Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour

Ten men combine to form a Minyan only if they are together in the same room. The Rishonim debate the question of whether a person can count toward a Minyan if he is standing in the doorway. If nine men are inside the room, and the tenth is in the doorway, do they form a Minyan, or must the tenth man come out of the doorway inside the room? The Bet Yosef brings the view of Rashi, that the area underneath the lintel is considered part of the room, such that a person standing there counts toward the Minyan formed inside the room. By contrast, Rabbenu Yeruham (1290-1350) maintained that the area of the doorway is considered outside the room. The Bet Yosef shows that the Rambam follows Rabbenu Yeruham's view, noting the Rambam's ruling that if someone brought the meat of the Pesach sacrifice to the doorway of the home on the night of Pesach, he transgresses the Torah prohibition against bringing the meat of the sacrifice outside the home. The Rambam clearly considered the area of the doorway outside the home, and this would, presumably, apply also to the formation of a Minyan. The Shulhan Aruch accepts this view, and writes that the area of the doorway is not considered part of the room, and thus a person who stands there cannot be counted toward the Minyan. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) cites the work Tanya Rabbati as ruling leniently, that a person in the doorway may, in fact, be counted. This is the view also of the Mishna Berura, citing the Eben Ha'ozer. In light of these different opinions, several Poskim, including the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), maintained that we must be stringent in both directions. This means that a person standing in the doorway of a room cannot combine with nine men in the room to form a Minyan, and also cannot combine with nine men assembled outside in the hallway, as it is uncertain whether he is considered inside the room or in the hallway. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), in Ish Masliah, writes that although it is proper to be stringent in both directions, the Halacha follows the Shulhan Aruch's ruling, and so, strictly speaking, a person standing in the doorway may combine with nine men in the hallway to form a Minyan. Within the Shulhan Aruch's view, there is a difference of opinion regarding the status of a person standing in the area of the doorway closer to the room, such that he would be inside if the door closed. The Mishna Berura writes that according to some understandings of the Shulhan Aruch, even a person standing in this spot is considered outside, and cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This was the position also of the Kaf Ha'haim. Rav Mazuz, however, disagreed, and maintained that the person may be counted in such a case. The Mishna Berura, too, concluded that one may be lenient in this situation, even according to the Shulhan Aruch, given that many Poskim do not accept Rabbenu Yeruham's stringent view to begin with. Rav David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, likewise rules leniently, and this is the Halacha. The Poskim debate the status of a doorway that has no door. Some argue that the only reason why the doorway would not be considered part of the room is that part of the doorway is left outside when the door is closed; therefore, if there is no door, the area of the doorway is viewed as part of the room. Others contend that to the contrary, the possibility of viewing the doorway as part of the room is based on the fact that part of the doorway is inside when the door closes. In practice, then, if there is no door, we must be stringent, and a person standing in the doorway cannot combine with people inside the room or outside the room, regardless of where in the doorway he stands. Summary: If a person is standing in the doorway of a room, then he cannot combine with nine men inside the room to form a Minyan. Strictly speaking, he can join with nine men in the hallway outside the room to form a Minyan, though he should preferably move outside the doorway into the hallway. If he stands in the inner portion of the doorway, such that he would be inside the room if the door would close, then he can combine with nine men standing inside the room, unless there is no door, in which case he cannot combine with either those inside the room or those outside in the hall.

If ten men wish to make a Minyan in a room with a curtain that separates the room into two sections, must they all be together on one side of the curtain, or are they considered a Minyan even if some are on one side and some on the other? The Halacha in this case depends on the purpose of the curtain. If the curtain was hung for privacy purposes, so that people on one side would not see the people on the other, then we can disregard the curtain with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Such a curtain does not constitute a Halachic separation, and thus the men on the two different sides combine to form a Minyan. If, however, the curtain was hung for a halachic purpose, to separate the room into two distinct halachic areas, then these areas are treated as separate rooms with regard to the formation of a Minyan. An example would be a room with a Sefer Torah, where a curtain was hung to allow on the other side of the curtain activities which are not allowed in the presence of a Sefer Torah. Since the curtain was placed for the purpose of making a halachic partition, then the room is considered halachically divided, and thus ten men who wish to form a Minyan must assemble on one side of the curtain. (However, once ten men assemble on one side, those standing on the other side are considered participants in the Minyan.) Importantly, this Halacha applies only if the curtain reaches the ceiling. If it ends more than three Tefahim (handbreadths) from the ceiling, then it does not qualify as a separation, even if it was hung for halachic purposes. Additionally, this discussion pertains only to a cloth partition. If the partition is a solid wall, made from wood or some other firm material, then it constitutes a halachic partition regardless of the purpose for which it was placed, and therefore the ten men must assemble on one side of the partition. Summary: A curtain that reaches the ceiling is considered a halachic partition that divides a room into two separate rooms if it was hung for a halachic purpose, such as to make a separation from a Sefer Torah, allowing on the other side of the curtain activities which are forbidden in front of a Sefer Torah. In such a case, ten men who wish to form a Minyan in the room must gather on one side of the curtain. If the curtain does not extend to within three Tefahim (handbreadths) of the ceiling, or if it was hung for some other purpose, then men on both sides of the curtain can combine to form a Minyan. A solid partition divides the room regardless of its purpose, and thus the ten men must assemble on the same side of the partition.

If a Minyan consists of precisely ten men, and one of them falls asleep, is the group still considered to comprise a Minyan, allowing them to recite Kaddish, Nakdishah, the Hazan's repetition of the Amida, and so on? The Shulhan Aruch writes that the sleeping individual may be counted as part of the Minyan. In the Bet Yosef, he explains that this is based on a ruling of the Maharam Me'Rutenberg (Germany, d. 1293). The Tureh Zahab (Rav David Segal, Poland, d. 1667), however, disagreed. He maintained that since sleep constitutes a kind of partial death, a sleeping individual is not fully "alive," and thus he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This view was taken also by the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, d. 1695), and, later, by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). The Mishna Berura writes that in light of the different opinions, it is best to try waking the fellow. If this is not possible, the Mishna Berura rules, then he may be counted for the recitation of Kaddish, but not for the repetition of the Amida. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, refutes the argument advanced by the Taz, and thus rules that a person who is asleep can be counted even for the repetition of the Amida. While it is certainly preferable to try waking the fellow up, he may be counted for the Minyan. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) cites the Bet David as asserting that this entire discussion relates specifically to the case of one person who is asleep. If, however, more than one person is sleeping, then they cannot all be counted toward the Minyan. The Mishna Berura follows this position, as well. In an earlier installment, we discussed the situation of a Minyan of ten people, some of whom are still praying the Amida. Rav Yisrael Bitan concluded that at Arbit, if at least six men (including the Hazzan) have completed the Amida, then the Hazzan may proceed to Kaddish. During the other prayers, however, when the Hazzan repeats the Amida, he should not begin the repetition unless nine men (including him) have finished the Amida, except in situations of great need, such as if someone in the Minyan has some urgent matter to attend to and cannot wait. Applying this conclusion to our discussion, it emerges that Kaddish may be recited even if several men are sleeping, as long as at least six (including the Hazzan) are awake. The repetition of the Amida, however, should not be recited if more than one person is asleep, except in situations of great need. Summary: If a Minyan consists of precisely ten men, and one of them falls asleep, he should preferably be woken up, but if not, he may nevertheless be counted as part of the Minyan. If several men fall asleep, then Kaddish may be recited as long as at least six men (including the Hazzan) are awake, but the repetition of the Amida should not be recited if fewer than nine men are awake, except in situations of great need.

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 55:13), based on the ruling of numerous Rishonim, writes that ten men cannot combine to form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. For ten men to comprise a Minyan, they must be in one room. If ten or more people are together in the same room, then men in an adjoining room, or outside in the hallway, can pray with them and thereby be considered as praying with a Minyan. A number of Rishonim maintained that people in different rooms can combine to form a Minyan if they can see each other. Thus, according to this opinion, if five men are in one room and five other men are in an adjoining room with an open door, or with just an arch without a door, they can form a Minyan since they can all see one another. This is the view taken by the Abi Ezri (Rav Eliezer Ben Yoel Ha'levi, Germany, 12 th century) and the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310). These Rishonim compare the laws regarding a Minyan to those that apply to a Zimun for Birkat Ha'mazon. Just as people seated in different room can nevertheless combine to form a Zimun if they can see each other, the same is true of ten men who wish to form a Minyan. By contrast, the Or Zarua (Rav Yishak of Vienna, 13 th century), based on the ruling of the Rashbash (Rav Shlomo Duran, Algiers, 1400-1467), maintained that visibility does not affect the status of men situated in different rooms. Even if they can see each other, they cannot form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) understood the Bet Yosef as siding with this stringent view, and, indeed, this is the opinion accepted as Halacha. Therefore, ten men in two separate rooms cannot form a Minyan even if they can see each other. This Halacha becomes very relevant at Shiba homes, Heaven forbid. Sometimes, if the living room is small, some of the men stand in other rooms, such as the kitchen, or in the hallway. Minyanim held in offices, too, often lack space, and the participants thus do not always stand in the same room. It must be assured that at least ten men are situated in the same room, and then the others can spread out into the hall or into other rooms. If ten men are in the same room, then they form a Minyan even if they do not all see each other. If there are pillars or pieces of furniture that obstruct their view, they still form a Minyan, since they are all situated in the same room. The Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989) addresses the case of a synagogue that expanded its sanctuary by removing a wall, combining it with the room next to it, but support pillars needed to be left in place, and they form what resembles a doorway. He ruled that since the pillars were not intended to form a separation, the resulting large room may be considered a single room with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Hence, a Minyan can be formed by ten men in the large room even if they are interspersed throughout the area that appears as two separate rooms. The Minhat Yishak also addressed the common situation of a synagogue that was planned from the outset to have a portable divider that is sometimes put in place to separate the sanctuary into two separate areas. Since the initial plan was for the area to be occasionally separated, the Minhat Yishak writes, the two sections are treated as separate rooms. Therefore, when a Minyan is formed there, at least ten men must gather in one section, and then the others can position themselves in the other section. Summary: For a Minyan to be formed, ten men must be situated together in the same room. If they are in separate rooms, they do not form a Minyan even if they can see each other. Once ten men are together in one room, others who are in the hallway or in a different room can join them and thus be considered as praying in a Minyan.

As we've seen in previous installments, the Hazzan at Arbit may proceed to Kaddish after the Amida as long as at least six men (including him) have completed the Amida. During the other prayers, when the Amida is repeated, the Hazzan should wait for at least nine people (including him) to complete silent Amida before beginning the repetition (unless there is an urgent time constraint). Ideally, the Hazzan should wait for everyone in the synagogue to complete the Amida, in order to give them all the opportunity to fulfill the Misva of responding to Kaddish or to the repetition. Although the Hazzan is technically permitted to begin as long as the minimum required number of men are responding, nevertheless, he should, ideally, wait for everyone in attendance to finish. In practice, though, the interest in giving everyone the opportunity to respond must be weighed against the concern of "Torah Sibur" – causing undue inconvenience to the congregation. Halacha accords significant weight to this consideration, to ensuring that the prayer service does not become too difficult an imposition. Waiting for everyone to finish the silent Amida – especially in a large congregation – can often cause an unreasonable delay. Moreover, an individual who chooses to recite the Amida very slowly should not be given the power to delay the entire congregation by making the Hazzan wait for him to finish. Thus, common sense is needed to carefully balance these two conflicting interests – the interest in giving everyone the opportunity to respond to Kaddish or the Hazzan's repetition of the Amida, and the interest in not inconveniencing those who have admirably taken time from their busy schedules to pray with a Minyan. The Hazzan should try to wait for as many people to finish as reasonably possible, without causing a delay that turns the prayer service into a burden.

