recite all the kaddeishim in unison. Subsequently, some individuals claimed that the community should follow the practice of the Rema and the Magen Avraham of prioritizing the recital of kaddish and having one person say it at a time. The community leaders retorted that this would create machlokes, since there would be only one shul and many people would like to say more kaddeishim than they can under the proposed system. Apparently, the dispute even involved some fisticuffs. The community sent the shaylah to Rav Ber Oppenheim, the rav and av beis din of Eibenschutz. He felt that the community practice of having all the mourners recite kaddish together should be maintained, but first wrote an extensive letter clarifying his position, which he sent to Rav Yaakov Ettlinger, the premier halachic authority of central Europe at the time. I will refer to Rav Ettlinger by the name he is usually called in yeshiva circles, the Aruch Laneir, the name of his most famous work, the multi-volumed Aruch Laneir commentary on much of Shas. The Aruch Laneir’s reply was subsequently published in his work of responsa called Shu’t Binyan Tziyon.

The Aruch Laneir contended that one should not change the established minhag of Germany and Poland, in practice for more than three hundred years, in which only one person recites kaddish at a time. He further notes that, although the Yaavetz had praised the practice that several people recite kaddish in unison, the Yaavetz himself had lived in Altoona, Germany, where the accepted practice was that only one person said kaddish at a time. (The Aruch Laneir notes that he himself was the current rav of Altoona and had been so already for several decades.)

Furthermore, the Aruch Laneir contends that one cannot compare Ashkenazic to Sefardic observance for a practical reason. The Sefardim are accustomed to praying in unison, and therefore, when they say kaddish, everyone exhibits great care to synchronize its recital. When Ashkenazim attempt to recite kaddish in unison, no one hears the kaddeishim. The Aruch Laneir notes that when the kaddish derabbanan is recited by all mourners, the result is a cacophony. He writes that he wishes he could abolish this custom, since, as a result, no one hears or responds appropriately to kaddish.

In conclusion, the Aruch Laneir is adamant that where the custom is that one person at a time recite kaddish, one may not change the practice. On the other hand, we have seen that other authorities cite a custom whereby all the mourners recite kaddish in unison.

Conclusion: How does kaddish work?

The Gemara (Yoma 86a) records that any sin that a person commits in this world, no matter how grievous, will be atoned if the person does teshuvah. This does not mean that the teshuvah accomplishes atonement without any suffering. Some sins are so serious that a person must undergo suffering in this world, in addition to performing teshuvah, before he is forgiven.

The greatest sin a person can be guilty of is chillul Hashem. Only teshuvah, suffering, and the individual’s eventual demise will be sufficient to atone for this transgression. Thus, a person’s death may result from his having caused a chillul Hashem.

The Maharal of Prague had a brother, Rav Chayim, who authored a work entitled Sefer Hachayim, in which he writes that most people die because they made a chillul Hashem at some point in their life. The reason a mourner recites kaddish is to use the parent’s death as a reason to create kiddush Hashem – by reciting kaddish – thus, atoning for the original chillul Hashem (Sefer Hachayim, end of chapter 8). May we all merit creating kiddush Hashem in our lives.

Second Zachor Readings

Question #1: Birchos haTorah min haTorah

Is birchos haTorah min haTorah?

Question #2: Parshas Zachor

Should a second parshas Zachor reading have a minyan?

Question #3: America, America

Is there an American angle to this halachic discussion?

Foreword

The halachic authorities dispute whether women are obligated to hear parshas Zachor, the Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah #603) ruling that they are exempt, whereas Rav Yaakov Ettlinger (author of Aruch Laneir and posek hador of western and central Europe during his lifetime), obligates them (Shu”t Binyan Tzion 2:8). A third opinion is that, although women are definitely required to observe the mitzvah of remembering what Amalek did to us, they are not required to hear parshas Zachor because it is a time-bound mitzvah miderabbanan (Shu”t Toras Chayim, Orach Chayim #37; Kaf Hachayim 685:30).

There is a second dispute, whether an individual is required min haTorah to hear the reading of parshas Zachor with a minyan, annually, which some rishonim require (Rosh, Berachos 7:20; Terumas Hadeshen 1:108) and others exempt (Sefer Hachinuch). If we combine the strictest interpretation of both rulings, we would conclude that women are obligated min haTorah to hear parshas Zachor annually with a minyan, although I am unaware of any early halachic authorities who rule this way.

In contemporary practice, women strive to hear parshas Zachor. To enable those taking care of children during the morning reading, many shullen schedule an additional reading some time later that day, to facilitate the hearing of parshas Zachor.

Some contemporary authorities have questioned this practice because of the following observation: There are poskim who forbid reading from a sefer Torah in public without reciting a berocha before and after the reading (Toras Raphael, Hilchos Keri’as HaTorah #2). This is based on the ruling of earlier prominent authorities who contend that such readings require the recital of a berocha min haTorah (Be’er Sheva, Sotah 41a; Shu”t Mishkenos Yaakov, Orach Chayim #63). Several early authorities attribute this position to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shu”t Meishiv Davar 1:16; cf., however, Toras Raphael who disagrees) or other very early sources.

On the other hand, when there is no obligation to read from the Torah, many authorities forbid reciting a berocha when reading from a sefer Torah, considering it a berocha levatalah, one recited in vain (Elyah Rabbah 566:3; Pri Megadim, Mishbetzos Zahav Orach Chayim 566:7; Chayei Adam 31:11; Meishiv Davar 1:16; Shu”t Har Tzvi, Orach Chayim #52, #69, #70). This may potentially create a conundrum: It would be forbidden to recite berochos for an extra reading of parshas Zachor because of concerns about berocha levatalah. Yet, some authorities prohibit reading from the Torah in public without a berocha. Thus, we have a predicament whose obvious solution is to avoid extra public reading from a sefer Torah. On the other hand, we want to have an extra reading to facilitate fulfilling the mitzvah for those who cannot be in shul for the regular reading.

Other readings

A similar, but not identical, shaylah occurs on several other occasions, depending on various local customs. Many have the minhag to read sefer Devarim, or sections thereof, from a sefer Torah on the night of Hoshana Rabba. Similarly, many Chassidic kehillos read, on the first twelve days of Nisan, the passage in parshas Naso describing the dedication of the Mishkan, called parshas hanesi’im. There was also a custom that, upon completing the writing of a new sefer Torah, the sofer read from the brand new sefer Torah in front of the assembled (Toras Raphael). Other customs of reading from a sefer Torah on various occasions are recorded in different halachic sources (e.g., Shu”t Tashbeitz 2:39; Levush; Shu”t Minchas Yitzchak 8:84). Explaining the sources for this discussion and suggesting resolutions is the topic of this article.

Introduction

After the Rambam wrote his Sefer Hamitzvos, in which he listed his opinion of the count of the 613 mitzvos, the Ramban wrote an extensive commentary disputing dozens of points made by the Rambam. The Ramban also listed 34 mitzvos, 17 mitzvos aseih and 17 mitzvos lo saaseh, which he felt should be included in the count of the mitzvos according to the Rambam’s rules, but were omitted. In the Ramban’s listing of the “missing” mitzvos aseih, he includes the mitzvah (#15) to recite a berocha prior to reading the Torah.

Although it is unclear whether the Ramban here is counting a mitzvah to recite birkas haTorah prior to studying Torah, or a mitzvah to recite it prior to reading from a sefer Torah, several authorities assume that he meant the latter. In other words, although reading the Torah in public is not required min haTorah, when doing so, the requirement to recite a berocha is. All halachic authorities agree that the berocha after an aliyah is only a mitzvah miderabbanan.

Berocha before leining

The major discussion on this topic stems from the writings of three prominent acharonim, the Be’er Sheva (commentary to Sotah 41a), the Mishkenos Yaakov (Shu”t Mishkenos Yaakov, Orach Chayim #63) and the Toras Raphael (Hilchos Birchos haTorah #2).