Often, when a small Minyan is praying, one or several of the men in attendance take longer than the others to complete the Amida. The question then arises as to whether or not the Hazzan must wait for ten men to finish before proceeding to Kaddish – in the case of Arbit – or to the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), in the case of Shaharit, Minha or Musaf. And, if the Hazzan does not need to wait for ten men, what is the minimum number of men that must have completed the Amida before the Hazan may begin? The Poskim discuss this question at length, in light of seemingly contradictory rulings of the Shulhan Aruch. In one context (Orah Haim 55:6), the Shulhan Aruch writes that a person who is still reciting the Amida, or even sleeping, may be counted toward the Minyan. Elsewhere (Orah Haim 124:4), however, the Shulhan Aruch warns that at least nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida and answering Amen, and if not, the Hazan's blessings might be considered Berachot Le'batala (blessings recited in vain). Rav Zalman of Liadi (founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812) reconciles these rulings by drawing a distinction between Arbit and the other prayers. During Arbit, the Hazan does not repeat the Amida, and the issue is thus only the recitation of Kaddish. The Shulhan Aruch allows reciting Kaddish if ten men are present even if one of them is still reciting the Amida, and so at Arbit, the Hazzan may proceed to Kaddish once eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. During the other prayers, however, the Hazzan repeats the Amida, and this requires at least nine men who are listening and responding "Amen" to the blessings. Therefore, during Shaharit, Musaf and Minha, the Hazzan may not begin the Hazara until nine other men have completed the silent Amida and are able to answer "Amen." This approach is taken also by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed. From the comments of Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch) in the Bet Yosef, Hacham Ovadia noted, it emerges that in his view, a person who is reciting the Amida may be included in the Minyan even for the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. As for the Shulhan Aruch's remark that nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazara, Hacham Ovadia cited the Derisha as clarifying that the Shulhan Aruch does not actually require nine men to be listening and responding to the Hazara. Indeed, the Shulhan Aruch wrote not that the Hazan's blessings are in vain if nine men are not listening and responding, but rather that they are "close to being recited in vain." The Derisha draws further proof from the Halacha allowing the Hazan to continue the repetition of the Amida if some of the ten men left the synagogue. As long as nine other men were present when he began the Hazara, he may continue and complete the Hazara after the Minyan was lost (as long as at least six remain). This compellingly proves that it is not necessary for nine men to be listening to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. Hacham Ovadia likewise cited Hacham Yishak Attia (Aleppo, Syria, 1755-1830) as explaining that the Shulhan Aruch warned that people who do not listen and respond to the Hazan's repetition are denigrating the blessings he recites, as though they recite blessings in vain. He did not mean that the Hazan cannot recite the Hazara with fewer than nine people listening and responding. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia concluded that even during Shaharit, Minha or Musaf, the Hazzan does not need to wait for nine men (besides him) to complete the Amida before beginning the repetition. Even if only eight have completed the Amida, the Hazan may proceed to the Hazara. Of course, it is preferable to wait for everyone to finish – both in the interest of satisfying the stringent opinion, and to give everyone the opportunity to recite Nakdishach. But if the ninth man is taking a long time to finish the Amida, the Hazzan is not required to wait for him. Interestingly enough, although – as we saw – the Ben Ish Hai rules stringently with regard to the repetition of the Amida, he seems to have changed his mind in a later work – Mi'kabse'el. There he writes that in a situation of necessity, where the tenth man recites an excessively long Amida, and the others cannot wait, there is room to allow the Hazzan to begin the Hazara with only eight men listening and responding. This resembles Hacham Ovadia's ruling, though Hacham Ovadia allowed the Hazzan to begin with only eight men listening even when this is not a dire necessity. By contrast, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azula, 1724-1806) maintained that the Shulhan Aruch cites two different opinions, which are disagreement with one another. The Hida concluded that we may follow the lenient position, and allow the Hazzan to begin even if one of the ten men is still praying the Amida, both at Arbit and when the Amida is repeated. In the opposite direction, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) asserted that the Shulhan Aruch changed his view on the matter, and he followed the stringent view. According to Hacham Bension, then, the Hazzan must wait for nine other men to finish the Amida not only during Shaharit, Minha and Musaf, but even during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida. Since Halacha follows the view that a person reciting the Amida does not count toward a Minyan at all, the Hazzan may not even recite Kaddish if one of the ten men in the synagogue has yet to complete the Amida. Another issue addressed by the Poskim is the minimum required number of men who have completed the Amida. Assuming that a person who is still reciting the Amida may be counted (whether it's only in Arbit, or in any prayer, depending on the different views cited above), does this apply only if the ninth man (besides the Hazzan) is still reciting the Amida? Or can we allow the Hazzan to begin even if several men are still reciting the Amida? Rav Levi Ibn Habib (Jerusalem, c. 1480-c. 1545) maintained that Halacha draws no distinction between a situation where one person has yet to complete the Amida, and a case of several people who are still reciting the Amida. As long as at least five men in addition to the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may proceed. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) was of the opinion that this discussion pertains only to the case where eight men, not including the Hazzan, have completed the Amida, but the tenth man has not. According to the Magen Abraham, this Halacha cannot be extended to a case where fewer than eight men (besides the Hazzan) have completed the Amida. Hacham Ovadia's view on this matter is not entirely clear. With regard to Arbit, he writes that as long as five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin Kaddish, since a majority of a Minyan – six men – have finished. In discussing the case of the other prayers, however, he speaks only of a situation where eight men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, but the tenth has yet to finish. The implication of his wording is that when it comes to the repetition of the Amida, Hacham Ovadia did not go so far as to allow the Hazzan to begin when fewer than eight other men have completed the Amida. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, asserted that in Hacham Ovadia's view, there is no distinction between Kaddish and the Hazara in this regard, and therefore, even if only five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin the Hazara, just as with regard to Kaddish at Arbit. Rav Yisrael Bitan cites the work Netivot Ha'haim as claiming that he heard Hacham Ovadia issue this ruling verbally. In conclusion, Rav Bitan concludes that there is certainly room to permit the Hazan to begin the Hazara if only five men besides him have finished the Amida. (We might add that often, those who have yet to complete the Amida have already reached the end, where additional personal prayers are recited, at which point they may respond to Nakdishach. This gives us an additional basis for leniency.) However, Rav Bitan added, this leniency should be relied upon only when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the Hazan should not begin the repetition until at least eight other men have completed the Amida. Summary: If there are only ten men in a Minyan for Arbit, the Hazzan may begin the Kaddish after the silent Amida as long as at least five other men – besides him – have completed the Amida. At all other prayers, when the Hazzan repeats the Amida, he should not begin the repetition until at least eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. In situations of great need, he may begin the repetition even if at least five men – besides him – have completed the Amida. Of course, it always preferable to wait to allow the others to respond to Kaddish or to the repetition.

A person who does not observe Yom Tob, but observes Shabbat, can be counted toward a Minyan. One who violates Yom Kippur, however, is akin to a Shabbat violator. As discussed in a previous installment, the status of a public Shabbat violator vis-à-vis being counted for a Minyan is subject to considerable debate and discussion. A member of the Karaite sect cannot be counted for a Minyan. This sect acknowledges the written text of the Torah as divine law but rejects the authority of the Torah She'be'al Peh – the oral tradition interpreting the Torah. Thus, for example, the Karaites wear Tefillin between their eyes, because they follow the literal meaning of the requirement to wear Tefillin "Ben Enecha" ("between your eyes"), rejecting the Sages' understanding that this refers to the spot on the top of the head parallel to the area between the eyes. Likewise, they follow the literal meaning of the Torah's command not to kindle a flame on Shabbat (Shemot 35:3), and so they keep the lights and heating off on Shabbat, sitting in the dark and cold and eating cold food. We, who accept the Rabbis' interpretation of this verse, as forbidding only the act of kindling on Shabbat, but not having a preexisting flame, specifically make a point of lighting candles before Shabbat to illuminate the home, and of eating hot dishes on Shabbat. Since Karaites heretically deny the authority of our oral tradition, they are considered gentiles with respect to a Minyan, and cannot be counted. Needless to say, if a Karaite or any other kind of heretic or sinner performs Teshuba, they are treated as full-fledged observant Jews and certainly count for a Minyan. An observant Jew who does not read Hebrew, and thus cannot pray, may be counted toward a Minyan, as long as he understands the concept of Tefilla. If, for example, a Jew who did not receive a religious education becomes a Ba'al Teshuba and begins observing the Misvot, then he may be counted as one of the ten men for a Minyan even though he did not yet learn Hebrew and is thus still unable to recite the prayers.

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 99:1) rules that if a person has become inebriated such that he cannot articulate his words properly, and is not fit to appear before a king, then he may not pray, and if he does pray in such a condition, his prayer is considered an "abomination." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) cites the Bet Yehuda (Rav Yehuda Ayash, Algeria, 1700-1759) as ruling that a person in this state cannot be counted toward a Minyan. Interestingly, the Ben Ish Hai adds that since people in such a condition do not necessarily appear drunk, it is important to ensure that the ten men who comprise a Minyan are in fact sober and worthy of being counted. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, noted that this is not, in fact, what the Bet Yehuda wrote. The Bet Yehuda wrote that a person cannot be counted toward a Minyan if he had reached the point of "Shichruto Shel Lot" – the level of intoxication reached by Lot, who was so inebriated that he had intimate relations with his daughters, as he did not recognize them. It is only if a person is drunk to this extent, that he is entirely unaware of what is happening and is not thinking straight at all, that he may not be counted toward a Minyan. Such a person is exempt from Misvot due to his temporary state of mental impairment, and so he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If, however, a person is merely tipsy, then although he should not pray, he may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan. Hacham Ovadia noted that even somebody who is asleep can be counted toward a Minyan, so certainly somebody who is drunk can be counted, as long as he has not reached the point of "Shichruto Shel Lot." Apparently, Hacham Ovadia writes, the Ben Ish Hai saw a faulty edition of the Bet Yehuda which mistakenly stated that even mild inebriation disqualifies a person from being counted. Hacham Ovadia noted that a number of other Poskim also cited the Bet Yehuda as disqualifying even a mildly inebriated person, as they, too, evidently used the faulty edition of this work. The Mishna Berura writes that if necessary, a mentally challenged individual may be counted toward a Minyan if he has enough understanding to pray properly and recognize that he prays to Hashem. If there is no other option, then such a person may be counted. Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that this would apply also to a mildly inebriated individual, who may be counted toward a Minyan when necessary. This situation often arises on Purim, when people drink and become inebriated. Summary: A person who is so drunk that he is entirely unaware of what he is doing may not be counted toward a Minyan. If a person is tipsy and cannot enunciate his words properly, then he should not pray, but he may be counted toward a Minyan, especially if he is needed for forming the Minyan.

An individual who, Heaven forbid, suffers from a physical impairment or disability may be counted toward a Minyan. The concept of a Minyan is rooted in the fact that the Shechina resides among an assembly of ten Jews, and this includes Jews with physical impairments. Therefore, if a person is unable to hear, or is unable to speak, he may be counted toward a Minyan. If, however, a person is both deaf and mute – unable to hear or speak – then he may not be counted toward a Minyan. The reason is that in the past, such a person could not be taught, and thus unfortunately would remain ignorant. He thus has the same status as a child or a mentally challenged adult, who cannot be counted toward a Minyan. The question arises whether this Halacha applies nowadays, when, Baruch Hashem, educational methods are available to teach people who can neither hear nor speak. (In fact, there is a yeshiva in Toronto for students who are both deaf and mute, and the Rosh Yeshiva is himself a deaf-mute.) Many Poskim maintain that if a deaf-mute has been taught and now has the ability to read, write and function like an ordinary person, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. Others, however, disagree. In light of this dispute, Rav Yisrael Bitan ruled that an educated deaf-mute can be counted toward a Minyan for all parts of the prayer service which do not include the recitation of Berachot. Thus, for example, if he is one of ten men, they may recite Kaddish and Barechu, but the Hazzan should not repeat the Amida, since the blessings of the Amida will be considered in vain according to the opinion that an educated deaf-mute cannot be counted. Rav Bitan writes that in such a case, the Hazzan should recite the Amida aloud while the congregation recites it silently, so they can recite Nakdishach. The Torah may be read in such a case, but the Berachot may not be recited. Another question arises regarding the status of a deaf-mute who is able to hear through cochlear implants. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that since this individual can hear, he is like a regular person and can certainly count toward a Minyan according to all opinions. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), however, disagreed. He argued that a person's status depends on his physical capabilities, and an artificial device allowing him to hear does not change his status. Therefore, even if a person can hear with the help of a cochlear implant, in Rav Moshe's view, he is still considered deaf. However, even according to Rav Moshe, if a deaf-mute receives a cochlear implant and then learns how to speak, he is no longer considered mute, and so he can be counted toward a Minyan. Summary: A person with a physical impairment, or who is deaf or mute, can be counted toward a Minyan. A deaf-mute, however, who can neither speak nor hear, cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If he is educated, then it is questionable whether he can be counted toward a Minyan, and so if he is the tenth man, Kaddish and Barechu may be recited, but not the repetition of the Amida, due to the possibility of the blessings being in vain. In such a case, the Hazzan should recite the Amida aloud while the congregation recites it silently, so they can recite Nakdishach. If the person can hear with cochlear implants, then according to one opinion he is not considered deaf, whereas others maintain that he is still a deaf-mute, unless he has learned to speak.

A person who has lost an immediate family member, Heaven forbid, has the status of "Onen" from the time of the death until the burial, a status which exempts him from Misva obligation, including the requirement to pray. As such, an Onen cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If nine men wish to make a Minyan, and the only person they can find to complete the Minyan is an Onen, he cannot be counted. Importantly, however, this applies only until the point that the Hebra Kadisha has taken responsibility for the burial arrangements. Once the Hebra Kadisha assumes responsibility, the deceased family members may be counted toward a Minyan. Moreover, on Shabbat, when burial arrangements cannot be made, the family members do not have the status of Onen, and so they may be counted toward a Minyan. Years ago, people would be put into formal excommunication – "Nidui" – for certain transgressions. The Poskim write that the status of a Menudeh (person in excommunication) vis-à-vis Minyan depends on the circumstances of his Nidui. If he was excommunicated for a grave transgression that he had committed, then he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If, however, he was placed into Nidui for improperly handling a financial dispute, then he may be counted. Likewise, if he treated a Torah sage disrespectfully, and the sage placed him in Nidui, then he may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan. Even in situations where a Menudeh may not be counted toward a Minyan, the congregation may pray in his presence; they do not need to send him out of the synagogue. The status of Nidui requires people to keep a distance from the individual (approximately two meters), but they may pray even though he is in the room. However, if the Bet Din that declared the excommunication included in their declaration a provision barring the individual's participation in a Minyan, then the congregation may not pray in his presence. The Bet Yosef cites the Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) as addressing the case of a congregation that refused to pray because a Menudeh was present. The Ribash ruled that the congregants acted with unnecessary zealotry, as there is no prohibition against praying in the presence of a Menudeh unless this provision was included in the Nidui decree. The Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1892), cited by the Mishna Berura, raises the possibility that even a Menudeh who may not be counted toward a Minyan for prayer may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan for Megilla reading on Purim. The reading of the Megilla does not, strictly speaking, require a Minyan, but it is nevertheless a Misva to conduct the reading in a Minyan for the purpose of "Pirsumeh Nisa" – publicizing the miracle. Since the objective is Pirsum – publicity, it is likely that a person's status of Menudeh is irrelevant. When it comes to Tefila, the concept of a Minyan is that ten people assemble to form a group for prayer, and so a person who has been excommunicated cannot join together with other people for this purpose. For Megilla reading, however, it is necessary only for ten people to be present, not for them to join together and form a single unit. Therefore, it would stand to reason that even a Menudeh can be counted for this purpose.

Months in the Jewish calendar consist of either 29 or 30 days. When a month continues for 30 days, two days of Rosh Hodesh are observed – on the 30 th day of the month, and on the first day of the next month. Most months are consistent, having the same number of days each year. There are, however, a small number of months that fluctuate, as they sometimes have 29 days and sometimes 30. One such month is Heshvan. If a boy was born on the 30 th of Heshvan in a year when it had 30 days, and Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has only 29 days, then he becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day of Kislev. One might have thought that we define this boy's birthday as the day prior to the first of Kislev, such that he becomes a Bar-Misva on the 29 th of Heshvan. But this is not the case. We instead view him as having been born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev, and so he becomes Bar-Misva on the only day of Rosh Hodesh Kislev in the year of his Bar-Misva – namely, the first of Kislev. The Poskim dispute the Halacha in the reverse case, when a boy was born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev in a year when Heshvan had only 29 days, and there are two days of Rosh Hodesh Kislev in the year of his Bar-Misva. The Misha Berura and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) approvingly cite the view of the Bayit Hadash (Rav Yoel Sirkis, Poland, 1561-1640) that the boy in this case becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Heshvan, the first day of Rosh Hodesh. According to this opinion, we view the boy as having been born on the day after the 29 th of Heshvan, and thus in a year when Heshvan extends for 30 days, his birthday is the 30 th of Heshvan. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), however, disagreed. In his view, since the boy was born on the first of Kislev, this date is his birthday, and so he becomes Bar-Misva on this date irrespective of how many days the previous month had. Even if there are two days of Rosh Hodesh in the year of his Bar-Misva, he does not become a Bar-Misva until the date of his birth – the first of Kislev. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, ruled that the boy in this case should observe the stringencies of both opinions – meaning, he should ensure to observe all the Misvot already on the 30 th of Heshvan, but should not be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Kislev. Summary: If a boy was born on the 30 th of Heshvan in a year when Heshvan had 30 days, and Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has only 29 days, he becomes a Bar-Misva on the first of Kislev. If he was born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev in a year when Heshvan had only 29 days, and there was thus only one day of Rosh Hodesh, but Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has 30 days, it is unclear when he becomes a Bar-Misva. Therefore, he should ensure to observe all the Misvot already on the 30 th of Heshvan, but should not be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Kislev.