These acharonim base themselves on a careful analysis of a passage of Gemara:

Rav Yehudah said, “What is the source from which we know that there is a requirement min haTorah to recite birkas hamazon after eating: ‘When you have eaten and been satisfied, you shall bless Hashem, your G-d, for the wonderful land that He gave you’ (Devarim 8:10). What is the source from which we know that there is a requirement min haTorah to recite birkas haTorah before Torah: ki sheim Hashem ekra, havu godel lei’lokeinu (Berachos 21a, based on Devarim 32:3), in which Moshe told the Jewish people, ‘I am about to sing praise to Hashem. Prior to my doing so, I will recite a berocha (ki sheim Hashem ekra) to which you should answer amen’” (havu godel lei’lokeinu) [Rashi, Berachos 21a s.v. Ki].

(1) What did Rav Yehudah mean when he required a “berocha before Torah?” Was he referring to:

            (a) What we usually call talmud Torah or limud Torah,or

            (b) Before reading from a sefer Torah, what we usually call keri’as haTorah?

(2) If he meant what we usually call limud Torah, what type of limud Torah is included?

The Gemara (Berachos 11b) cites a four-way dispute among amora’im what type of limud Torah requires birkas haTorah:

            (a) Only the written Torah.

            (b) The written Torah and the halachic midrashim on the written Torah.

            (c) In addition to the above, also before studying Mishnah.

            (d) In addition to everything mentioned above, also before studying Gemara.

The Gemara concludes that we recite birkas haTorah prior to any type of Torah learning. However, this does not teach us whether this is required min haTorah or only miderabbanan.

Let us return to the passage of Gemara quoting Rav Yehudah’s ruling that birkas haTorah is min haTorah and is derived from the pasuk in parshas Ha’azinu.

Rabbi Yochanan then adds to, and somewhat disagrees with, Rav Yehudah’s statement by claiming that, with the use of two applications of the principle of kal vechomer, we can derive that reciting a berocha before eating is min haTorah, as well as a berocha recited after learning. The Gemara ultimately refutes the applications of kal vechomer and, therefore, Rabbi Yochanan’s two rulings. Thus, recital of a berocha before eating and after learning are not required min haTorah.

The question that concerns the Be’er Sheva and the Mishkenos Ya’akov is:

To which berocha after Torah is Rabbi Yochanan referring? The only time we ever recite a berocha after Torah is the berocha recited after keri’as haTorah. This implies that the “berocha before Torah,” which both Rav Yehudah and Rabbi Yochanan agree is min haTorah, means the berocha recited before reading the Torah in public. The Be’er Sheva and the Mishkenos Ya’akov, therefore, conclude that the requirement min haTorah of birkas haTorah applies when reading the Torah in public. This includes:

(A) What we call keri’as haTorah on Shabbos, Mondays, Thursdays and holidays.

(B) The mitzvah of hakheil, when the Jewish king reads selections of sefer Devarim to the entire Jewish people on chol hamo’ed Sukkos in the year following shemittah (Mishnah Sotah 40b).

(C) When the Yisraelim who were on ma’amados, “Temple Duty,” read the Torah daily, during their rotation at the Beis Hamikdash (Mishnah Ta’anis 26a).

These acharonim conclude that the mitzvah of reciting birkas haTorah before we begin studying Torah every day is only miderabbanan.

Because the Be’er Sheva and the Mishkenos Yaakov conclude that both Rav Yehudah and Rabbi Yochanan agree that there is a requirement min haTorah to recite a berocha prior to any public reading of the Torah, this applies even if someone already recited birkas haTorah earlier in the day. The earlier recitation fulfilled only a mitzvah miderabbana, while the subsequent reading of the Torah in public requires recital of a berocha min haTorah.

However, as mentioned above, many authorities prohibit reciting birkas haTorah on a reading of the Torah that was not instituted either by the Torah or by Chazal. An interesting historical example is when the Netziv was asked, in the 1880’s, by a rav in Cincinnati the following shaylah: The community was dedicating a new sefer Torah, and the convenient day to schedule the dedication was Sunday, when people were off from work. In honor of the auspicious occasion, one of the organizers included a reading of the Torah, complete with berachos. The rav in Cincinnati strongly opposed this, contending that the berachos would constitute berachos levatalah, since Chazal never established reading the Torah on a Sunday that is not a Jewish holiday. The Netziv agreed with the rav’s ruling, commenting that it is permitted to read from the Torah, providing that no berachos were recited. However, according to the Be’er Sheva and the Mishkenos Yaakov, it is prohibited min haTorah to read from the Torah in public without reciting birkas haTorah.

Family feud

On the other hand, in response to a similar shaylah, Rav Raphael Shapiro, the Netziv’s son-in-law, author of Toras Raphael, ruled that it is prohibited to read from the Torah altogether. This is because some authorities prohibit reciting a berocha on this reading, and others, the Be’er Sheva and the Mishkenos Yaakov, rule that it is prohibited min haTorah to read the Torah without first reciting a berocha. The Toras Raphael concludes that the only solution is not to read from the Torah in public when it is not required.

Birchos haTorah min haTorah

At this point, we can address our opening question: Is birchos haTorah min haTorah?

The answer is somewhat complicated. According to the Ramban, there is definitely a requirement min haTorah, at times, to recite birchos haTorah. However, it is uncertain whether this means before studying Torah every day, or before reading the Torah in public. Among the rishonim,we find a dispute whether birchos haTorah before studying Torah every day is required min haTorah, a dispute that the Toras Raphael analyzes at great length. And we have two very prominent acharonim, the Be’er Sheva and the Mishkenos Yaakov, who contend that the requirement to recite birchos haTorah is min haTorah only before reading the Torah in public, but not when studying the Torah, in which case the requirement is only miderabbanan.

Later authorities

The question concerning whether we may read from the Torah in public to fulfill a custom without reciting birchos haTorah is discussed in some more recent teshuvos and articles. For example, Shu”t Minchas Yitzchak (8:84) discusses the custom, particularly but not exclusively, among Chassidim, of reading from a sefer Torah on the first twelve days of Nisan the portion of parshas Naso that describes the offerings that the nesi’im brought when the Mishkan was dedicated. Those who observe this custom do not recite a berocha before reading the Torah, nor should they, since most authorities rule that such a berocha would be levatalah, since no takkanas chachamim is observed. However, according to the Toras Raphael, it would seem that this should not be read with a minyan present, in order not to violate (according to the Be’er Sheva and the Mishkenos Yaakov) the mitzvas aseih of reading from a sefer Torah without a berocha.

Disputing the analysis of the Toras Raphael, the Minchas Yitzchak explains that, although these early poskim ruled that the requirement to recite birkas haTorah before keri’as haTorah is min haTorah, they never stated that it is required to recite a berocha prior to a reading that is optional. The Minchas Yitzchak concludes that since many great talmidei chachamim read from the Torah parshas nesi’im in the month of Nisan without reciting a berocha, this is the accepted halacha, not the ruling of the Toras Raphael.

Another, similar reason why these practices do not conflict with the ruling of the early acharonim is that, in these instances, each individual would like to read the Torah by himself, and the public reading is simply because of efficiency. Therefore, this is not considered a public reading of the Torah and there is no requirement to recite birchos haTorah (Shu”t Teshuvos Vehanhagos 1:380). Rav Moishe Shternbuch, who suggested this last approach, was referring to the custom of reading the book of Devarim on the night of Hoshanah Rabbah, which is also performed without a berocha.

Parshas Zachor

At this point, we can address the second of our opening questions: Should a second parshas Zachor reading have a minyan?

Now we can understand our conundrum: If a second parshas Zachor reading is scheduled and there is a minyan in attendance, the Toras Raphael would certainly require the recital of a berocha. According to the Be’er Sheva and the Mishkenos Ya’akov, it would seem that it is prohibited to read the additional reading of parshas Zachor without first reciting a berocha, because this violates the mitzvas aseih of the Torah. On the other hand, if no one is required to still hear the reading of parshas Zachor, many authorities would rule that reciting a berocha is a berocha levatalah. According to the Netziv, there would be nothing wrong with reading from the Torah when Chazal did not require it, as long as no berocha is recited. Thus, in his opinion, the second reading may take place as long as no berocha is recited. However, according to the Toras Raphael, we should, perhaps, not read the Torah in public at all, to avoid getting involved in the dispute. A simple solution might be not to have a minyan when the second reading takes place.