Months in the Jewish calendar consist of either 29 or 30 days. When a month continues for 30 days, two days of Rosh Hodesh are observed – on the 30 th day of the month, and on the first day of the next month. Most months are consistent, having the same number of days each year. There are, however, a small number of months that fluctuate, as they sometimes have 29 days and sometimes 30. One such month is Heshvan. If a boy was born on the 30 th of Heshvan in a year when it had 30 days, and Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has only 29 days, then he becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day of Kislev. One might have thought that we define this boy's birthday as the day prior to the first of Kislev, such that he becomes a Bar-Misva on the 29 th of Heshvan. But this is not the case. We instead view him as having been born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev, and so he becomes Bar-Misva on the only day of Rosh Hodesh Kislev in the year of his Bar-Misva – namely, the first of Kislev. The Poskim dispute the Halacha in the reverse case, when a boy was born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev in a year when Heshvan had only 29 days, and there are two days of Rosh Hodesh Kislev in the year of his Bar-Misva. The Misha Berura and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) approvingly cite the view of the Bayit Hadash (Rav Yoel Sirkis, Poland, 1561-1640) that the boy in this case becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Heshvan, the first day of Rosh Hodesh. According to this opinion, we view the boy as having been born on the day after the 29 th of Heshvan, and thus in a year when Heshvan extends for 30 days, his birthday is the 30 th of Heshvan. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), however, disagreed. In his view, since the boy was born on the first of Kislev, this date is his birthday, and so he becomes Bar-Misva on this date irrespective of how many days the previous month had. Even if there are two days of Rosh Hodesh in the year of his Bar-Misva, he does not become a Bar-Misva until the date of his birth – the first of Kislev. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, ruled that the boy in this case should observe the stringencies of both opinions – meaning, he should ensure to observe all the Misvot already on the 30 th of Heshvan, but should not be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Kislev. Summary: If a boy was born on the 30 th of Heshvan in a year when Heshvan had 30 days, and Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has only 29 days, he becomes a Bar-Misva on the first of Kislev. If he was born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev in a year when Heshvan had only 29 days, and there was thus only one day of Rosh Hodesh, but Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has 30 days, it is unclear when he becomes a Bar-Misva. Therefore, he should ensure to observe all the Misvot already on the 30 th of Heshvan, but should not be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Kislev.

A fascinating question arises in the case of a boy whose family travels across the International Date Line to celebrate his Bar-Misva. If, for example, the boy was born and raised in the U.S., and the family travels to Australia via the Pacific Ocean, they cross the Date Line during the trip, thus jumping one day ahead. The question becomes whether the boy becomes Bar-Misva on his birthday in Australia, or if he must wait another day, until it is his birthday back in the United States where he was born. Some Poskim maintain that in such a case, he indeed does not become a Bar-Misva until the next day. Since he moved ahead one day during his flight, the date in his current location does not determine his halachic status as a Bar-Misva. If, however, the family traveled to Australia eastward, such that they did not cross the International Date Line, then he becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his birthday arrives in Australia. In this case, he follows the date of his current location, even though his birthday has yet to arrive back home which is in a later time zone. This ruling would apply in the reverse case, as well, if an Australian boy travels to the U.S. for his Bar-Misva. If the family travels eastward, arriving in the U.S. via the Pacific Ocean, and thus having crossed the International Date Line and moving back one day, the boy becomes a Bar-Misva a day before the date of his birthday in the U.S., since this is the day of his Bar-Misva in Australia. If, however, the family traveled westward, reaching the U.S. via the Atlantic Ocean, then since he did not cross the Date Line, he does not become a Bar-Misva until the date of his birthday in the U.S. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Jerusalem, 1910-2012) disagreed. He maintained that the boy becomes a Bar-Misva on the date of his birthday in his current location, and crossing the International Date Line has no effect on the timing of his becoming a halachic adult. This is the accepted Halacha. Another intriguing case, is that of a boy who crosses the Date Line on the day of his Bar-Misva, moving him back one day. In such a case, after becoming a Bar-Misva, the boy enters a region where his thirteenth birthday had not yet arrived. A number of Poskim, including Rav Haim Kanievsky, ruled that once a child becomes a Bar-Misva, there is no possibility of him losing this status and reverting to being a minor, and thus crossing the Date Line would not affect the boy's status in this case.

An interesting question arises in the case of a boy who was born during a leap year, on the 30 th day of Adar Rishon (the first Adar), and the year of his Bar-Misva is a regular, twelve-month year, when there is only one month of Adar. Since there is no 30 th day of Adar in a regular year, it is unclear which day is considered his birthday when he becomes a Bar-Misva. According to some Poskim, he becomes a Bar-Misva on the 30 th of Shevat. Since the boy was born on the day preceding the first of Adar Sheni – the second Adar, which is considered the real month of Adar during a leap year – he turns thirteen on the day preceding the first of Adar – namely, the 30 th of Shevat. This is the view of the Binyan Sion (Rav Yaakob Ettlinger, Germany, 1798-1871), the Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989), and Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that it cannot be determined conclusively whether this child becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Shevat or on the first of Nissan – the equivalent of 30 Adar, since Adar has only 29 days. Therefore, the boy must take into account both possibilities, meaning, he must strictly observe all Misvot already from 30 Shevat, but he cannot be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Nissan. A somewhat similar question arises in the case of a boy born on 30 Shevat in a regular year, and his Bar-Misva year is a leap year. The Binyan Sion ruled that since he was born on the day before the first of Adar, he becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Adar Rishon – the day before the first of the real month of Adar, Adar Sheni. Others, however, maintain that since he was born during the month of Shevat, his Bar-Misva date is not affected at all by the extra Adar added in the year of his Bar-Misva, and thus he becomes Bar-Misva on 30 Shevat. Here, too, Rav Shlomo Zalman ruled that the boy must follow the stringencies of both opinions. He must strictly observe all the Misvot already from 30 Shevat, but he may not be counted toward a Minyan until 30 Adar Rishon.

An interesting question arises in the case of a boy who was born during a leap year, on the 30 th day of Adar Rishon (the first Adar), and the year of his Bar-Misva is a regular, twelve-month year, when there is only one month of Adar. Since there is no 30 th day of Adar in a regular year, it is unclear which day is considered his birthday when he becomes a Bar-Misva. According to some Poskim, he becomes a Bar-Misva on the 30 th of Shevat. Since the boy was born on the day preceding the first of Adar Sheni – the second Adar, which is considered the real month of Adar during a leap year – he turns thirteen on the day preceding the first of Adar – namely, the 30 th of Shevat. This is the view of the Binyan Sion (Rav Yaakob Ettlinger, Germany, 1798-1871), the Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989), and Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that it cannot be determined conclusively whether this child becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Shevat or on the first of Nissan – the equivalent of 30 Adar, since Adar has only 29 days. Therefore, the boy must take into account both possibilities, meaning, he must strictly observe all Misvot already from 30 Shevat, but he cannot be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Nissan. A somewhat similar question arises in the case of a boy born on 30 Shevat in a regular year, and his Bar-Misva year is a leap year. The Binyan Sion ruled that since he was born on the day before the first of Adar, he becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Adar Rishon – the day before the first of the real month of Adar, Adar Sheni. Others, however, maintain that since he was born during the month of Shevat, his Bar-Misva date is not affected at all by the extra Adar added in the year of his Bar-Misva, and thus he becomes Bar-Misva on 30 Shevat. Here, too, Rav Shlomo Zalman ruled that the boy must follow the stringencies of both opinions. He must strictly observe all the Misvot already from 30 Shevat, but he may not be counted toward a Minyan until 30 Adar Rishon.

In certain years, an extra month of Adar is added to the Jewish calendar. The reason for this occasional extension of the year is to synchronize the Jewish calendar with the solar calendar. The solar calendar, which is used by the Christian world, is based upon the earth's revolution around the sun, which occurs over the course of 365 days. The Jewish calendar, by contrast, is arranged on the basis of the moon's revolution around the earth, which occurs approximately every 28-29 days. The Jewish year is determined by twelve revolutions of the moon, which spans 354 days. Hence, the Jewish calendar is eleven days shorter than the solar calendar. If we would follow only the lunar system, all our holidays would fall each year eleven days earlier than the previous year, and they could thus fall during any season. (In fact, the Moslems' calendar follows exclusively the lunar system, and so their holidays can fall at any time during the year.) The Torah requires that Pesach always be observed during the spring season, and it is therefore necessary to adjust the lunar calendar so it is synchronized with the solar calendar, assuring that each Jewish holiday falls in its appropriate season. We do this by adding a month every several years. The month that is added is a second month of Adar. (Interestingly enough, the zodiacal sign of the month of Adar is Pisces, which has two distinct images, corresponding to the two months of Adar. The sign of every other month has only one image.) During a leap year, when an extra Adar is added, the second Adar is considered the actual month of Adar, and the first Adar is regarded as the additional month. Therefore, we celebrate Purim during the second Adar, and we likewise observe Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Zachor during that month. If a child was born in Adar Sheni (the second Adar) during a leap year, and the year of his Bar-Misva is also a leap year, then, quite obviously, he becomes a Bar-Misva on his birthday in Adar Sheni. And a boy born during Adar Rishon (the first Adar) during a leap year becomes Bar-Misva in Adar Rishon if that year is a leap year. If a child was born in Adar Rishon during a leap year, and the year of his Bar-Misva is a regular year, then he becomes Bar-Misva on his birthday during the month of Adar. One might have thought that we should consider Adar Rishon the equivalent of Shevat – the month before Adar – such that his Bar-Misva should occur in Shevat. This is not the case, as Halacha considers this boy to have been born during Adar, and so be becomes a Bar-Misva in Adar. Conversely, if a boy was born in Nissan during a regular year, and the year of his Bar-Misva is a leap year, he becomes a Bar-Misva during Nissan. We do not consider his birthday to be in Adar Sheni – the month after the first Adar – but rather in Nissan. These Halachot result in an intriguing anomaly – that a boy can become Bar-Misva before a boy who is older than him. If a boy was born toward the end of Adar Rishon in a leap year, and another boy was born several days later, toward the beginning of Adar Sheni, then if the year of their Bar-Misva is a regular year, the younger boy will celebrate his Bar-Misva first. Since he was born in the beginning of Adar Sheni, he will become Bar-Misva on that date in Adar, whereas the older boy – who was born at the end of Adar Rishon – will not become Bar-Misva until that date arrives toward the end of Adar.

If a boy in the synagogue claims that he has reached the age of Bar-Misva, the others should not rely on this claim to count him toward a Minyan, or to allow him to serve as Hazzan. He can be counted only if his father testifies that he reached the age of thirteen, or if somebody testifies that this boy's father said this about the boy. The boy's testimony about his age should not be accepted. Even if he is wearing Tefillin, this does not prove that he is already a Bar-Misva, for many communities have the custom that boys begin wearing Tefillin at some point before becoming Bar-Misva. If, however, this boy is needed for the Minyan, and without him the Minyan will be lost, then his claim may be trusted with respect to his inclusion in a Minyan. Even in such a case, however, he should not be allowed to serve as Hazzan. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef, though others disagreed. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) contended that the child may be trusted because he is unlikely to lie, given the possibility of verifying his claim. A person can be assumed to tell the truth about something which is easily verifiable, as he fears being viewed as a dishonest person. Hence, in Rav Shlomo Zalman's view, the boy can be assumed to be telling the truth. In any event, we follow Hacham Ovadia's position, and thus a boy cannot be assumed to be a Bar-Misva based solely on his claim, unless there is no Minyan without him.

The period of Ben Ha'shemashot, which extends for a short while (approximately 10-13 minutes) after sunset, is regarded by Halacha as a time of "Safek" – uncertainty, as it is questionable whether this period is to be considered daytime or nighttime. This uncertainty affects many different areas of Halacha, including the date of a youngster's Bar-Misva, the day when he becomes obligated in Misvot. If a child was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, it is uncertain whether he is considered to have been born during the day, or born during the night. As the Halachic day begins in the nighttime, his birthday is uncertain. Thirteen years later, then, we are unsure which day is the day when he becomes a Bar-Misva and is obligated in Misva observance. Due to this uncertainty, he must begin strictly observing the Misvot on the first of these two days. Less obvious, however, is whether he may serve as a Hazzan in the synagogue on the first day. We would intuitively assume that since he might not be a Bar-Misva until the second day, he should not serve as Hazzan on the first day. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Oserot Yosef, asserts that the boy may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first of these two days. He notes that there is a view in the Gemara that conclusively regards Ben Ha'shemashot as daytime, and, additionally, Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171) maintained that halachic sunset occurs 72 minutes after the moment that we consider sunset. According to both these opinions, this boy becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day, thus giving us room for leniency at least during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida, and thus the Hazzan is not fulfilling any sort of obligation on behalf of the congregation. Hacham David goes even further and posits that there is a basis for leniency even during Shaharit and Minha on the first day. In conclusion, then, if a boy was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, and thus the precise date of his birthday is uncertain, he becomes obligated in Misvot on the first day, and may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first day. If he wishes to serve as Hazzan also at Shaharit and Minha on the first day, there is a basis for allowing him to do so.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:25) teaches, "Ben Shelosh Esreh Le'misvot" – a youngster becomes obligated in Misvot upon reaching the age of thirteen. At this point, he may be counted toward a Minyan and may serve as Hazzan. The source for this rule is "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – an oral tradition taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (5b) teaches that all Shiurim – halachic measurements – were taught as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai," and this includes the "measurement" of adulthood, when a boy becomes obligated in Misvot. Rashi, however, in his commentary to Abot, finds a Biblical source for this rule. The Torah uses the word "Ish" ("man") in reference to Shimon and Levi when they waged war on the city of Shechem ("Ish Harbo" – Bereshit 34:25), and, as Rashi shows, Levi – the younger of these two brothers – was thirteen years old at this time. This establishes that a boy attains the status of "Ish" – a man – at the age of thirteen. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Moelin, Germany, d. 1427) refutes this proof, noting that the use of the word "Ish" in this context does not necessarily mean that this word would not be used if Levi was younger. Therefore, the Maharil concludes that there is no textual basis for this rule, and it was transmitted through oral tradition. Some suggested an allusion to this Halacha in a verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (43:21) in which Hashem pronounces, "Am Zu Yasarti Li, Tehilati Yesaperu" – "I have created this nation for Me, that they tell My praise." The word "Zu" in Gematria equals 13 (7+6), thus hinting to the fact that it is at this age when Hashem wants us to praise Him and perform Misvot. There is a debate among the early authorities as to when precisely a boy is considered a Bar-Misva. The She'iltot (Rav Ahai Gaon, d. 752) writes that a boy becomes a Bar-Misva the moment he fully completes his thirteenth year – meaning, at the time of day when he was born thirteen years earlier. Thus, for example, according to this opinion, a boy who was born at 2pm cannot be counted for a Minyan or serve as Hazan on his thirteenth birthday until 2pm, the point at which he has completed thirteen full years. The consensus among the Poskim, however, is that a boy becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his thirteenth birthday arrives, in the evening. This is, indeed, the Halacha. Therefore, regardless of the time of day of a child's birth, he may serve as Hazan already at Arbit on the night of his thirteenth birthday. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the thirteen years are counted from the child's birth even if he was born prematurely and needed to spend a significant amount of time in an incubator. In addition to the requirement of completing thirteen years, a boy must also have reached a certain point of physical maturity to be considered a Halachic adult. Specifically, he must have grown two pubic hairs. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), based on a ruling of Rav Yosef Kolon (1426-1490), writes that a child who has turned thirteen may be allowed to serve as Hazzan on the assumption that he has reached the point of physical maturity. This assumption may be relied upon with respect to matters instituted by the Sages (as opposed to Torah obligations), and thus, since praying with a Minyan is a Misva ordained by Sages, a child who reached Bar Misva age may lead the service. The Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) went even further, allowing relying on this assumption even with respect to Torah obligations. According to his view, a full-fledged adult may fulfill his Torah obligation of Kiddush on Friday night by listening to Kiddush recited by a boy who has just turned thirteen, on the assumption that he has reached physical maturity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that those who wish to rely on this position may be allowed to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia's son, Hacham David Yosef, writes in Halacha Berura that one must not assume a boy's physical maturity with respect to Torah obligations such as the Friday night Kiddush, and this assumption may be made only with respect to Rabbinic obligations. All opinions agree that a thirteen-year-old boy may read the Megilla in the synagogue on Purim, since the obligation of Megilla reading was instituted by the Rabbis.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:25) teaches, "Ben Shelosh Esreh Le'misvot" – a youngster becomes obligated in Misvot upon reaching the age of thirteen. At this point, he may be counted toward a Minyan and may serve as Hazzan. The source for this rule is "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – an oral tradition taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (5b) teaches that all Shiurim – halachic measurements – were taught as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai," and this includes the "measurement" of adulthood, when a boy becomes obligated in Misvot. Rashi, however, in his commentary to Abot, finds a Biblical source for this rule. The Torah uses the word "Ish" ("man") in reference to Shimon and Levi when they waged war on the city of Shechem ("Ish Harbo" – Bereshit 34:25), and, as Rashi shows, Levi – the younger of these two brothers – was thirteen years old at this time. This establishes that a boy attains the status of "Ish" – a man – at the age of thirteen. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Moelin, Germany, d. 1427) refutes this proof, noting that the use of the word "Ish" in this context does not necessarily mean that this word would not be used if Levi was younger. Therefore, the Maharil concludes that there is no textual basis for this rule, and it was transmitted through oral tradition. Some suggested an allusion to this Halacha in a verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (43:21) in which Hashem pronounces, "Am Zu Yasarti Li, Tehilati Yesaperu" – "I have created this nation for Me, that they tell My praise." The word "Zu" in Gematria equals 13 (7+6), thus hinting to the fact that it is at this age when Hashem wants us to praise Him and perform Misvot. There is a debate among the early authorities as to when precisely a boy is considered a Bar-Misva. The She'iltot (Rav Ahai Gaon, d. 752) writes that a boy becomes a Bar-Misva the moment he fully completes his thirteenth year – meaning, at the time of day when he was born thirteen years earlier. Thus, for example, according to this opinion, a boy who was born at 2pm cannot be counted for a Minyan or serve as Hazan on his thirteenth birthday until 2pm, the point at which he has completed thirteen full years. The consensus among the Poskim, however, is that a boy becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his thirteenth birthday arrives, in the evening. This is, indeed, the Halacha. Therefore, regardless of the time of day of a child's birth, he may serve as Hazan already at Arbit on the night of his thirteenth birthday. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the thirteen years are counted from the child's birth even if he was born prematurely and needed to spend a significant amount of time in an incubator. In addition to the requirement of completing thirteen years, a boy must also have reached a certain point of physical maturity to be considered a Halachic adult. Specifically, he must have grown two pubic hairs. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), based on a ruling of Rav Yosef Kolon (1426-1490), writes that a child who has turned thirteen may be allowed to serve as Hazzan on the assumption that he has reached the point of physical maturity. This assumption may be relied upon with respect to matters instituted by the Sages (as opposed to Torah obligations), and thus, since praying with a Minyan is a Misva ordained by Sages, a child who reached Bar Misva age may lead the service. The Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) went even further, allowing relying on this assumption even with respect to Torah obligations. According to his view, a full-fledged adult may fulfill his Torah obligation of Kiddush on Friday night by listening to Kiddush recited by a boy who has just turned thirteen, on the assumption that he has reached physical maturity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that those who wish to rely on this position may be allowed to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia's son, Hacham David Yosef, writes in Halacha Berura that one must not assume a boy's physical maturity with respect to Torah obligations such as the Friday night Kiddush, and this assumption may be made only with respect to Rabbinic obligations. All opinions agree that a thirteen-year-old boy may read the Megilla in the synagogue on Purim, since the obligation of Megilla reading was instituted by the Rabbis. If it is known that a young man has not yet reached this stage of physical development, then he is not considered a Bar-Misva even though his thirteenth birthday has passed. In fact, even if he is older than thirteen, he is not considered a Bar-Misva if it has been determined that he does not have the physical properties required to establish halachic adulthood. If, Heaven forbid, a man does not physically develop until the age of 35, at that point he is considered a "Saris" – an adult man who will never experience physical maturity, and he may thus be counted toward a Minyan. Until then, however, he cannot be considered an adult and may thus not be counted toward a Minyan.

The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.

The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. Given the different views on this subject, Rav Bitan suggested that a Sepharadi who finds himself in this situation should answer by reciting the verse, "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53), attempting to conclude the verse just when the others respond "Amen." This way, the Sefaradi answers "Amen" but says this word as part of a verse, which is always acceptable, thus satisfying all opinions. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.

We follow the custom to recite the Mishna of "Rabbi Hananya Ben Akashya" just before the recitation of Kaddish that precedes Baruch She'amar in the morning. The reason for this practice is that sometimes, the prayer service begins before a Minyan has arrived, and the tenth man comes in right after La'menase'ah, before the Kaddish that precedes Baruch She'amar. In order to allow the recitation of Kaddish, a Minyan must have been present for the reading of words of Torah. We therefore recite "Rabbi Hananya Ben Akashya" to allow the recitation of Kaddish if the tenth men arrived right at that point, before Kaddish. If fewer than ten men are present in the synagogue when it is time to begin Minha, the congregation may begin reciting the sections of the Tamid and the Ketoret, but they should not begin Ashreh before the tenth man arrives. According to some opinions, the half-Kaddish following Ashreh can be recited only if a Minyan was present for Ashreh, and so the congregation should wait for a Minyan to arrive before beginning Ashreh. However, if they recited Ashreh without a Minyan, and the tenth man then arrived, then, according to some Poskim, Kaddish may nevertheless be recited, because our custom is for the Hazzan to recite two verses – "Tikon Tefilati Lefanecha" (Tehillim 141:2) and "Hakshiba Le'kol Shav'i" (Tehillim 5:3) – just before the half-Kaddish preceding the Amida at Minha. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that the custom in his time was to recite Ashreh while waiting for the tenth man, and to then rely on the recitation of these two verses before Kaddish once the tenth man arrives. However, the Mishna Berura ruled that at least three verses must be read to allow the recitation of Kaddish. Moreover, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Od Yosef Hai (Parashat Vayakhel), indicates that an entire chapter of Tehillim should be recited with a Minyan before Kaddish. Therefore, it is preferable to wait for a Minyan before reciting Ashreh, though if Ashreh was recited without a Minyan, and the tenth man arrived after Ashreh, the congregation may rely on the two verses of "Tikon Tefilati" and "Hakshiba." If the entire morning Pesukeh De'zimra service was recited without a Minyan, and the tenth man arrived after Yishtabah at the conclusion of Pesukeh De'zimra, the Hazzan may recite at that point the half-Kaddish preceding Barechu. Likewise, if, during Arbit, the tenth man arrived only after the reading of Shema and all its blessings, the Hazzan may recite the half-Kaddish before the Amida.

It is customary for Kaddish to be recited after a group reads Tehillim or learns Torah. If only verses from Tanach were read, then Kaddish Yeheh Shelama Rabba is recited. If the learning included Torah She'be'al Peh, then Kaddish Al Yisrael – which includes a prayer for the Sages of Israel, who developed the Torah She'be'al Peh – is recited. Of course, the recitation of Kaddish requires the presence of a Minyan. Sometimes, when fewer than ten men were learning, and one wishes to recite Kaddish, they will bring in men to complete the Minyan to allow for the recitation of Kaddish. May Kaddish be recited immediately in such a case, or must another verse be read, or some more material learned, so that the newcomers read or learn something before Kaddish is recited? This issue is subject to a debate among the Poskim. The Taz (Rav David Segal, Poland, d. 1667) maintained that the newcomers do not need to participate in the learning, and so Kaddish may be recited immediately upon their arrival. The Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, Prague, d. 1612), by contrast, maintained that the men who are brought in must, in fact, learn something before Kaddish may be recited. He reached this conclusion on the basis of the ruling of the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) that at Minha, the congregation should not recite Ashreh without a Minyan. The Lebush understood that if a Minyan is not present for Ashreh, then even if the tenth man arrives immediately afterward, the half-Kaddish cannot then be recited, since there was no Minyan during the recitation of Ashreh. This indicates that a Minyan must be present not only for Kaddish, but for the learning or reading preceding the Kaddish. The Taz disagrees with this understanding of the Rama's ruling, and explains that Kaddish must be recited immediately after Ashreh, without any interruption, and so the congregation should not recite Ashreh without a Minyan, as they might then need to wait after Ashreh for a Minyan to arrive before saying Kaddish. The Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1633-1682) concurred with the ruling of the Lebush, explaining that Kaddish is recited after Torah learning because public Torah study, in the presence of ten men or more, creates a Kiddush Hashem (a glorification of Hashem's Name). After creating such a Kiddush Hashem, we declare, "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba" – that G-d's great name shall continue to be honored and glorified. As this is the reason for reciting Kaddish after learning, it follows that Kaddish is recited only if a Minyan was present during the learning. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) concludes that it is proper to abide by the stringent opinion, and thus if a tenth man arrives after the reading of Tehillim or Torah study, another chapter should be read, or another piece of Torah She'ba'al Peh should be learned, before the recitation of Kaddish. It is for this reason that the custom developed to recite the Mishna of "Rabbi Hananya Ben Akashya" before the recitation of Kaddish Al Yisrael following the study of Torah. In principle, this is not necessary, as the learning itself suffices to warrant the recitation of Kaddish. However, since sometimes the tenth man arrives only after the learning, it became customary to always add this brief Mishna just before Kaddish to ensure that a Minyan is present for the learning and not only for Kaddish. There is some discussion in the Poskim as to how many people must read a passage before Kaddish once the tenth man arrives. The general consensus seems to be that it suffices for just one person to read a passage, and this is, indeed, the common practice. Even someone who did not actually learn or read any verses may then recite Kaddish. Summary: If a group consisting of fewer than ten men read Tehillim or learned Torah, and then a Minyan arrived for Kaddish, someone must read another passage in the presence of the Minyan before the recitation of Kaddish. It is for this reason that the custom developed to recite the Mishna of "Rabbi Hananya Ben Akashya" before the recitation of Kaddish Al Yisrael after Torah study.

Generally speaking, one should not leave the synagogue until the end of the Tefila. There is a tradition that if a person routinely leaves in the middle of the service, then in the future, after Mashiah comes, he will be told to leave the Bet Ha'mikdash before the end of the prayers. It is especially grievous for a person to leave if he is the tenth man. As we've seen in previous installments, a person who exits during a part of the service that requires a Minyan, leaving behind less than ten men, is subject to the harsh warning of the prophet Yeshayahu, "Ve'ozebeh Hashem Yichlu" – "Those who abandon G-d shall be annihilated" (Yeshayahu 1: 28). Sometimes, however, a person has a pressing need to leave. It goes without saying that in the case of a dire emergency, a person may leave the synagogue during any part of the service even if this results in breaking the Minyan. Thus, for example, it is obvious that if a Hatzalah member gets a call during the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), he should immediately leave and tend to the emergency. However, there are even matters of lesser urgency that allow leaving during the Hazara (or other parts of the service that require a Minyan) even if one is the tenth man. If a person needs to use the restroom, for example, and he cannot restrain himself, then it is permissible for him to leave, even though fewer than ten men will be remaining in the synagogue. If a significant financial loss is at stake – such as if a person must leave early for a vitally important business meeting, or might otherwise lose his job – then according to Rav Shmuel Wosner (1913-1915), one may be lenient and leave to avoid the financial loss. Others disagree. In practice, Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that one may rely on the lenient position if he wishes, but he should preferably remain in the synagogue and trust that "Kol Ha'shome'a Li Eno Mafsid" – one ultimately gains, and does not lose, by obeying Hashem and doing the right thing, and any money lost as a result of remaining in the synagogue will be repaid. There is some discussion among the Poskim regarding a Kohen's hand-washing in preparation for Birkat Kohanim in a situation where only ten men are present in the synagogue. In most synagogues, the Kohanim must exit the sanctuary to access the sink. Should the Kohen do so if only ten men are present, and he would thus leave behind fewer than ten men for a few moments during the Hazara? Some suggested that in such a situation, it is preferable for the Kohen to wash his hands before the Amida in order to avoid the problem. Others, however, disapprove of this solution, as a Kohen ought to wash his hands as close to Birkat Kohanim as possible. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) writes that in such a case, the Hazzan should pause for those few moments when the Kohen is outside the synagogue and only nine men remain. As for the final Halacha, Rav Yisrael Bitan ruled that preferably, water should be brought to the Kohen inside the sanctuary in this situation so he does not need to leave. If this is not feasible, then the Kohen should leave to wash his hands, and the Hazzan should pause, in accordance with Rav Haim Palachi's ruling. If the sink is visible from inside the sanctuary, then the Kohen may leave to wash his hands and rely on the opinion that he counts toward the Minyan since he can still be seen. Whenever one exits the synagogue, it is proper to do slowly, as leaving hurriedly gives the impression that he is eager to finish the prayers and leave.