America, America

Is there an American angle to this halachic discussion?

Surprising as this might be, there are several angles to this discussion that involve American Jewish individuals and communities. I mentioned above that the responsum of the Netziv was addressed to a rav in Cincinnati, although I have no idea as to the identity of the rav. By doing some research, I was able to determine that the responsum of his son-in-law, the Toras Raphael, was addressed to Rav Yehudah Eliezer Anixter, a talmid of the Volozhin yeshivah who immigrated to the United States in 1871, eventually becoming a prominent rav in Rochester and Chicago, and the author of a sefer titled Chiddushei Avi. The Toras Raphael read one of the responsa in Chiddushei Avi and wrote the author his own responsum, in partial disagreement with Rav Anixter’s conclusion. And the above quoted Minchas Yitzchak was penned in reference to Chassidim from America visiting Eretz Yisroel who noted that the method of reading the parshas ha’nesi’im was done differently in Eretz Yisroel from the way it is done in chutz la’aretz, and asked the Minchas Yitzchak which approach is preferred.

Conclusion

In the introduction to Sefer HaChinuch, the author writes that the main mitzvah upon which all the other mitzvos rest is that of Talmud Torah. Through Torah learning, a person will know how to fulfill all of the other mitzvos. That is why Chazal instituted a public reading of a portion of the Torah every Shabbos, twice, and on Mondays and Thursdays. Knowing that the proper observance of all the mitzvos is contingent on Torah learning, our attention to keri’as haTorah will be increased, as well as our sensitivity to the recital of its berachos and our kavanah when reciting and listening to those berachos. This should lead to greater respect and attentiveness to the observance of all the mitzvos.

A Rishon Letzion Named Rapaport

Question #1: Fragrances on Motza’ei Yom Tov

May I include fragrances as part of havdalah when Yom Tov ends?

Question #2: Late Asher Yatzar

How long do I have to recite Asher Yatzar?

Question #3: Davening Outdoors

Is it permitted to daven in the courtyard outside a shul?

Question #4: A Rishon Letzion Named Rapaport

What do any of these questions have to do with parshas Shemos?

Foreword:

Rishon Letziyon is an old traditional title for the Sefardi rav of Yerushalayim. How did someone named Rapaport, which is a classic Ashkenazi family name, become Rishon Letziyon?

Introduction:

Parshas Shemos teaches that, for disobeying Pharaoh’s murderous commands, the Jewish midwives merited the “building of houses.” This is explained by the Midrash, quoted by Rashi, to mean that they were granted batei kehunah and batei malchus. Miriam was rewarded with batei malchus, that the royal house of Dovid Hamelech descended from her, and Yocheved merited batei kehunah — all kohanim are descended from her. The words batei kehunah mean “houses of kehunah,” which is a bit strange: why don’t Chazal simply call it beis kehunah, “the house of kehunah?” Although we will not answer this question, it became the source of the title of an important halachic work.

Batei Kehunah

A gadol beYisroel who lived three hundred years ago was descended from kohanim on both his father’s and his mother’s sides. Based on his lineage, he named his Torah works Batei Kehunah. This gadol, who is hardly known in the Ashkenazi world, carried the name Rav Yitzchak HaKohen Rapaport. He was the chacham bashi — a title for chief rabbi of a large city — in the Ottoman Empire, first of Izmir, Turkey, and subsequently became both the chacham bashi and the Rishon Letziyon of Yerushalayim. In numerous places, the Chida refers to the Batei Kehunah as the mofeis hador, or as mofeis doroseinu, “the wonder of our generation.” Considering that this was the same era in which lived such luminaries as the Gra, the Pnei Yehoshua, the Sha’agas Aryeh, the Noda Biyehudah, the Maharit Algazi and the Chida himself, this is a rather impressive accolade.

Rav Yitzchak Hakohen Rapaport

Rav Yitzchak Hakohen Rapaport was born in Jerusalem in 5445 (1685) to Rabbi Yehudah Rapaport. Rav Yitzchak’s father was born in Lublin, Poland, made aliyah to Eretz Yisrael, and there married the daughter of a family of major Torah scholars, who were kohanim and Sefardim. Thus, although Rav Yitzchak’s father had been born in Poland, hence the family name Rapaport, he was raised in a completely Sefardi environment. There was no Ashkenazi community in Eretz Yisrael at the time, and therefore Rav Yitzchak treated himself completely as a Sefardi. This explains how a Rishon Letzion could have such an Ashkenazi last name.

In his youth, Rav Yitzchak studied in the yeshiva of the Pri Chodosh, Rav Chizkiyah Di Silva. In his introduction to Batei Kehunah, Rav Yitzchak explains that he never left the beis medrash for fear that he would miss some of his rebbe’s Torah or that of the other great men who studied there. After the Pri Chodosh’s premature passing (according to various versions, he was somewhere between the ages of 39 and 46 when he passed away), Rav Yitzchak studied under the new rosh yeshiva, Rav Avraham Yitzchak, the author of the work Zera Avraham, another work well known in Sefardi circles, but that receives reactions of “what is that” among Ashkenazim.

Although Rav Yitzchak Rapaport always viewed himself as a resident of Yerushalayim, he served as the rav of Izmer for forty years, after which he returned to Yerushalayim, and was then appointed chacham bashi of the Holy City and Rishon Letzion. Among the Batei Kehunah’s many brilliant students, both from his period in Turkey and in Yerushalayim, we find an entire generation of gedolei Yisroel: the Maharit Algazi, the Chida, the Shaar Hamelech, the Ma’aseh Rokeach and Rav Mordechai Rebbiyo, the rav and rosh yeshivah of Hevron, author of the teshuvos Shemen Hamor.

Since this is a halachic column, I will discuss some of the interesting halachic positions of the Batei Kehunah, most of which we know because they are quoted by the Chida, who perused the private library of the Batei Kehunah after the latter’s passing in 5515 (1755). The library included notes written in the margins of his seforim, unpublished teshuvos and other private writings and manuscripts that the Chida quoted, predominantly in his Birkei Yosef commentary to the Shulchan Aruch, most of which would otherwise have become lost to future generations.

Fragrances on Motza’ei Yom Tov

Our opening question was: “May I include fragrances as part of havdalah when Yom Tov ends?” Let me explain the background to this question. The Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 29:28) writes that when Yom Tov falls out midweek, at its end we are not required to recite the berachos on fragrances and on a lamp, unlike what we do every motza’ei Shabbos. The Rambam explains that we recite the beracha on fragrances on motza’ei Shabbos because our souls ache when Shabbos ends, and we provide them with some consolation with the pleasant fragrance. The Magid Mishnah raises the following questions about the Rambam’s statement:

(1) Indeed, why is the custom that we not smell fragrances when Yom Tov ends, just as we do when Shabbos ends?

(2) Why does the Rambam write that “we are not required to recite the beracha on fragrances?” Shouldn’t he write that we do not recite the  beracha on fragrances?

The Magid Mishnah answers that the soul aches only when Shabbos ends, because the sanctity of Shabbos is greater, as evidenced by the fact that we are not permitted to perform any melacha. Since cooking food and similar melachos are permitted on Yom Tov, the soul does not ache when Yom Tov ends.

If this is so, the Magid Mishnah asks, why do we not recite the beracha on fragrances as part of the kiddush/havdalah combination when Yom Tov is on motza’ei Shabbos, since the soul aches that Shabbos has ended? The Magid Mishnah answers that the festive celebration of Yom Tov consoles the aching soul the same way that fragrances would, thus rendering the use of besamim unnecessary. The Magid Mishnah then notes that the Rambam writes, “we are not required to recite the berachos on fragrances” when Yom Tov ends, because one can always take fragrances and recite a beracha before smelling them.

The Yad Aharon questions the wording of the Magid Mishnah that the custom is to not recite the beracha over fragrances as part of havdalah on Yom Tov. Would this not be an interruption in the havdalah, since it is not required?

The Chida (Birkei Yosef 491:3) quotes his rebbe, the Batei Kehunah, who wrote in the margin of his own personal copy of the Rambam that the Magid Mishneh wrote his comments very precisely. There would be no problem were someone to include besamim in his havdalah after Yom Tov. And the reason why the minhag is to forgo the besamim is because the soul does not ache when Yom Tov ends to the same extent that it does when Shabbos ends.

Late Asher Yatzar

At this point, let us analyze the second of our opening questions: How long do I have to recite Asher Yatzar?

The Levush discusses whether someone who does not have a need to relieve himself upon awaking recites Asher Yatzar anyway. He rules that he recites Asher Yatzar, because he undoubtedly relieved himself during the night without reciting Asher Yatzar – thus, he has an outstanding requirement to recite Asher Yatzar. The Adei Zahav, an early commentary on the Levush by Rav Menachem de Lunzanu, disagrees with the Levush, contending that, even if the Levush’s technical assumptions are correct – that we should assume that most people relieved themselves during the night without reciting Asher Yatzar – a person should still not recite Asher Yatzar upon awaking, because the time within which Asher Yatzar must be recited has expired by morning. The Adei Zahav rules that Asher Yatzar must be recited no more than six hours after relieving himself, and during the long winter nights, someone presumably has slept longer than that since he last relieved himself.

What is the source for the Adei Zahav’s ruling that Asher Yatzar must be recited within six hours? The Mishnah (Berachos 51b) states that you can recite an after blessing until the food that was eaten has been digested. The Gemara (Berachos 53b) discusses how long a time this is, Rabbi Yochanan ruling that it is until you are hungry again, whereas Reish Lakish seems to hold that it is the time it takes to walk four mil, which most authorities understand to be 72 minutes. (Some hold that it is a bit longer.) The Adei Zahav assumes that, according to Rabbi Yochanan, it takes six hours for someone to be hungry again after eating a full meal. The Adei Zahav explains that the time for Asher Yatzar, which is a rabbinic requirement, cannot be longer than it is for bensching, which is required min haTorah. Therefore, he concludes that the longest time within which someone can recite Asher Yatzar is six hours after relieving himself.

Never too late

The Yad Aharon disagrees with the Adei Zahav, contending that although an after beracha is associated with the food or beverage that was consumed and, therefore, can be recited only as long as one is still satiated from what he ate, Asher Yatzar is a general beracha of thanks to Hashem and never becomes too late to recite. This approach would explain the position of the Levush that someone can recite Asher Yatzar in the morning, notwithstanding that it might be far more than six hours since he relieved himself.

The Chida, after quoting the above literature, states, “The mofeis of our generation, our master and rebbe, wrote in the margin of his personal copy that the Yad Aharon’s understanding is inaccurate. The rishonim explain that berachos after eating are appreciation… Asher Yatzar is a beracha for the salvation and also for the relief of the discomfort” (Birkei Yosef, Orach Chayim 6:3). Later in his comments, the Chida explains that the Batei Kehunah held that Asher Yatzar has an expiration time, although he never shared with us how long he holds that would be.

There are other reasons to support the Levush’s position that someone should recite Asher Yatzar upon waking in the morning, even if he has no need to relieve himself. The Bach explains that Asher Yatzar should be treated like any other of the morning daily berachos, birkos hashachar, which most authorities assume are recited even if someone did not have a specific reason to recite them – such as, he is not wearing shoes or he is unable to rise from bed. Thus, even if someone had no need to use the facilities upon arising, he still should recite Asher Yatzar in the morning. This position is held by many other poskim, particularly the Rema (Orach Chayim 4:1), although he does not explain why he holds this way (see Magen Avraham 4:2; Elyah Rabbah 4:1; Aruch Hashulchan, Orach Chayim 6:1; Mishnah Berurah 4:3). However, the Levush appears to disagree with this opinion of his rebbe, the Rema, and the Bach, implying that only someone who relieves himself recites the beracha Asher Yatzar, a position held by many other authorities (Arizal; Adei Zahav; Birkei Yosef).

The Levush himself (Orach Chayim 7:3) notes that the laws of Asher Yatzar should not be compared to the laws of berachos on food, since reciting Asher Yatzar is part of nature (we refer in English to a “call of nature”), whereas when and what we eat is an individual’s choice. The Levush and the Elyah Zuta (4: 1) both contend that this last distinction means that there is no time limit for reciting Asher Yatzar; however, the Chida questions whether this distinction makes any difference. In yet a third place (Orach Chayim 47:6 in his sidenote), the Levush again alludes to this topic, contending that, like the berachos prior to studying Torah, Asher Yatzar is not dependent on the time it takes to digest food.

Other acharonim add another idea. The beracha of Asher Yatzar includes an acknowledgement that there are apertures in the body that must remain open. Since this is something that we must acknowledge always, it is always appropriate to recite this beracha. Furthermore, the beracha of Asher Yatzar includes acknowledgement of the removal of ruach ra, which happens when we wash our hands upon awakening and when washing our hands after using the facilities. As such, Asher Yatzar is always appropriate upon awaking in the morning (Bach; Elyah Rabbah).

Among the many opinions explaining the Levush, many differences in halacha result. If the time for reciting Asher Yatzar never expires, someone who forgot to recite Asher Yatzar after relieving himself, when he remembers he should recite Asher Yatzar, regardless of how much time has transpired. According to the Adei Zahav, he should recite Asher Yatzar only within six hours of relieving himself.

Davening Outdoors

At this point, let us discuss the third of our opening questions: “Is it permitted to daven in the courtyard outside a shul?”

Based on a verse in Daniel (6:11), the Gemara (Berachos 34b) rules that a person should daven in a building that has windows. Rashi explains that looking at the sky humbles a person, causing him to daven with greater kavanah. The Gemara then quotes Rav Kahana that davening in an open field is considered an act of chutzpah. Rashi explains that davening in a place that is relatively notexposed, rather than an open field, creates greater fear of the King, and the individual’s stubborn heart is broken.

The poskim explain that this refers to a situation where the person has an alternative. However, someone traveling, and the best place to daven is an open field, may daven there, and it is not a chutzpah (Magen Avraham; Mishnah Berurah).

Tosafos asks: According to the Gemara, when Yitzchak went lasuach basadeh (Bereishis 24:63), he went to pray (Berachos 26b), so how could Rav Kahana call this an act of chutzpah?

Tosafos provides two answers to his question.

(1) Yitzchak went to Har Hamoriyah to daven, which is where the Beis Hamikdash would be built, implying that this is certainly a place that will create greater fear of Heaven and more humility.

(2) Rav Kahana is discouraging davening in an open place, where his prayer may be disturbed by passersby, whereas Yitzchak was in an area where there was no one to disturb him.

According to the second answer of Tosafos, there is nothing wrong with davening in a place that is completely exposed, as long as he is comfortable that no one will disturb his prayers. According to his first answer, this is not true. We should note that Rashi’s reason disagrees with Tosafos’s second answer, and Rashi may accept Tosafos’s first reason (see next paragraph).

The Beis Yosef questions Tosafos’s second answer: why did Rav Kahana say that davening outdoors is a chutzpah? The concern is not of chutzpah, but because he will get distracted. For this reason, he follows the first reason of Tosafos in his Shulchan Aruch, and quotes Rashi’s reasoning: “A person should not pray in an open area, such as a field, because someone in a non-exposed place has greater fear of the King and his heart is broken” (Orach Chayim 90:5). We should note that several prominent poskim provide various explanations why Tosafos was not bothered by the Beis Yosef’s question (see Perisha, Bach, Taz, Magein Giborim, all in Orach Chayim 90).