Generally speaking, one should not leave the synagogue until the end of the Tefila. There is a tradition that if a person routinely leaves in the middle of the service, then in the future, after Mashiah comes, he will be told to leave the Bet Ha'mikdash before the end of the prayers. It is especially grievous for a person to leave if he is the tenth man. As we've seen in previous installments, a person who exits during a part of the service that requires a Minyan, leaving behind less than ten men, is subject to the harsh warning of the prophet Yeshayahu, "Ve'ozebeh Hashem Yichlu" – "Those who abandon G-d shall be annihilated" (Yeshayahu 1: 28). Sometimes, however, a person has a pressing need to leave. It goes without saying that in the case of a dire emergency, a person may leave the synagogue during any part of the service even if this results in breaking the Minyan. Thus, for example, it is obvious that if a Hatzalah member gets a call during the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), he should immediately leave and tend to the emergency. However, there are even matters of lesser urgency that allow leaving during the Hazara (or other parts of the service that require a Minyan) even if one is the tenth man. If a person needs to use the restroom, for example, and he cannot restrain himself, then it is permissible for him to leave, even though fewer than ten men will be remaining in the synagogue. If a significant financial loss is at stake – such as if a person must leave early for a vitally important business meeting, or might otherwise lose his job – then according to Rav Shmuel Wosner (1913-1915), one may be lenient and leave to avoid the financial loss. Others disagree. In practice, Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that one may rely on the lenient position if he wishes, but he should preferably remain in the synagogue and trust that "Kol Ha'shome'a Li Eno Mafsid" – one ultimately gains, and does not lose, by obeying Hashem and doing the right thing, and any money lost as a result of remaining in the synagogue will be repaid. There is some discussion among the Poskim regarding a Kohen's hand-washing in preparation for Birkat Kohanim in a situation where only ten men are present in the synagogue. In most synagogues, the Kohanim must exit the sanctuary to access the sink. Should the Kohen do so if only ten men are present, and he would thus leave behind fewer than ten men for a few moments during the Hazara? Some suggested that in such a situation, it is preferable for the Kohen to wash his hands before the Amida in order to avoid the problem. Others, however, disapprove of this solution, as a Kohen ought to wash his hands as close to Birkat Kohanim as possible. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) writes that in such a case, the Hazzan should pause for those few moments when the Kohen is outside the synagogue and only nine men remain. As for the final Halacha, Rav Yisrael Bitan ruled that preferably, water should be brought to the Kohen inside the sanctuary in this situation so he does not need to leave. If this is not feasible, then the Kohen should leave to wash his hands, and the Hazzan should pause, in accordance with Rav Haim Palachi's ruling. If the sink is visible from inside the sanctuary, then the Kohen may leave to wash his hands and rely on the opinion that he counts toward the Minyan since he can still be seen. Whenever one exits the synagogue, it is proper to do slowly, as leaving hurriedly gives the impression that he is eager to finish the prayers and leave.

As discussed in previous installments, if a Minyan of precisely ten people is praying, and one of them leaves in the middle of a section that requires a Minyan, those who remain may complete that section despite not having a Minyan. As long as at least six men remain, they may complete the section that began in the presence of a Minyan. Thus, for example, if the Hazzan began the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), and the Minyan was lost in the middle of the repetition, he may continue and complete the Hazara. However, Halacha speaks very harshly of a person who breaks a Minyan by departing in the middle of the service, leaving behind fewer than ten men. The Sages applied to such a person the stern warning of the prophet Yeshayahu (1:28), "Ve'ozebeh Hashem Yichlu" – "Those who abandon G-d shall be annihilated," Heaven forbid. It must be emphasized that this applies only to someone whose departure results in the loss of a Minyan. If there are more than ten men present, then one who leaves the synagogue is not included in this harsh condemnation. Furthermore, the Mishna Berura writes that the Sages speak here only of a person who leaves during a part of the prayer service that requires a Minyan – such as the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), Kaddish and Torah reading. If a person needs to leave, he may do so if the congregation is not currently reciting a part of the prayer service requiring ten men. For example, if the Hazzan is reciting the Kaddish after Yishtabah, and the tenth man wishes to leave, he may wait until after Kaddish and then leave. This is allowed even though he prevents the remaining nine from reciting the later sections of the service that require a Minyan. Similarly, if a person needs to leave during the Hazara, he should do so after the completion of the Hazara. (According to Ashkenazic custom, which views Kaddish Titkabal as part of the Hazara, he must wait until after Kaddish Titkabal.) An exception to this rule is Nakdishach, during which one may never leave the synagogue. Importantly, this entire discussion applies to a person who already prayed. Irrespective of one's responsibility to the other nine men in the synagogue, he has a personal obligation to pray with a Minyan, and so he should not leave without a pressing need that justifies missing a Minyan.

I once encountered a fascinating Halachic question while praying in an airport before boarding. A group of nine Ashkenazim approached me and said they needed a tenth man so they could make a Minyan for Minha, and I of course happily agreed. During the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), an announcement was made that it was time to board. Six of us knew we had time to finish Minha before we needed to get on line to board, but four of the men were worried, and left to board. The remaining six were unsure what to do, and I told them that the Hazzan may continue the repetition of the Amida, since there was a Minyan in attendance when it began. If a section of the service requiring a Minyan began when ten or more men were present, it may be completed even if the Minyan was lost, as long as at least six men remain. The problem, however, arose when the time came to recite the Kaddish Titkabal after the Hazara. Ashkenazic custom views the Kaddish Titkabal as integrally connected to the Hazara, and therefore, just as the Hazara may be completed after the Minyan was lost, the Kaddish Titkaba after the Hazara may likewise be recited. Sephardic custom, however, views Kaddish Titkabal as separate from the Hazara, and thus according to Sephardic practice, if the Minyan was lost during the Hazara, then the Kaddish Titkabal may not be recited after the Hazzan completes the Hazara. I was thus unsure what to do in this situation, as a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim after four of the ten men left. Their Halachic tradition mandated reciting the Kaddish Titkabal after the repetition of the Amida, but according to my Halachic tradition, this Kaddish should not be recited. I did not know whether I should answer to their recitation of Kaddish. I later sent a message to Rav Yisrael Bitan asking this question, and he promptly replied with a detailed, six-page Teshuba (responsum) on this subject. He noted Hacham Ovadia Yosef's ruling that when a person hears a Beracha which according to his tradition is unwarranted, and thus recited in vain, he may not answer "Amen." One example is a Sefaradi who hears an Ashkenazi recite the Beracha of "Al Misvat Tefillin" over the Tefillin Shel Rosh. Although this Ashkenazi obviously acts correctly by reciting this Beracha, which is required according to Ashkenazic custom, the Sefaradi should not answer "Amen," since according to Sephardic practice, this Beracha constitutes a Beracha Le'batala (blessing recited in vain). This would apply also in the case of a Sefaradi who hears an Ashkenazi recite a Beracha over Hallel on Rosh Hodesh – a Beracha required by Ashkenazi custom but not according to Sephardic custom. Since Sephardic tradition regards this blessing as a "Beracha Le'batala," the Sefaradi should not answer "Amen" to this blessing. Many other Poskim dispute Hacham Ovadia's ruling, and maintain that since the Ashkenazi recites this blessing legitimately, in accordance with Ashkenazic practice, there is no problem for a Sefaradi to answer "Amen." Rabbi Bitan considers the possibility that Hacham Ovadia might agree that in the case of Kaddish, a Sefaradi may respond even if the Kaddish should not be recited according to Sephardic custom. One might distinguish between answering to an unwarranted blessing, which constitutes a "Beracha Le'batala," and answering to Kaddish, which is not a blessing. Rav Bitan concludes, however, that Hacham Ovadia likely applied his ruling even to Kaddish, and thus, in his view, a Sefaradi should not answer "Amen" to Kaddish if the Kaddish is not valid according to Sephardic custom. He may, however, answer "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" even according to Hacham Ovadia's position, as this is merely an expression of praise, and differs from the response of "Amen." Given the different views on this subject, Rav Bitan suggested avoiding this problem by reciting the verse, "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53), attempting to conclude the verse just when the others respond "Amen" to the Kaddish. This way, the Sefaradi answers "Amen" but says this word as part of a verse, which is always acceptable, thus satisfying all opinions.

I once encountered a fascinating Halachic question while praying in an airport before boarding. A group of nine Ashkenazim approached me and said they needed a tenth man so they could make a Minyan for Minha, and I of course happily agreed. During the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), an announcement was made that it was time to board. Six of us knew we had time to finish Minha before we needed to get on line to board, but four of the men were worried, and left to board. The remaining six were unsure what to do, and I told them that the Hazzan may continue the repetition of the Amida, since there was a Minyan in attendance when it began. If a section of the service requiring a Minyan began when ten or more men were present, it may be completed even if the Minyan was lost, as long as at least six men remain. The problem, however, arose when the time came to recite the Kaddish Titkabal after the Hazara. Ashkenazic custom views the Kaddish Titkabal as integrally connected to the Hazara, and therefore, just as the Hazara may be completed after the Minyan was lost, the Kaddish Titkaba after the Hazara may likewise be recited. Sephardic custom, however, views Kaddish Titkabal as separate from the Hazara, and thus according to Sephardic practice, if the Minyan was lost during the Hazara, then the Kaddish Titkabal may not be recited after the Hazzan completes the Hazara. I was thus unsure what to do in this situation, as a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim after four of the ten men left. Their Halachic tradition mandated reciting the Kaddish Titkabal after the repetition of the Amida, but according to my Halachic tradition, this Kaddish should not be recited. I did not know whether I should answer to their recitation of Kaddish. I later sent a message to Rav Yisrael Bitan asking this question, and he promptly replied with a detailed, six-page Teshuba (responsum) on this subject. He noted Hacham Ovadia Yosef's ruling that when a person hears a Beracha which according to his tradition is unwarranted, and thus recited in vain, he may not answer "Amen." One example is a Sefaradi who hears an Ashkenazi recite the Beracha of "Al Misvat Tefillin" over the Tefillin Shel Rosh. Although this Ashkenazi obviously acts correctly by reciting this Beracha, which is required according to Ashkenazic custom, the Sefaradi should not answer "Amen," since according to Sephardic practice, this Beracha constitutes a Beracha Le'batala (blessing recited in vain). This would apply also in the case of a Sefaradi who hears an Ashkenazi recite a Beracha over Hallel on Rosh Hodesh – a Beracha required by Ashkenazi custom but not according to Sephardic custom. Since Sephardic tradition regards this blessing as a "Beracha Le'batala," the Sefaradi should not answer "Amen" to this blessing. Many other Poskim dispute Hacham Ovadia's ruling, and maintain that since the Ashkenazi recites this blessing legitimately, in accordance with Ashkenazic practice, there is no problem for a Sefaradi to answer "Amen." Rabbi Bitan considers the possibility that Hacham Ovadia might agree that in the case of Kaddish, a Sefaradi may respond even if the Kaddish should not be recited according to Sephardic custom. One might distinguish between answering to an unwarranted blessing, which constitutes a "Beracha Le'batala," and answering to Kaddish, which is not a blessing. Rav Bitan concludes, however, that Hacham Ovadia likely applied his ruling even to Kaddish, and thus, in his view, a Sefaradi should not answer "Amen" to Kaddish if the Kaddish is not valid according to Sephardic custom. He may, however, answer "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" even according to Hacham Ovadia's position, as this is merely an expression of praise, and differs from the response of "Amen." Given the different views on this subject, Rav Bitan suggested avoiding this problem by reciting the verse, "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53), attempting to conclude the verse just when the others respond "Amen" to the Kaddish. This way, the Sefaradi answers "Amen" but says this word as part of a verse, which is always acceptable, thus satisfying all opinions.

Halacha is very critical of people who depart the synagogue in the middle of the prayer service, leaving the others without a Minyan. If there are only ten men present in the synagogue, one should not leave before the end of the Tefilla. Sometimes, however, it happens that, for whatever reason, one or more individuals need to leave, and there is no longer a Minyan present in the synagogue. If this happens during a section of the service requiring a Minyan, that section may be completed without a Minyan. For example, if the Minyan is lost during the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), the Hazan may complete the Hazara even though fewer than ten men are present. As long as at least six men – the majority of a Minyan – remain, that section of the service may be completed, since it began in the presence of a Minyan. This applies even if the Minyan was lost during the first blessing of the repetition of the Amida. Another example is where people begin leaving during the Kaddish toward the end of Arbit, before Alenu. As long as ten men were present when Kaddish began, the Kaddish may be completed after the Minyan is lost, provided that at least six men remain. Importantly, only that section of the service – which began in the presence of a Minyan – may be completed. Other portions of the Tefilla, however, may not be recited, since the Minyan was lost before they began. In the case of the Hazara, if the Minyan was lost at some point during the first three Berachot, before Nakdishach, the congregation may nevertheless recite Nakdishach, because it is considered part of the repetition of the Amida. However, they cannot recite Birkat Kohanim, as Birkat Kohanim is viewed as a separate recitation, and not part of the Hazara. The Hazzan would thus recite "Elokenu V'Elokeh Abotenu" just as he would do if no Kohanim were present. Different customs exist regarding the recitation of the Kaddish Titkabal following the Hazara in such a case. Ashkenazic practice views the Kaddish Titkabal as integrally connected to the repetition of the Amida, because, after all, in this Kaddish we pray that our prayers will be answered, referring to the Amida prayer which had just been recited. Therefore, according to Ashkenazic custom, if the Minyan was lost during the Hazara, the Hazzan completes the Hazara and also recites the Kaddish Titkabal afterward. Sephardic custom, however, views the Kaddish Titkabal as separate and apart from the Amida, and therefore it cannot be recited if the Minyan was lost during the Hazara. This applies also in a case where the Minyan was lost during Selihot. The Selihot service may be completed without a Minyan, but, according to Sephardic practice, the Kaddish Titkabal following Selihot may not be recited. Ashkenazim, however, allow reciting the Kaddish Titkabal after Selihot in this case, because – as with regard to the Kaddish following the Amida – they view the Kaddish as integral to the Selihot service. If the Minyan was lost during the Torah reading – even if this happened during the first Aliya – the entire Torah reading may be completed. Likewise, the Haftara may be completed if the Minyan was lost during the Haftara reading. However, the Kaddish following the Torah reading is not recited if the Minyan was lost during the Torah reading. If ten men were present during the silent Amida, and somebody left before the Hazzan began the repetition of the Amida, the Hazzan may not repeat the Amida, as the repetition is viewed as separate and apart from the silent Amida. Rabbi Akiva Eger (1761-1837) addresses the interesting case of a Minyan which was lost and then restored. If during the Hazara, for example, five of the ten men left, leaving behind only five – which, as mentioned, do no suffice to allow continuing the Hazara – may the Hazara be resumed if one of the five men returns? Instinctively, we might say that since the Hazara began with a Minyan, and six men are now present, the Hazara may be continued. On the other hand, one could argue that once the Minyan was lost, as fewer than six men were present, the Hazara cannot continue on the basis of the original ten men who were present when it began. Rabbi Akiva Eger leaves this question unanswered. A different question arises in the case of a "revolving Minyan" – where there were never fewer than six men present at any point, but six or more of the original ten men left. Let us consider, for example, the case of a Minyan consisting of exactly ten men, four of whom left during the Hazara, after which four other people entered the synagogue. At this point, there are ten men in the synagogue – six members of the original Minyan, and four newcomers, who arrived in the middle of the Hazara. If one or more of the six who remained from the original Minyan would now leave, may the Hazara continue? One might argue that since fewer than six of the original ten members of the Minyan are present, the Hazara cannot continue, as there aren't six people in the synagogue who were present when the Hazara began. In truth, however, Halacha allows the Hazara to continue in this case, since there was never a point when fewer than six men were present. This entire discussion applies only after the fact, if the Minyan was lost. If the people know ahead of time that the Minyan will be lost at a certain point in the service – such as if the tenth man informed the others that he must leave by a certain time – then they may not begin a part of the service that requires a Minyan. Meaning, if, for example, they know that the tenth man will leave during the Hazara, then the Hazzan may not begin the Hazara; if they know that the tenth man will leave during the Torah reading, then they may not begin the Torah reading.

Halacha is very critical of people who depart the synagogue in the middle of the prayer service, leaving the others without a Minyan. If there are only ten men present in the synagogue, one should not leave before the end of the Tefilla. Sometimes, however, it happens that, for whatever reason, one or more individuals need to leave, and there is no longer a Minyan present in the synagogue. If this happens during a section of the service requiring a Minyan, that section may be completed without a Minyan. For example, if the Minyan is lost during the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), the Hazan may complete the Hazara even though fewer than ten men are present. As long as at least six men – the majority of a Minyan – remain, that section of the service may be completed, since it began in the presence of a Minyan. This applies even if the Minyan was lost during the first blessing of the repetition of the Amida. Another example is where people begin leaving during the Kaddish toward the end of Arbit, before Alenu. As long as ten men were present when Kaddish began, the Kaddish may be completed after the Minyan is lost, provided that at least six men remain. Importantly, only that section of the service – which began in the presence of a Minyan – may be completed. Other portions of the Tefilla, however, may not be recited, since the Minyan was lost before they began. In the case of the Hazara, if the Minyan was lost at some point during the first three Berachot, before Nakdishach, the congregation may nevertheless recite Nakdishach, because it is considered part of the repetition of the Amida. However, they cannot recite Birkat Kohanim, as Birkat Kohanim is viewed as a separate recitation, and not part of the Hazara. The Hazzan would thus recite "Elokenu V'Elokeh Abotenu" just as he would do if no Kohanim were present. Different customs exist regarding the recitation of the Kaddish Titkabal following the Hazara in such a case. Ashkenazic practice views the Kaddish Titkabal as integrally connected to the repetition of the Amida, because, after all, in this Kaddish we pray that our prayers will be answered, referring to the Amida prayer which had just been recited. Therefore, according to Ashkenazic custom, if the Minyan was lost during the Hazara, the Hazzan completes the Hazara and also recites the Kaddish Titkabal afterward. Sephardic custom, however, views the Kaddish Titkabal as separate and apart from the Amida, and therefore it cannot be recited if the Minyan was lost during the Hazara. This applies also in a case where the Minyan was lost during Selihot. The Selihot service may be completed without a Minyan, but, according to Sephardic practice, the Kaddish Titkabal following Selihot may not be recited. Ashkenazim, however, allow reciting the Kaddish Titkabal after Selihot in this case, because – as with regard to the Kaddish following the Amida – they view the Kaddish as integral to the Selihot service. If the Minyan was lost during the Torah reading – even if this happened during the first Aliya – the entire Torah reading may be completed. Likewise, the Haftara may be completed if the Minyan was lost during the Haftara reading. However, the Kaddish following the Torah reading is not recited if the Minyan was lost during the Torah reading. If ten men were present during the silent Amida, and somebody left before the Hazzan began the repetition of the Amida, the Hazzan may not repeat the Amida, as the repetition is viewed as separate and apart from the silent Amida. Rabbi Akiva Eger (1761-1837) addresses the interesting case of a Minyan which was lost and then restored. If during the Hazara, for example, five of the ten men left, leaving behind only five – which, as mentioned, do no suffice to allow continuing the Hazara – may the Hazara be resumed if one of the five men returns? Instinctively, we might say that since the Hazara began with a Minyan, and six men are now present, the Hazara may be continued. On the other hand, one could argue that once the Minyan was lost, as fewer than six men were present, the Hazara cannot continue on the basis of the original ten men who were present when it began. Rabbi Akiva Eger leaves this question unanswered. A different question arises in the case of a "revolving Minyan" – where there were never fewer than six men present at any point, but six or more of the original ten men left. Let us consider, for example, the case of a Minyan consisting of exactly ten men, four of whom left during the Hazara, after which four other people entered the synagogue. At this point, there are ten men in the synagogue – six members of the original Minyan, and four newcomers, who arrived in the middle of the Hazara. If one or more of the six who remained from the original Minyan would now leave, may the Hazara continue? One might argue that since fewer than six of the original ten members of the Minyan are present, the Hazara cannot continue, as there aren't six people in the synagogue who were present when the Hazara began. In truth, however, Halacha allows the Hazara to continue in this case, since there was never a point when fewer than six men were present. This entire discussion applies only after the fact, if the Minyan was lost. If the people know ahead of time that the Minyan will be lost at a certain point in the service – such as if the tenth man informed the others that he must leave by a certain time – then they may not begin a part of the service that requires a Minyan. Meaning, if, for example, they know that the tenth man will leave during the Hazara, then the Hazzan may not begin the Hazara; if they know that the tenth man will leave during the Torah reading, then they may not begin the Torah reading.

When one counts a group of Jews to determine how many they are, he should do so indirectly. This Halacha is inferred from the Torah law of "Mahasit Ha'shekel," which requires that when a census of the nation is taken, this should be done by having every member donate a half-shekel, and this money is then counted to determine the number of people in Beneh Yisrael. The Torah warns, "Ve'lo Yiheyeh Bahem Negef Bi'fkod Otam" – counting directly could lead to a plague, Heaven forbid (Shemot 30:12). The commentaries explain that counting directly invites the "Ayin Ha'ra" ("evil eye"), and thus poses danger. This applies even when counting for the purpose of a Misva. Therefore, when one counts the men present in the synagogue to determine whether they comprise a Minyan, he should not count directly, saying, "One, two, three" and so on. Some people mistakenly think that it suffices to count people while saying, "Not one, "Not two," "Not three," and so on. This is incorrect, as saying "Not one" is no different from simply saying "one." The two commonly accepted methods for counting people are to either count silently in one's mind, without saying the numbers, or to use a verse consisting of ten words and count each person by saying a word from the verse. One such verse is "Hoshi'a Et Amecha U'barech Et Nahaletecha, U're'em Ve'nas'em Ad Ha'olam" (Tehillim 28:9). Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim would use the verse, "Masmi'ah Hasir La'behema Ve'eseb La'abodat Ha'adam, Le'hosi Lehem Min Ha'aretz" (Tehillim 104:14). Others use the blessing of Ha'mosi, which consists of ten words ("Baruch Ata Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam Ha'mosi Lehem Min Ha'aretz"). The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Mi'kabse'el (Parashat Vayehi), writes that the custom in Baghdad was to use a bead bracelet to count the people in the synagogue, separating one bead for each man in attendance.

Certain portions of the prayer service cannot be recited without the presence of a Minyan. These include Nakdishach, Kaddish, Barechu, Birkat Kohanim, the repetition of the Amida, the congregational reading of the Torah and the Haftara, and the Yag Middot (thirteen attributes of mercy). A "Minyan" is defined as a group of ten Jewish males who have reached the age of Bar-Misva. Nobody and nothing other than Jewish males above Bar-Misva age count toward a Minyan. If nine men are present in the synagogue, they cannot count the Sefer Torah, or the Teba or the Hechal, as the tenth "person" for the Minyan. Tradition teaches that Eliyahu Ha'nabi attends every Berit Mila. One should not think, however, that because of this tradition, a group of nine men at a Berit can be considered a Minyan given that Eliyahu is present and can thus be considered the tenth man. A Minyan requires the presence of ten men, and Eliyahu attends a Berit as an angel, not a man. Therefore, he cannot be counted. Stories are told of how Eliyahu appeared in the form of a human being, and when this happens, he can be counted toward a Minyan. However, when he arrives in the form of an angel, he does not count toward a Minyan. This applies also to the Gemara's teaching that the righteous are considered "alive" even after their passing. Some people mistakenly allow on this basis reciting Kaddish at a cemetery even without the presence of ten men, figuring that the Sadikim buried in the cemetery are considered "alive" and can thus be counted toward a Minyan. They draw proof from the Gemara's description (Ketubot 103) of how Rabbi Yehuda Ha'nasi would join his family every Friday night after his passing and recite Kiddush for them. If Rabbi Yehuda Ha'nasi could recite Kiddush for his family after his passing, this might indicate that Sadikim are truly considered alive with respect to Halacha even after their death. This inference, however, is incorrect. Firstly, there is a rule that we cannot reach Halachic conclusions based on the Aggadic sections of the Talmud, such as stories told of the Talmudic sages. Additionally, the Gemara describes Rabbi Yehuda Ha'nasi arriving in his home in the form of a living person, and so he could be halachically regarded as a human being. This cannot be said of the souls of the departed which cannot be seen. Therefore, Kaddish may not be recited in a cemetery without a Minyan, even if there are Sadikim known to be buried there. If somebody recites Kaddish in a cemetery in the presence of fewer than ten men, others should not answer "Amen," since the Kaddish is being recited inappropriately.

Certain portions of the prayer service cannot be recited without the presence of a Minyan. These include Nakdishach, Kaddish, Barechu, Birkat Kohanim, the repetition of the Amida, the congregational reading of the Torah and the Haftara, and the Yag Middot (thirteen attributes of mercy). A "Minyan" is defined as a group of ten Jewish males who have reached the age of Bar-Misva. Nobody and nothing other than Jewish males above Bar-Misva age count toward a Minyan. If nine men are present in the synagogue, they cannot count the Sefer Torah, or the Teba or the Hechal, as the tenth "person" for the Minyan. Tradition teaches that Eliyahu Ha'nabi attends every Berit Mila. One should not think, however, that because of this tradition, a group of nine men at a Berit can be considered a Minyan given that Eliyahu is present and can thus be considered the tenth man. A Minyan requires the presence of ten men, and Eliyahu attends a Berit as an angel, not a man. Therefore, he cannot be counted. Stories are told of how Eliyahu appeared in the form of a human being, and when this happens, he can be counted toward a Minyan. However, when he arrives in the form of an angel, he does not count toward a Minyan. This applies also to the Gemara's teaching that the righteous are considered "alive" even after their passing. Some people mistakenly allow on this basis reciting Kaddish at a cemetery even without the presence of ten men, figuring that the Sadikim buried in the cemetery are considered "alive" and can thus be counted toward a Minyan. They draw proof from the Gemara's description (Ketubot 103) of how Rabbi Yehuda Ha'nasi would join his family every Friday night after his passing and recite Kiddush for them. If Rabbi Yehuda Ha'nasi could recite Kiddush for his family after his passing, this might indicate that Sadikim are truly considered alive with respect to Halacha even after their death. This inference, however, is incorrect. Firstly, there is a rule that we cannot reach Halachic conclusions based on the Aggadic sections of the Talmud, such as stories told of the Talmudic sages. Additionally, the Gemara describes Rabbi Yehuda Ha'nasi arriving in his home in the form of a living person, and so he could be halachically regarded as a human being. This cannot be said of the souls of the departed which cannot be seen. Therefore, Kaddish may not be recited in a cemetery without a Minyan, even if there are Sadikim known to be buried there. If somebody recites Kaddish in a cemetery in the presence of fewer than ten men, others should not answer "Amen," since the Kaddish is being recited inappropriately.