The Magen Avraham (90:6) adds to this discussion by quoting the Zohar that implies that a person should daven inside a building. The Chida reports to us that the Batei Kehunah wrote a great deal about this topic. He concluded that it is sufficient if the area is enclosed, but it is not necessary for it to be roofed. The Birkei Yosef (Orach Chayim 90:2) notes that great rabbis often pray in the unroofed courtyards of shullen.

The Mishnah Berurah concludes this topic with the following ruling: Notwithstanding that the Shulchan Aruch rejected Tosafos’s approach, many acharonim justify this answer that it is acceptable to daven outdoors in a place where someone will not be disturbed. A traveler may daven outdoors, but should preferably daven under trees, if practical. However, someone who is home should not rely on this, and should daven indoors (Mishnah Berurah 90:11). Thus, it would seem that, according to the Mishnah Berurah, it is incorrect to daven outdoors in the courtyard of a shul when he has the option of davening in the shul itself. On the other hand, Sefardim, who tend to follow the conclusions of the Chida, probably have a strong halachic basis to daven inside gates, even if there is no roof above them, relying on the Chida who followed the ruling of his rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Rapaport, the author of the Batei Kehunah.

Conclusion:

The power of tefillah is very great. Through tefillah one can save lives, bring people closer to Hashem and overturn harsh decrees. We have to believe in this power. One should not think, “Who am I to daven to Hashem?” Rather, we must continually drive home the concept that Hashem wants our tefillos and He listens to them! Let us hope that Hashem will accept our tefillos together with those of all Klal Yisrael!

More about Birkas Hagomeil

Did Yaakov Avinu bensch gomeil after surviving his encounter with Eisav?

Question #1: “Upon reciting birkas hagomeil, an individual erred and recited the following: ‘Hagomeil tovim, shegemalani kol tuv’ (without the word “lechayavim”). Must he now repeat the beracha because he omitted a word?”

Question #2: “Thank G-d, my nine-year-old daughter is now recuperating successfully from surgery. Does she recite birkas hagomeil?”

Question #3: “Did the Chashmonayim recite birkas hagomeil upon winning their war?”

Answer:

In a different article, we learned that birkas hagomeil is to be recited by someone who has been saved from a dangerous situation. Specifically, Sefer Tehillim (107) and the Gemara mention four different types of individuals in treacherous predicaments — one who traverses a wilderness, a captive who was freed, an ill person, and a seafarer — whose safe return, release or recovery warrants reciting this beracha. The halacha is that one recites birkas hagomeil after surviving any life-threatening situation. This article will discuss some aspects of this beracha that were not yet covered.

Someone else reciting

May someone else recite some form of birkas hagomeil on behalf of the person who actually was in the difficult circumstance? In this context, we find the following Gemara passage (Berachos 54b):

“Rav Yehudah had been ill and recovered. When Rav Chona of Baghdad and other scholars came to visit him, they said to Rav Yehudah, ‘Blessed is the merciful One (in Aramaic, rachmana), Who returned you to us and not to the earth.’ Rav Yehudah responded, ‘You have exempted me from reciting birkas hagomeil!’”

Thus, we see that Rav Yehudah ruled that the praise recited by his visitors exempted him from reciting birkas hagomeil, notwithstanding the fact that Rav Chona and the others had not been ill and had no requirement to recite birkas hagomeil.

The Gemara proceeds to ask several questions about this conversation: “But do we not require a minyan for birkas hagomeil?” to which the Gemara replies that there indeed were ten people present when Rav Chona visited Rav Yehudah.

The Gemara then questions how Rav Yehudah could have fulfilled birkas hagomeil if he himself had not recited the beracha, to which it replies that he answered “Amen” to the blessing of Rav Chona of Baghdad.

Deriving Halacha

In addition to what we noted above, the above Gemara discussion teaches several additional halachos about birkas hagomeil:

1. Although the authorities quote a standardized wording for birkas hagomeil, we see that one fulfills his requirement even if one recited a version that varies considerably from the usual text, as long as it is a beracha that thanks Hashem for the salvation.

2. The person who was saved can fulfill his obligation by answering amen when he hears someone else thank Hashem, even though the person reciting the beracha has no requirement to bensch gomeil. This is a unique halachah, because usually one may fulfill a beracha or mitzvah by hearing it from someone else only when the person reciting the beracha is equally required to observe the mitzvah. Despite this rule, Rav Yehudah discharged his responsibility through Rav Chona’s beracha,even though Rav Chona personally had no requirement to recite birkas hagomeil.

3. We can also derive from this anecdote that someone may fulfill the requirement of birkas hagomeil through someone else’s beracha, even though the person who recited the beracha did not intend to recite it on behalf of the person who is obligated. This is also an unusual facet of birkas hagomeil, since in all other instances, the person fulfilling the mitzvah does so only if the person doing it intends to be motzi him.

4. Some authorities ask: Since Rav Chona was unaware that Rav Yehudah would fulfill the mitzvah, why was he not concerned that he would be reciting a beracha levatalah, a blessing recited in vain?

The answer is that Rav Chona of Baghdad’s recital was certainly praise to Hashem and thanks for His kindness, and therefore this blessing would certainly not be a beracha levatalah, even if no one fulfilled any requirement through it (Tur, Orach Chayim 219).

Uniqueness of birkas hagomeil

From these last rulings, we see that the concept of birkas hagomeil is unlike other berachos, and therefore, its rules are different. As long as the person obligated to thank Hashem is involved in an acknowledgement that Hashem saved him, he has fulfilled his obligation.

What about mentioning Hashem’s name?

One should not infer from the above story that one can fulfill reciting birkas hagomeil without mentioning Hashem’s name. This is because the word rachmana, which translates literally into English as “the merciful One,” also serves as the Aramaic word for G-d. Thus, Rav Chona of Baghdad did mention Hashem’s name in his blessing.

What about mentioning malchus?

The Rishonim note that from the way the Gemara quotes Rav Chona of Baghdad, “Blessed is the merciful One Who returned you to us and not to the earth,” one might conclude that it is sufficient to recite Baruch Ata Hashem for birkas hagomeil, and that one does not need to say also Elokeinu Melech haolam, the standard text prefacing all berachos. This would be very novel, since all berachos require an introduction that includes not only mention of Hashem, but also requires proclaiming that Hashem is King. However, the Tur and the Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 219) reject this conclusion, contending that one does not fulfill birkas hagomeil unless one does mention sheim and malchus. We must therefore assume that the Gemara abbreviated the beracha recited by Rav Chona of Baghdad and that he had indeed mentioned Hashem’s monarchy in his blessing.

The text

What is the optimal nusach, the exact text, of this beracha?

Although our Gemara (Berachos 54b) quotes a wording for birkas hagomeil, it is apparent that different rishonim had variant readings of the text of the beracha. The most common version recorded is: Baruch Atta Hashem Elokeinu Melech haolam, hagomeil lachayovim tovos, shegemalani kol tov. “Blessed are You, Lord, our G-d, King of the Universe, Who grants good to those who are guilty, for He granted me much good.” The assembled then respond with “Amen,” and then add, Mi shegemalcha kol tov hu yigmalecha kol tov sela, “May He Who has granted you much good continue to grant you much good forever.” The established Sefardi custom is to recite two pesukim prior to reciting the beracha, which calls people to attention so that they can focus on the beracha and respond appropriately (Kaf Hachayim, Orach Chayim 219:14).

The wording of the beracha sounds unusual, for it implies that the person who recited this beracha is assuming that he was deserving of Divine punishment, yet was saved because of Hashem’s kindness. Why should the saved person make this assumption?

The Maharam Mintz (Shu”t #14), an early Ashkenazi authority, explains that someone who became ill or was imprisoned should be introspective, seeking to learn a lesson by discovering why this happened to him. In so doing, he should realize that he is indeed guilty of things for which he needs to do teshuvah. In this context, the Avnei Nezer (Shu”t Orach Chayim #39) asks the following: while the Maharam Mintz’s reason explains why a person who was captured or imprisoned should consider himself guilty, it is not clear how it applies to someone who survived a journey on the high seas or through the desert, since he himself chose to undertake the trip. To this, the Avnei Nezer answers that there could be one of two reasons why this traveler undertook this trip: one alternative is that he felt a compelling need to travel, for parnasah or some other reason, in which case he should ask himself why Hashem presented him with such a potentially dangerous situation. The traveler should contemplate this issue and realize that he needs to do teshuvah for something — which now explains why the beracha calls him “guilty.”