Certain portions of the prayer service – specifically, those that fall under the category of "Debarim She'bi'kdusha" (literally, "matters involving sanctity") – must be recited in the presence of a Minyan. If ten men are not present, these prayers may not be recited. These include Nakdishach, Kaddish, Barechu, and the repetition of the Amida. We find different sources for this Halacha – one in the Talmud Babli (Babylonian Talmud), and another in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud). Both sources are based on the Torah's command in the Book of Vayikra (22:32), "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be declared sacred amidst the Children of Israel." The Talmud Babli notes that the word "Toch" ("amidst") appears also in a different verse – in the story of Korah, when G-d instructed Moshe and Aharon to move away "Mi'toch Ha'eda Ha'zot" – "from amidst this evil congregation" (Bamidbar 16:21). The common word "Toch" establishes a connection between these two verses ("Gezera Shava"). Now the word "Eda" in the second verse appears also in the story of the spies, in which G-d refers to the ten evil spies as "Eda Ha'ra'a Ha'zot" ("this evil congregation" – Bamidbar 14:27) – indicating that the word "Eda" refers specifically to a group of ten people. By extension, then, the command "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" means that G-d shall be declared sacred among a gathering of ten Jews. Hence, portions of the prayer service which involve declaring the sanctity of Hashem require the presence of a Minyan. Strikingly, it emerges that the source of this Halacha is a group of ten sinners – and not just any sinners, but the ten spies who presented a false, negative report about the Land of Israel, leading the people to reject the land and decide to return to Egypt. Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim would say that the Gemara's inference teaches that all Jews count for a Minyan, regardless of their religious level. The fact that the source of the very concept of Minyan is ten sinful men shows that we do not judge people when they come into the synagogue to determine whether or not they should be counted toward a Minyan. Any Jew who comes and wishes to pray is warmly welcomed, and counted. The Talmud Yerushalmi cites a different source – the Torah's description of Yosef's brothers arriving in Egypt to purchase grain: "Li'shbor Be'toch Ha'ba'im" ("To purchase among those who came" – Bereshit 42:5). There were ten brothers, and thus the word "Be'toch" is associated with the number 10. It thus follows that "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" refers to a minimum quorum of ten. The Sefer Ha'eshkol (Rav Abraham of Narbonne, 12 th century) offers a third source of this requirement, citing the verse in Tehillim (68:27), "Be'makhelot Barechu Et Hashem" – "Bless G-d in assemblies." The word "Makhelot" stems from the word "Kahal," which refers to a group of ten people. The likely reason underlying this Halacha is the Gemara's teaching in Masechet Sanhedrin (39a) that the Shechina resides in a place where ten or more Jews are assembled. Certain portions of the prayer service are particularly sacred and thus require the Shechina's presence, and so they are recited only when at least ten Jews are in attendance. The portions of the service requiring a Minyan are, as mentioned, referred to as "Debarim She'bi'kdusha," a term which literally denotes "sacred" prayers. If we look at the different sections of the Tefila requiring a Minyan, we find that the common denominator is that they are all interactive. For example, in Nakdishach, Kaddish and Barechu, the congregation responds to the declaration of the Hazan (or, in the case of the mourners' Kaddish, to the mourners). Likewise, the congregation answers "Amen" to the blessings recited by the Hazan during the repetition of the Amida. Also included in this category is Birkat Kohanim, where the congregation listens attentively to the blessing pronounced by the Kohanim and answers "Amen." We may thus conclude that "Debarim She'bi'kdusha" refers to portions of the service that are interactive, and this lends them a uniquely sacred quality. Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620), in Sha'ar Ha'kavanot, writes that the requirement of a Minyan constitutes a Torah law, as evidenced by the fact that the Gemara, as mentioned, infers this Halacha from verses in the Torah. Most Rishonim, however, regarded the Gemara's inference as an "Asmachta" – a subtle allusion in the Biblical text to a law introduced later by the Sages.

Our practice is to say "Amen" at the conclusion of the blessing of Yishtabah – the blessing that ends the morning Pesukeh De'zimra service. Some people mistakenly say "Amen" after the Hazan recites the words "U'mehulal Ba'tishbahot," but this is incorrect. "Amen" is recited at the very end of Yishtabah, after "Melech Kel Hai Ha'olamim." The reason why "Amen" is recited at the end of Yishtabah is that this Beracha concludes a "series" of Berachot, which began with the recitation of Baruch She'amar. Baruch She'amar is the introductory blessing of Pesukeh De'zimra, and Yishtabah is the concluding blessing of this section. Our custom is to recite "Amen" at the end of a Beracha which concludes a series of Berachot, and so we say "Amen" upon concluding Yishtabah. Incidentally, this is also the reason why the Beracha of Yishtabah does not begin with the words "Baruch Ata Hashem," like most Berachot do. There is a fundamental rule that a Beracha which follows another Beracha, as part of a series of Berachot, is covered by the introduction of "Baruch Ata Hashem" that opens the first Beracha, and so it does not require this introduction. Yishtabah is considered as though it follows Baruch She'amar, because everything in between – the chapters of Pesukeh De'zimra – are essentially the continuation of Baruch She'amar. We begin our praise of Hashem with the recitation of Baruch She'amar, and we then continue with the praises of Pesukeh De'zimra, concluding with Yishtabah. Therefore, Yishtabah does not begin with "Baruch Ata Hashem." Other examples of this rule include the Amida prayer, which consists of 19 Berachot, only the first of which begins with "Baruch Ata Hashem." All subsequent 18 Berachot are covered by the introduction of "Baruch Ata Hashem" that opens the first Beracha, and so they do not require this introduction. Similarly, among the blessings recited before and after Shema, only the first begins with Baruch Ata Hashem ("Yoser or" in the morning, "Asher Bi'dbaro" in the evening), as all the subsequent Berachot are the continuation, forming a series of blessings. Another example is the concluding Beracha of Hallel ("Yehalelucha"), which does not begin with "Baruch Ata Hashem" because it is the continuation of the introductory Beracha of Hallel.

While interruptions are forbidden at any point throughout the Pesukeh De'zimra service, it is especially important to avoid interruptions while reciting the thirteen expressions of praise for Hashem in Yishtabah, the concluding blessing of Pesukeh De'zmira. These expressions begin with "Shir U'shhaba Hallel Ve'zimra" and continue through "Kedusha U'malchut," and they must be recited without any interruptions, as they correspond to G-d's thirteen attributes of mercy. These thirteen expressions should not be recited in one breath. To the contrary, they should be recited slowly and patiently, with concentration. Rav Yaakob Kassin (1900-1994), in his work Kesinei Eretz, writes a responsum (Siman 5) addressing the question of whether these words should be recited in one breath, and he convincingly demonstrates that such an idea is a mistake. The Zohar teaches that they should be recited without interruption, and some erroneously understood this to mean that they should be said in one breath. Rav Kassin laments the fact that some Siddurim instruct reciting these thirteen expressions in one breath, and he writes that it is a Misva to publicize the fact that this is wrong. These words should be recited slowly and with concentration, and thus one specifically should not recite them quickly in a single breath. If one hears Kaddish while reciting the thirteen expressions of praise, he should interrupt for the first five "Amen" responses, as these are considered a legitimate interruption. When responding, "Amen Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," one should continue until "Yitbarach." This applies to all "Debarim Bi'kdusha" – portions of the prayer service to which the congregation responds, such as Nakdishach and Barechu. One who hears these during Yishtabah may interrupt for the purpose of responding with the congregation. Preferably, however, if one hears in the beginning of Yishtabah that the congregation will soon reach Kaddish, Barechu or Nakdishach, then he should pause before he begins "Shir U'shbaha" to avoid having to interrupt during the thirteen expressions of praise. If one had already begun the final part of Yishtabah, starting from "Baruch Ata Hashem," then he may join the first five "Amen" responses of Kaddish, but not any other responses.

The Pesukeh De'zimra section of the prayer service concludes with the blessing of Yishtabah. This section begins with a Beracha – Baruch She'amar – and then concludes with a Beracha, the special Beracha of Yishtabah. One of the things that make Yishtabah so unique is that, according to tradition, it was composed by Abraham Abinu, whose name is alluded to in the text of this Beracha. Toward the end of Yishtabah, we read the words "Kel Ha'hoda'ot Adon Ha'nifla'aot Boreh Kol Ha'neshamot Ribon Kol Ha'ma'asim Ha'boher Be'shireh Zimra Melech…" The first letters of the words "Kel," "Adon," Boreh," "Ribon," "Ha'boher" and "Melech" spell the name "Abraham." Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) taught that the beginning of Yishtabah was composed by King Shlomo, whose name is alluded to in the first line of this blessing. The first letters of the words "Shimcha," "La'ad," "Malkenu." "Ha'kel" spell "Shelomo." In this blessing, we list thirteen different expressions of praise for Hashem: "Shir," "Shebaha," "Hallel," "Zimra," "Oz," "Memshala," "Nesah," "Gedula," "Gebura," "Tehila, "Tiferet," "Kedusha" and "Malchut." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) taught that these thirteen expressions correspond to G-d's thirteen attributes of mercy. He further wrote that it is proper to count these thirteen words on one's fingers, adding that he himself followed this practice. Ashkenazim have the custom to stand during the recitation of Yishtabah, though the practice among Sepharadim is to remain seated. There were some communities that would add various songs and hymns before Yishtabah, after the recitation of Az Yashir. However, according to the teachings of the Arizal and his disciple, Rav Haim Vital, this practice is incorrect, as no interruption should be made in between Az Yashir and Yishtabah.

The Pesukeh De'zimra section of the prayer service concludes with the blessing of Yishtabah. This section begins with a Beracha – Baruch She'amar – and then concludes with a Beracha, the special Beracha of Yishtabah. One of the things that make Yishtabah so unique is that, according to tradition, it was composed by Abraham Abinu, whose name is alluded to in the text of this Beracha. Toward the end of Yishtabah, we read the words "Kel Ha'hoda'ot Adon Ha'nifla'aot Boreh Kol Ha'neshamot Ribon Kol Ha'ma'asim Ha'boher Be'shireh Zimra Melech…" The first letters of the words "Kel," "Adon," Boreh," "Ribon," "Ha'boher" and "Melech" spell the name "Abraham." Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) taught that the beginning of Yishtabah was composed by King Shlomo, whose name is alluded to in the first line of this blessing. The first letters of the words "Shimcha," "La'ad," "Malkenu." "Ha'kel" spell "Shelomo." In this blessing, we list thirteen different expressions of praise for Hashem: "Shir," "Shebaha," "Hallel," "Zimra," "Oz," "Memshala," "Nesah," "Gedula," "Gebura," "Tehila, "Tiferet," "Kedusha" and "Malchut." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) taught that these thirteen expressions correspond to G-d's thirteen attributes of mercy. He further wrote that it is proper to count these thirteen words on one's fingers, adding that he himself followed this practice. Ashkenazim have the custom to stand during the recitation of Yishtabah, though the practice among Sepharadim is to remain seated. There were some communities that would add various songs and hymns before Yishtabah, after the recitation of Az Yashir. However, according to the teachings of the Arizal and his disciple, Rav Haim Vital, this practice is incorrect, as no interruption should be made in between Az Yashir and Yishtabah.

One of the verses in the "Az Yashir" song which our ancestors sang after the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf – and which we recite each morning toward the end of Pesukeh De'zimra – is "Mi Chamocha Ba'elim Hashem, Mi Kamocha Ne'edar Be'kodesh." Although both halves of this verse begin with the same two words ("Mi Chamocha"), the pronunciation is not identically the same in both halves. At the beginning of the verse, the correct pronunciation is "Mi Chamocha," whereas in the second half, these words should be pronounced "Mi Kamocha." The phrase "Mi Kamocha" in the second half of the verse marks an exception to a rule of Hebrew grammar. The basic rule is that a Bet, Gimmel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh or Tav at the beginning of a word receives a Dagesh (dot), in which case, in principle, the letter Kaf at the beginning of "Kamocha" should receive a Dagesh, and should thus be pronounced "Kamocha." However, when the previous word ends with a Heh, Vav or Yod – such as the word "Mi," which ends with the letter Yod – the Dagesh is not added. Hence, according to the rules of grammar, the phrase should be pronounced "Mi Chamocha." Nevertheless, the second half of this verse is exceptional, and the Dagesh is, in fact, added to the Kaf, resulting in the pronunciation of "Mi Kamocha." When one recites this verse, he must ensure not to say the words "Hashem Mi Kamocha" rapidly, such that it sounds like he says, "Hashem Micha" – as though declaring that Micha is G-d, Heaven forbid. Micha was the person responsible for creating the golden calf at Mount Sinai, and one must be careful not to imply that he is a deity. Sepharadim make a distinction in their pronunciation between a letter Gimal that has a Dagesh, and a letter Gimal that does not. In the phrase "Am Zu Ga'alta," the Gimal at the beginning of "Ga'alta" receives a Dagesh. According to the rule mentioned earlier, this letter should not receive a Dagesh, because the previous word ("Zu") ends with the letter Vav. The reason why this Gimal nevertheless receives a Dagesh is that without a Dagesh, the word would sound like "Ga'alta" spelled with an Ayin (as opposed to an Alef), which would mean that Hashem is repulsed by Beneh Yisrael, Heaven forbid. Pronouncing the Gimal with a Dagesh makes it clear that the word is "Ga'alta" with an Alef, which means that Hashem has redeemed Beneh Yisrael. A similar exception is made earlier in this verse, in the phrase "Yidemu Ka'aben." The Kaf at the beginning of "Ka'aben" should, in principle, not receive a Dagesh, because it follows a word that ends with the letter Vav. Nevertheless, the Dagesh is added to the Kaf, as otherwise this phrase might sound like "Yidemucha Aben" – "stone silences You," indicating that stone has some kind of power to defeat the Almighty, Heaven forbid. At one point in "Az Yashir," the Egyptians' drowning is described with the words "Salelu Ka'oferet Be'mayim Adirim" – the Egyptians plunged into the water like lead. There is some question as to the implication of the word "Adirim" – "mighty" – at the end of this verse. Several Poskim, including the Mishna Berura, Ben Ish Hai, and Kaf Ha'haim, explain that this word describes the Egyptian warriors who drowned. Accordingly, these Poskim maintain that when reading this verse, one must make a pause between the words "Mayim" and "Adirim," as otherwise it sounds as though one describes the water as being mighty. However, Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025) found a poem written by Rav Yehuda Ha'levi (Spain, 1075-1141) indicating that he understood the phrase "Mayim Adirim" to mean "mighty waters," referring to the turbulence of the waters as they descended onto the Egyptians and drowned them. According to this reading, this phrase should be read without a pause between "Mayim" and "Adirim." It is customary to repeat the final verse of "Az Yashir" – "Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed." One reason this is done is so that we end up mentioning the Name of "Havaya" in this song 18 times, which has special significance. Additionally, the verse is repeated to mark the conclusion of the song. We then recite the Aramaic translation of this final verse ("Hashem Malchuteh Ka'em…") and then the verse immediately following the song – "Ki Ba Sus Pharaoh…"

There is an ancient custom to add to the morning Pesukeh De'zimra service the recitation of "Az Yashir," the jubilant song of praise which Beneh Yisrael sung after the miracle of the splitting of the sea. We begin the recitation two verses earlier, with "Va'yosha Hashem…" (Shemot 14:30). This practice appears already in the Siddur of Ram Amram Gaon (Babylonia, 9 th century), though the Rambam does not include this recitation in his text of the prayer service. Regardless, it has been accepted to recite "Az Yashir," and the Arizal and others revealed the great spiritual benefits of this practice. Some suggested that the daily recitation of "Az Yashir" is included in the song's introductory verse, which tells that Beneh Yisrael sang this song "Le'mor" – literally, "to say." This alludes to the fact that this song was written to be sung not only at the shores of Yam Suf, but also for all generations, each day, and even in the times of Mashiah, when we will continue to sing this song to praise Hashem for the miracles He has performed. So significant is the daily recitation of "Az Yashir" that the Midrash Shoher Tob teaches that one who sings this song with Kavana (concentration) is cleansed from his sins. This is inferred from the Torah's account of Moshe leading Beneh Yisrael away from the shores of the sea after they sung this song – "Va'yasa Moshe Et Yisrael Mi'Yam Suf" (Shemot 15:22), which the Midrash explains to mean that the people were brought away from their sins at the sea. Before the miracle, when Beneh Yisrael found themselves trapped by the Egyptian army, they complained bitterly to G-d. Their joyous singing of "Az Yashir" had the effect of atoning for their inappropriately angry protests. By extension, anyone who reenacts our ancestors' jubilant singing of "Az Yashir" is likewise absolved of his wrongdoing. The work Solet Belula instructs that one should sing "Az Yashir" with the Te'amim – the cantillation notes with which this section is chanted when it is read from the Torah in the synagogue. Indeed, the custom in our Syrian community is that the Hazan chants "Az Yashir" with the Te'amim. On the two occasions when the section of "Az Yashir" is included in the congregational Torah reading – namely, Shabbat Parashat Beshalah (Shabbat Shira) and on Shebi'i Shel Pesach – it is customary for the congregation to chant "Az Yashir" all together during Pesukeh De'zimra, with the Te'amim. Several sources teach that whenever a person finds himself in a challenging situation, where he faces a difficult problem, he should read "Az Yashir" with Kavana. This recitation can help "split the sea" for him, bringing him the salvation he needs just as G-d split the sea for our ancestors to rescue them from the pursuing Egyptians. One should recite "Az Yashir" with genuine feelings of joy. We evoke these feelings by taking a moment to reflect on the miracles that G-d performed for our ancestors and the miracles He performs for us even today, protecting us from harm, providing our needs, and helping us achieve what we set out to do. Some Poskim maintained that the joyous "Az Yashir" song should not be recited in a house of mourning. The widespread practice, however, is to recite it even in a house of mourning. Some have the custom to stand during the recitation of "Az Yashir," but our custom is to recite it while seated.