The other alternative is that the traveler could have avoided the trip, in which case he is considered guilty, because he endangered himself unnecessarily. In either instance, we can now appreciate why the person reciting the beracha refers to himself as being “guilty.”

What about a child?

If a child survived a situation that would require an adult to recite birkas hagomeil, does he do so?

Early halachic authorities rule that a child under the age of bar or bas mitzvah does not recite birkas hagomeil. The Maharam Mintz explains that it is inappropriate for a child to recite the wording hagomeil lachayovim tovos, “Who grants good to those who are guilty.” Harm that befalls a child is not a result of his own evildoing, but of his father’s; thus, a child reciting this text implies that his father is guilty, which is certainly improper for a child. Furthermore, to modify the beracha is unseemly, since one should not change the text of the beracha handed down to us by Chazal (quoted by Elyah Rabbah 291:3).

Some authorities are dissatisfied with this last answer, since we see that Rav Yehudah felt that he had fulfilled his requirement to recite birkas hagomeil when Rav Chona said, “Blessed is Hashem that returned you to us and not to the earth,” which is quite different from the text, “Who grants good to those who are guilty, for He granted me much good.” It would seem that any beracha text that includes a praise acknowledging thanks for Hashem’s rescue fulfills the requirement (see Shaar Hatizyun 219:5). Thus, it should be relatively easy to structure a birkas hagomeil text for children.

The above-quoted Avnei Nezer similarly disapproves of the rationale presented by the Maharam Mintz, although he agrees with the ruling that a child should not recite birkas hagomeil – but for a different reason. The Avnei Nezer explains that although any text thanking Hashem fulfills the mitzvah of reciting birkas hagomeil, the preferred way is for the person to say “I, who am guilty,” something that a child cannot say. Although one could modify the text so that a child would be able to recite birkas hagomeil and omit this concept, having a child recite a different beracha would no longer accomplish the mitzvah of chinuch, which requires a child to fulfill the mitzvah the way he would as an adult.

On the other hand, the Chida (Birkei Yosef 219:1) quotes authorities who disagreed with the Maraham Mintz, and ruled that a child should recite birkas hagomeil, although the Chida does not cite the rationale for this ruling. Presumably, these authorities contend that having a child recite this beracha is no different than any other mitzvah in which we are required to educate our children. Most authorities agree with the rulings of the Maharam Mintz and the Avnei Nezer and, as a result, in most communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi, children do not recite birkas hagomeil (Kaf Hachayim 219:2).

How much traveling?

One of the four instances for which the Gemara requires birkas hagomeil is surviving a trip through a desert. However, when the Rambam quotes this Gemara, he states, instead of those who traveled through the desert, “those who traveled on intercity roads recite birkas hagomeil when they arrive at a settled place.” The authorities dispute what the Rambam means, the Tur assuming him to mean that one recites birkas hagomeil after any trip. This position is certainly held by the Ramban, who writes (Toras Ha’adam, page 49) that the Gemara mentioned those who traveled through the desert only because that is the text of the verse in Tehillim, but the halacha is that any traveler recites birkas hagomeil upon arrival at his destination. For this reason, the Ramban and the Avudraham record that many Sefardim recite birkas hagomeil for any out-of-town trip, for, to quote the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachos 4:4), kol haderachim bechezkas sakanah, all highways should be assumed to be dangerous.

The Rosh (Berachos 9:3), however, disagrees with the Ramban, contending that there is a difference between tefillas haderech, which one recites for any trip, and birkas hagomeil, which one recites only when one would be required to offer a korban todah. The verses in Chapter 107 imply that one is required to offer a korban todah only when one survives a major calamity. Thus, in the Rosh’s opinion, the statement kol haderachim bechezkas sakanah means that one should recite tefillas haderech any time one travels intercity, but not that one should recite birkas hagomeil. Reflecting this approach, the Rosh and Rabbeinu Yonah mention that in France and Germany the practice was to refrain from reciting birkas hagomeil when traveling from one city to the next.

The Bach also follows this approach and takes issue with the Tur’s interpretation of the Rambam, contending that even the Rambam is referring only to someone traveling through a completely barren area similar to a desert, but that the Rambam agrees that someone traveling through an area where food and water can be readily obtained does not recite birkas hagomeil afterwards. The Bach suggests that the Tur was not quoting the Rambam in support of this position, but the Ramban, and that scribes erred while redacting.

Airplane travel

Does someone who travels by airplane recite birkas hagomeil?

In researching the different teshuvos written on this subject, I found a wide range of halachic opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that anyone traveling by airplane must recite birkas hagomeil, regardless as to whether he was traveling over sea or over land exclusively. He contends that even those authorities who rule that one should recite birkas hagomeil only for the four types of calamities mentioned in Tehillim and the Gemara require birkas hagomeil for flying, since flying by air is identical to traveling by ship, as the entire time that one is above ground, one’s long-term life plans are all completely dependent on one’s safe return to land (Shu”t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 2:59). I found another authority who agreed with Rav Moshe’s conclusion, but for a different reason. One should recite birkas hagomeil, not because air travel should be compared to seafaring, but because we rule that one recites birkas hagomeil for any type of danger to which one was exposed (Shu”t Betzel Hachachmah 1:20). Rav Ovadyah Yosef rules that Sefardim should recite birkas hagomeil after any air trip that takes longer than 72 minutes, just as they recite birkas hagomeil after any trip on land that takes this long (Shu”t Yabia Omer 2:Orach Chayim #14).

On the other hand, many contend that since this is a different method of travel from what was included in the original takanas Chazal, and, in addition, air travel today is not highly dangerous, one should not recite birkas hagomeil, at least not with the names of Hashem, which they are concerned might result in a beracha levatalah (Shu”t Chelkas Yaakov 2:9; Rav Zion Levy, in his question to Rav Ovadyah Yosef, published in Shu”t Yabia Omer, Orach Chayim II #14).

According to what we have thus far written, there should be no distinction drawn on the length of the flight or whether it traverses land or sea. According to Rav Moshe Feinstein’s approach, one should always recite birkas hagomeil for air flight, and according to those who dispute, one should not. Notwithstanding the strong logic, there is a prevalent custom that people bensch gomeil when flying overseas, but not when flying domestically. The Be’er Moshe (2:68) notes this practice, which he feels has very weak halachic foundation. Nevertheless, since this is the prevalent custom, he attempts to justify it and says that people should follow the custom.

Conclusion

Returning to our opening question:  Did Yaakov Avinu bensch gomeil after surviving his encounter with Eisav?

We can ask further: Did Yitzchak Avinu recite birkas hagomeil after the akeidah? Did Chananyah, Mesha’el, and Azaryah recite birkas hagomeil upon exiting the furnace, or Daniel after waving good-bye to the lions? Did the kohen gadol recite birkas hagomeil upon exiting the kodesh hakodoshim on Yom Kippur? Did Rabbi Akiva recite birkas hagomeil over the fact that he was the only one who had studied the deepest secrets of the Torah (called “pardes”) and remained physically and spiritually intact?

The Chida, in his Machazik Beracha commentary to Shulchan Aruch (219:1-3), presents a lengthy correspondence on this question that transpired between his father and another talmid chacham, Rav Eliezer Nachum. Rav Yitzchak Zerachyah Azulai, the Chida’s father, contended that only someone who was placed in a situation involuntarily, including one who traveled by sea or through the desert because circumstances compelled him to endanger himself, recites birkas hagomeil, but not someone who chose to give up his life to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem. Even when someone in the latter situation is saved by an obvious miracle, he should not recite birkas hagomeil since, had he lost his life, he would immediately have been elevated above all that this world could possibly offer. Similarly, he rules that the kohen gadol does not recite birkas hagomeil upon leaving the kodesh hakodoshim, since his entering was to fulfill a mitzvah of Hashem. Furthermore, he adds, that a kohen gadol worthy of his position was never in any danger to begin with – only an unworthy kohen gadol need be concerned of the dangers of entering the kodesh hakodoshim on Yom Kippur.

Rav Eliezar Nachum disagreed strongly with Rav Azulai’s position. Rav Nachum notes several midrashic and Talmudic passages that mention the tremendous songs of praise that were sung by the angels and by the great tzadikim mentioned above upon surviving these travails. Certainly, upon surviving these dangers one is required to recite birkas hagomeil to thank Hashem for his salvation.

The Place Where Yaakov Davened

Question #1: Ascending Har Habayis Today

“I have been told that it can be halachically permitted to ascend Har Habayis, and I have also heard that it is forbidden and could violate some very severe Torah laws. Which is true?”

Question #2: Non-Jews in the Beis Hamikdash

“Where in the Beis Hamikdash may a non-Jew pray?”

Question #3: Is Yaakov second rate?

“If Yaakov created the maariv prayer, why is his prayer treated as inferior to those created by Avraham and Yitzchak? After all, the Gemara’s conclusion is that tefillas arvis reshus, the evening prayer is optional (Brachos 27b).”

Introduction:

Our parsha opens: “Then Yaakov left Be’er Sheva, heading towards Haran. And he stopped at the place and spent the night there because the sun had already set.” Rashi raises the question that the posuk should say that he stopped at “a” place, not “the” place; it is clearly referring to a place with which we are already familiar. Rashi explains that this refers to Har Hamoriah, where Akeidas Yitzchok took place. We are more familiar with referring to this mountain as Har Habayis, literally, “the mountain of The House,” upon which the Beis Hamikdash was later built.

Chazal derive from here that Yaakov arrived at this holy place and instituted the prayer of maariv. Shelomoh Hamelech prayed that the Beis Hamikdash should be a place for both Jews and non-Jews to worship Hashem (see Melachim I 8:41), and this spirit is again emphasized in a later prophecy, ki beisi beis tefillah yikarei lechol ha’amim (Yeshayahu 56:8) “My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.”

This provides an opportunity to discuss the laws mentioned in the Mishnah describing the different levels of sanctity that apply to the Land of Israel and the Beis Hamikdash area, all laws that we need to know today and will need to know even more thoroughly when the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt, bimheirah be’yameinu.

The first chapter of Mesechta Keilim, which is an introduction to the entire seder and the concepts of Taharos, closes with the following: “There are ten levels of sanctity” germane to different places in Eretz Yisrael, and then the Mishnah enumerates the different levels. This article will list and explain these different levels, which should help us understand some of the laws that apply.

(1) Land of Israel

The lowest of these levels of sanctity is “the land of Israel itself, which is holier than all other lands” in that three offerings brought to the Beis Hamikdash — korban omer, bikkurim and the two loaves offered on Shavuos — can be brought only from produce of Eretz Yisrael.

There are many other halachos germane exclusively to Eretz Yisrael, such as that most agricultural mitzvos of the Torah apply only in Eretz Yisrael, at least min haTorah.

The special semicha given by Moshe Rabbeinu that is required for many halachic areas can be issued only in Eretz Yisrael (Sanhedrin 14a; Rambam, Hilchos Sanhedrin 4:6). Another halacha that can be fulfilled only in Eretz Yisrael is the appointment of a king over the Jewish people (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:6).

Eastern side of the Jordan

The eastern side of the Jordan became part of the Land of Israel in the days of Moshe, when the kings Sichon and Og attacked the Benei Yisrael, and they and their armies were annihilated. However, these lands were not originally part of the Land of Israel that was promised to the Benei Yisrael when they left Egypt. Can the korban omer, bikkurim and the two loaves of Shavuos be offered from produce of the eastern side of the Jordan River, which was not part of the originally promised Eretz Yisrael?

This is the subject of a dispute among the rishonim, in which Rashi (Sanhedrin 11b s.v. al shetayim and Menachos 83b s.v. kol ha’aratzos) rules that these korbanos can be brought from the eastern side of the Jordan, whereas the Ran (Nedorim 22a s.v. hahi) rules that they cannot.

(2) Walled Israeli cities

The next level of sanctity is that the walled cities of Eretz Yisrael, according to the Mishnah, are holier than other places in Eretz Yisrael in the following two ways:

(1) A metzora may not remain in these cities.

(2) Once a meis has been removed from these cities, it may not be returned. (And certainly if the person died outside a walled city, his remains may not be brought into the city). The Rambam and the Raavad disagree whether this ruling includes an absolute prohibition to bury someone in a walled city in Eretz Yisrael (Raavad, Hilchos Beis Habechirah 7:13) or whether someone who died within the walled city may be buried in the city (Rambam ad loc.). All agree that once the meis was removed from the walled city, it may not be returned to the city, and certainly may not be buried there.

Capital punishment

According to many early authorities, another law about the walled cities of Eretz Yisrael is that when a Beis Din carried out capital punishment, this was required to be performed outside a walled city in Eretz Yisrael (Rash and Rosh, Keilim 1:7, based on Mishnah Sanhedrin 42b; see also Tosafos ad loc. s.v. beis).

Purim

An obvious question is — why did I not mention that there is a difference in that the walled cities celebrate Purim on the fifteenth of Adar, sometimes called Shushan Purim, whereas unwalled cities celebrate Purim on the fourteenth of Adar.

The answer is that this has nothing to do with walled cities in Eretz Yisrael; even walled cities outside Eretz Yisrael that date back to the time of Yehoshua entering Eretz Yisrael would celebrate Purim on the 15th (see Ran, Megillah 2a s.v. kerachin, in the name of Tosafos).

(3) Yerushalayim

The third level is the walled city of Yerushalayim, in which it is permitted to eat maaser sheini, the meat of kodshim kalim (Keilim 1:8)such as korban pesach and shelamim, and bikkurim (see Bikkurim 2:2).

By the way, the current “Old City” walls of Yerushalayim, constructed by the Ottoman Turks almost 1500 years after the churban, are not the borders that define the halachic sanctity of the city. Without question, there are areas outside the current walls that did have the sanctity of Yerushalayim, and the walls probably encompass areas that were not part of the city at the times of Tanach and Chazal, and, therefore, do not have the sanctity of Yerushalayim. When Moshiach comes, it will be necessary to determine exactly where the borders of the halachic “old city” of Yerushalayim are.

(4) Har Habayis

The fourth level is Har Habayis, beyond which many tamei people may not enter, including zavim, zavos, niddos and women after childbirth, until they have been able to complete the first stage of their taharah process. Because of space considerations, we cannot explain the details of these types of tumah, but our readers should be aware that, because of these laws, many people who ascend the Har Habayis today violate a Torah prohibition equivalent to eating treif food.

For clarification purposes: In addition to walls surrounding the city of Yerushalayim, there were also walls surrounding the entire Har Habayis. The Kosel HaMaaravi, where we daven, is part of the western wall of the Har Habayis. These are not the walls of the Beis Hamikdash. The Beis Hamikdash occupied only a small area of the Har Habayis. Although the Har Habayis has much more kedusha than that of Yerushalayim, the Beis Hamikdash has much greater kedusha than that of the Har Habayis. Today when we are all temei’im, someone entering the area where the Beis Hamikdash once stood is chayov kareis, an extremely severe punishment (Kaftor Vaferech, Chapter 6; Kesef Mishneh, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 6:14; cf. Ra’avad ad loc., who disagrees).

As we said, the Har Habayis has far less sanctity than the Beis Hamikdash. Nevertheless, most contemporary poskim prohibit ascending the Har Habayis. A minority of poskim permit entering areas of the Har Habayis that are not part of the Beis Hamikdash, in order to daven or perform a mitzvah, but only after performing certain taharah procedures, including washing oneself thoroughly, making certain that there are no chatzitzos (intervening substances on one’s body), and immersing in a mikveh. All agree that it is prohibited to enter any part of the Har Habayis if one is tamei with what halacha calls tumah hayotzei migufo, which includes people who are baalei keri, zav, zavah, niddah and yoledes.

Ascending Har Habayis today

At this point, let us address our opening question:

“I have been told that it can be halachically permitted to ascend Har Habayis, and I have also heard that it is forbidden and could violate some very severe Torah laws. Which is true?”

The answer is that most people who ascend the Har Habayis are, unfortunately, violating major halachos, and, for this reason, the vast majority of contemporary halachic authorities rule that no one, except for security personnel when necessary, should ever ascend Har Habayis. Unfortunately, since it has now become “stylish” in many circles to ascend the Har Habayis, many people are violating halachos, somethingthat they would never have done on their own without encouragement.

(5) Cheil

The fifth level is the “cheil,” beyond which non-Jews may not proceed, nor Jews who are tamei meis. The word “cheil” means a wall or fortification (see Tehillim 48:14, Yeshayahu 26:1). Most authorities assume that the sanctity of the cheil over the Har Habayis is only a rabbinic injunction, and that min haTorah it is permitted to enter the cheil with this level of tumah, but prohibited from entering the Beis Hamikdash proper (Raavad, Hilchos Beis Habechirah 7:16; Rash, Rosh and Gra, Keilim 1:8).

This is the first time the Mishnah has mentioned the category called tamei meis, tumah contracted through contact with a corpse. (Someone who was ever in the same room or under the same roof as a corpse also becomes tamei meis.) This status creates a major halachic concern, because it is a severe Torah prohibition to enter the Beis Hamikdash grounds while tamei, and virtually everyone today has become tamei meis. Although other forms of tumah can be removed by immersion in a mikveh at the appropriate time, tumas meis can be removed only by sprinkling on the person who is tamei from the water in which was mixed ashes of the parah adumah (the red cow or heifer whose processing is described by the Torah in parshas Chukas and in mesechta Parah). Since we do not know where the remaining ashes of the previously prepared paros adumos are, we cannot purify ourselves from tumas meis.

At this point, we can address the second of our opening questions: “Where in the Beis Hamikdash may a non-Jew pray?”

The answer is that he may pray anywhere on the Har Habayis that he would like, as long as it outside the cheil area. Technically speaking, this means that he is praying near the Beis Hamikdash, but not inside it.

(6) Ezras Nashim

The sixth level is the Ezras Nashim. The term “ezras nashim” is used today to mean the area of a shul which is designated for the women to daven. The original term refers to an area of the Beis Hamikdash, or, more technically, the entrance area of the Beis Hamikdash. Beyond this area, only someone completely tahor may enter. It is called the Ezras Nashim because women usually did not enter past this point, although they could, if there was a halachic reason for them to do so.

We should note that the Beis Hamikdash is oriented westward. In other words, from the Ezras Nashim until the Kodesh Hakodoshim, which is the highest level of sanctity, we are entering on the east, and moving toward the west, with the Kodesh Hakodoshim being the western most area of the Beis Hamikdash.

The Beis Hamikdash was not centered in the middle of the Har Habayis, but on its west-northwest side (Rambam, Hilchos Beis Habechirah 5:6). The Ezras Nashim is the beginning of the Beis Hamikdash itself.

(7) Ezras Yisrael

The seventh level is the Ezras Yisrael, beyond which anyone tamei is prohibited from entering min haTorah. Even someone with a very mild amount of residual tumah, called mechusar kippurim, may not enter this area.

The term Ezras Yisrael does not mean “He who helps Israel,” or “the help of Israel” (as it does when used in davening) but comes from the word azarah, as it is used many times in Yechezkel and Divrei Hayamim, where it refers to the “courtyard,” the enclosed areas of the Beis Hamikdash that are outside the Kodesh or Heichal. The term Ezras Nashim that we mentioned previously also uses the word azarah in the same sense.

(8) Ezras Kohanim

The eighth level is the area called the Ezras Kohanim. Normally, only kohanim are allowed to enter past this point, although there are circumstances in which a Yisrael is permitted to enter past this area to carry out some halachic responsibility.

The Ezras Kohanim was a strip of area alongside the eastern side of the mizbei’ach.

At this point, it is appropriate to quote the words of the Rambam: “The location of the mizbeiach is extremely exact, and it may never be moved from its location… We have an established tradition that the place where David and Shelomoh built the mizbeiach is the same place where Avraham built the mizbeiach and bound Yitzchak. This is the same place where Noach built a mizbeiach when he left the Ark and where Kayin and Hevel built their mizbeiach. It is the same place where Adam offered the first korban, and it is the place where he (Adam) was created….

“The dimensions and shape of the mizbeiach are very exact. The mizbeiach constructed when the Jews returned from the first exile was built according to the dimensions of the mizbeiach that will be built in the future. One may not add or detract from its size” (Hilchos Beis Habechirah 2:1-3). Prior to building the second Beis Hamikdash, the prophets Chaggai, Zecharyah and Malachi testified regarding three halachos about the mizbeiach that were necessary to reinstitute the korbanos, one of which was the exact location of the mizbeiach (Zevachim 62a).

(9) Between the mizbei’ach and the Kodesh

The ninth level is the area past the mizbei’ach, to which a kohein with a blemish or one who has not had his hair cut properly may not enter.

As the Mishnah teaches, a kohein with either of these disqualifications may not perform the service in the Beis Hamikdash, and if he did, the korban that he worked with became invalid (Mishnah Zevachim 15b).

(10) The Kodesh

The tenth level is the Kodesh. In the Beis Hamikdash, there actually was an area in front of the Kodesh called the Ulam, which has the same level of kedusha as the Kodesh. The the ulam area did not exist in the Mishkan.

Inside the Kodesh area was where the menorah, the shulchan and the golden mizbei’ach stood. The golden mizbei’ach was used daily only for the burning of the ketores, although on Yom Kippur it was also used for some of the holiest of the korbanos, those that were brought into the Kodesh Hakodoshim.

(11) The Kodesh Hakodoshim

The highest level of sanctity is that of the Kodesh Hakodoshim. This was entered only by the Kohein Gadol and only on Yom Kippur. In actuality, the Kohein Gadol entered the Kodesh Hakodoshim four times on Yom Kippur: The first time was with the Yom Kippur ketores, the second time to begin the kaparah of his special Yom Kippur bull offering, the third time to attend to the kaparah of the goat offering, and the fourth time, later in the day, to pick up the censer and the ladle with which he had offered the ketores when he first entered.

But one second; you told me that the Mishnah says that there are ten levels of sanctity, and then you listed eleven. This is inconsistent!

You are indeed correct. At the end of their commentaries to this chapter, the Rash and the Bartenura raise this question, to which there are many answers. The Rambam seems to understand that the first level that I counted, Eretz Yisrael, should not be included: The Mishnah is listing ten levels of sanctity above Eretz Yisrael.

Conclusion: Was Yaakov third rate?

At this point, let us return to the third of our opening questions: If each of our three daily prayers was established by one of our forefathers, why is it that two of these prayers are obligatory, and yet the Gemara concludes that maariv is optional? Even if we understand the Gemara to mean, as some rishonim explain, that it is only relatively optional – meaning that davening maariv is mandatory, but that it is more easily deferred – we want to know why Yaakov seems to get a second-rate standing. After all, he is considered the most chosen of the forefathers, bechir shebe’avos, so why should his prayer be considered of lesser importance?

The Penei Yehoshua (Berachos 26b s.v. mihu) explains that Yaakov never intended to create a new prayer at night, but intended to daven mincha! Suddenly, Hashem made the sun set, and it got dark early, in order to force Yaakov to stop at that place. Thus, Yaakov’s prayer was because he had missed mincha, but not because he was trying to institute a prayer in the evening. Since his creation of maariv was unintentional, it shows no lack of respect for Yaakov to suggest that it may have more lenient rules than the prayers created by Avraham and Yitzchak, shacharis and mincha.

image_print