There is an ancient custom to add to the morning Pesukeh De'zimra service the recitation of "Az Yashir," the jubilant song of praise which Beneh Yisrael sung after the miracle of the splitting of the sea. We begin the recitation two verses earlier, with "Va'yosha Hashem…" (Shemot 14:30). This practice appears already in the Siddur of Ram Amram Gaon (Babylonia, 9 th century), though the Rambam does not include this recitation in his text of the prayer service. Regardless, it has been accepted to recite "Az Yashir," and the Arizal and others revealed the great spiritual benefits of this practice. Some suggested that the daily recitation of "Az Yashir" is included in the song's introductory verse, which tells that Beneh Yisrael sang this song "Le'mor" – literally, "to say." This alludes to the fact that this song was written to be sung not only at the shores of Yam Suf, but also for all generations, each day, and even in the times of Mashiah, when we will continue to sing this song to praise Hashem for the miracles He has performed. So significant is the daily recitation of "Az Yashir" that the Midrash Shoher Tob teaches that one who sings this song with Kavana (concentration) is cleansed from his sins. This is inferred from the Torah's account of Moshe leading Beneh Yisrael away from the shores of the sea after they sung this song – "Va'yasa Moshe Et Yisrael Mi'Yam Suf" (Shemot 15:22), which the Midrash explains to mean that the people were brought away from their sins at the sea. Before the miracle, when Beneh Yisrael found themselves trapped by the Egyptian army, they complained bitterly to G-d. Their joyous singing of "Az Yashir" had the effect of atoning for their inappropriately angry protests. By extension, anyone who reenacts our ancestors' jubilant singing of "Az Yashir" is likewise absolved of his wrongdoing. The work Solet Belula instructs that one should sing "Az Yashir" with the Te'amim – the cantillation notes with which this section is chanted when it is read from the Torah in the synagogue. Indeed, the custom in our Syrian community is that the Hazan chants "Az Yashir" with the Te'amim. On the two occasions when the section of "Az Yashir" is included in the congregational Torah reading – namely, Shabbat Parashat Beshalah (Shabbat Shira) and on Shebi'i Shel Pesach – it is customary for the congregation to chant "Az Yashir" all together during Pesukeh De'zimra, with the Te'amim. Several sources teach that whenever a person finds himself in a challenging situation, where he faces a difficult problem, he should read "Az Yashir" with Kavana. This recitation can help "split the sea" for him, bringing him the salvation he needs just as G-d split the sea for our ancestors to rescue them from the pursuing Egyptians. One should recite "Az Yashir" with genuine feelings of joy. We evoke these feelings by taking a moment to reflect on the miracles that G-d performed for our ancestors and the miracles He performs for us even today, protecting us from harm, providing our needs, and helping us achieve what we set out to do. Some Poskim maintained that the joyous "Az Yashir" song should not be recited in a house of mourning. The widespread practice, however, is to recite it even in a house of mourning. Some have the custom to stand during the recitation of "Az Yashir," but our custom is to recite it while seated.

Although technically Pesukeh De'zimra ends after the verses of "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen," at which point we should, in principle, proceed to Yishtabah – the concluding blessing of Pesukeh De'zimra – it is customary to add Va'yebarech David as well as Shirat Ha'yam. This is an ancient practice, instituted around one thousand years ago. The section of Va'yebarech David consists of verses from the Book of Dibreh Ha'yamim I (29:10-13) and a series of verses from the Book of Nehemya (9:5-11). The section of Shirat Ha'yam, of course, is the song sung by Beneh Yisrael after crossing the sea (Shemot, chapter 15), preceded by two introductory verses ("Va'yosha Hashem…"). The Sha'ar Ha'kavanot writes that one should stand while reciting the first 40 words of Va'yebarech David, meaning, through the words "Ata Hu Hashem Ha'Elokim." He adds that the first letters of these final five words – Alef, Heh, Yod and Heh – spell the Name of Hashem ("E-heyeh") associated with "Keter," the highest of the Sefirot (emanations). As standing during the recitation of these forty words is only customary, and not a strict requirement, one who finds it difficult to stand may certainly sit. While reciting the words "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol" in Va'yebarech David, one should give some money to charity. Specifically, one gives three coins – he should first give two coins together, and then a third coin by itself. This practice was taught by the Arizal, but there are indications that its origins date back even earlier. One indication is a testimony that the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, 1520-1572) followed this custom of giving charity during Va'yebarech David in his synagogue in Cracow, and the Rama did not have access to the Arizal's teachings. By giving charity during Pesukeh De'zimra, before praying the Amida, one fulfills the custom of Rabbi Elazar, mentioned by the Gemara (Baba Batra 10a), to give charity before praying. The commentaries explain that this should be done so that the charity acts as an advocate on the individual's behalf, helping to ensure the acceptance of his prayers. It has been noted that if Rabbi Elazar, a righteous sage, felt that he needed an advocate, then certainly we, who are on a much lower level, should avail ourselves of such an advocate by giving charity before praying. Some had the custom to give charity each morning twice – when they first entered the synagogue, and then a second time while reciting the words "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol." This custom is brought by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), who tells the story of a person who consistently followed this practice, but one day failed to do so. That night, he dreamt that he was harshly chastised for deviating from this practice. Interestingly enough, Rav Ben Sion Mussafi brings a tradition among Iraqi Jews that whenever the Kaf Ha'haim tells a story about somebody without naming him, this story is actually about himself. We may thus conclude that the Kaf Ha'haim personally observed this custom to give charity when entering the synagogue and then a second time during the recitation of "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol." In any event, the consensus among the Poskim is that it suffices to give charity only once, during the recitation of "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol," because, as mentioned, the purpose is to give charity before one presents his requests in the Amida prayer. One should preferably give charity not only at Shaharit, but also before Minha and Arbit. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) taught that the act of giving charity is associated with the divine Name of Havaya (which is spelled Yod, Heh, Vav and Heh). The small coin resembles Yod – the smallest letter in the alphabet – and the giver holds it in his hand, with his five fingers, alluding to the letter Heh, which in Gematria equals 5. When he extends his arm, he forms the letter Vav, which is long and straight, and the coin is then received in the poor individual's hand, which represents the second Heh in the Name. The Ben Ish Hai adds that if a poor person is not present, and one is setting aside the money for charity, then he should place the coin with his right hand into a pouch in his left hand. In his work Od Yosef Hai (Parashat Vayigash), the Ben Ish Hai writes that there were Sadikim who fulfilled this custom even on Shabbat. Before Shabbat, they would prepare two envelopes – one with two coins, and another with one coin, and place them in a designated location. Then, on Shabbat, while reciting "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol," they would think of those envelopes, allocating them for charity. They would then give these coins to the poor after Shabbat. Even one who did not designate these envelopes before Shabbat can fulfill this practice on Shabbat by pledging in his mind during the recitation of "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol" to donate three coins to Sedaka after Shabbat. The Kaf Ha'haim writes that if a person has a bill, and he cannot exchange it for coins, then he should hold it and have in mind to donate the value of two coins within this bill for charity, and then the value of one coin. After several days, when he has donated the full amount of the bill, he should give the bill to charity. If one wishes to give charity from the bill before Minha and Arbit, when speaking is permissible, he should make this pledge verbally.

Although technically Pesukeh De'zimra ends after the verses of "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen," at which point we should, in principle, proceed to Yishtabah – the concluding blessing of Pesukeh De'zimra – it is customary to add Va'yebarech David as well as Shirat Ha'yam. This is an ancient practice, instituted around one thousand years ago. The section of Va'yebarech David consists of verses from the Book of Dibreh Ha'yamim I (29:10-13) and a series of verses from the Book of Nehemya (9:5-11). The section of Shirat Ha'yam, of course, is the song sung by Beneh Yisrael after crossing the sea (Shemot, chapter 15), preceded by two introductory verses ("Va'yosha Hashem…"). The Sha'ar Ha'kavanot writes that one should stand while reciting the first 40 words of Va'yebarech David, meaning, through the words "Ata Hu Hashem Ha'Elokim." He adds that the first letters of these final five words – Alef, Heh, Yod and Heh – spell the Name of Hashem ("E-heyeh") associated with "Keter," the highest of the Sefirot (emanations). As standing during the recitation of these forty words is only customary, and not a strict requirement, one who finds it difficult to stand may certainly sit. While reciting the words "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol" in Va'yebarech David, one should give some money to charity. Specifically, one gives three coins – he should first give two coins together, and then a third coin by itself. This practice was taught by the Arizal, but there are indications that its origins date back even earlier. One indication is a testimony that the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, 1520-1572) followed this custom of giving charity during Va'yebarech David in his synagogue in Cracow, and the Rama did not have access to the Arizal's teachings. By giving charity during Pesukeh De'zimra, before praying the Amida, one fulfills the custom of Rabbi Elazar, mentioned by the Gemara (Baba Batra 10a), to give charity before praying. The commentaries explain that this should be done so that the charity acts as an advocate on the individual's behalf, helping to ensure the acceptance of his prayers. It has been noted that if Rabbi Elazar, a righteous sage, felt that he needed an advocate, then certainly we, who are on a much lower level, should avail ourselves of such an advocate by giving charity before praying. Some had the custom to give charity each morning twice – when they first entered the synagogue, and then a second time while reciting the words "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol." This custom is brought by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), who tells the story of a person who consistently followed this practice, but one day failed to do so. That night, he dreamt that he was harshly chastised for deviating from this practice. Interestingly enough, Rav Ben Sion Mussafi brings a tradition among Iraqi Jews that whenever the Kaf Ha'haim tells a story about somebody without naming him, this story is actually about himself. We may thus conclude that the Kaf Ha'haim personally observed this custom to give charity when entering the synagogue and then a second time during the recitation of "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol." In any event, the consensus among the Poskim is that it suffices to give charity only once, during the recitation of "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol," because, as mentioned, the purpose is to give charity before one presents his requests in the Amida prayer. One should preferably give charity not only at Shaharit, but also before Minha and Arbit. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) taught that the act of giving charity is associated with the divine Name of Havaya (which is spelled Yod, Heh, Vav and Heh). The small coin resembles Yod – the smallest letter in the alphabet – and the giver holds it in his hand, with his five fingers, alluding to the letter Heh, which in Gematria equals 5. When he extends his arm, he forms the letter Vav, which is long and straight, and the coin is then received in the poor individual's hand, which represents the second Heh in the Name. The Ben Ish Hai adds that if a poor person is not present, and one is setting aside the money for charity, then he should place the coin with his right hand into a pouch in his left hand. In his work Od Yosef Hai (Parashat Vayigash), the Ben Ish Hai writes that there were Sadikim who fulfilled this custom even on Shabbat. Before Shabbat, they would prepare two envelopes – one with two coins, and another with one coin, and place them in a designated location. Then, on Shabbat, while reciting "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol," they would think of those envelopes, allocating them for charity. They would then give these coins to the poor after Shabbat. Even one who did not designate these envelopes before Shabbat can fulfill this practice on Shabbat by pledging in his mind during the recitation of "Ve'ata Moshel Ba'kol" to donate three coins to Sedaka after Shabbat. The Kaf Ha'haim writes that if a person has a bill, and he cannot exchange it for coins, then he should hold it and have in mind to donate the value of two coins within this bill for charity, and then the value of one coin. After several days, when he has donated the full amount of the bill, he should give the bill to charity. If one wishes to give charity from the bill before Minha and Arbit, when speaking is permissible, he should make this pledge verbally.

The heart of the Pesukeh De'zimra section consists of the final five chapters of Tehillim, each of which begin and end with the word "Halleluy-ah." While all five of these chapters are significant, the third and fifth chapters (Psalm 148 & Psalm 150) – "Halleluy-ah Halelu Et Hashem" and "Halleluy-ah Halelu Kel Be'kodsho" – are the most important. Therefore, if a person arrives late, and is unable to recite all five chapters, he should try to recite at least these two. We present here a number of insights into these chapters in order for us to get a glimpse of the unlimited depth and countless layers of meaning underlying the words. In the first of these chapters, we proclaim, "Ahalela Hashem Be'hayai, Azamera L'Elokai Be'odi" – "I shall praise G-d in my lifetime; I shall sing to my G-d while I still exist." The word "Be'hayai" ("in my lifetime") has been understood to mean when we are still healthy and functioning. As long as we are physically capable of speaking and giving praise to the Almighty, we are obliged to do so. Rav Chaim Brim (Jerusalem, 1922-2002) noted the implication of this verse that one of the most important things in life, one of our most central obligations, is to give praise to Hashem. Among the purposes of our existence here in this world is to recognize Hashem's goodness, to express our gratitude, and to sing His praises. If a person would be asked what he would do if, after his passing, he could be resurrected for five minutes, his response should be that he would use this time to praise Hashem. This concept is emphasized further in the next chapter, which begins, "Halleluy-ah Ki Tob Zamera L'Elokenu" – we should praise Hashem because "it is good to sing to our G-d." One of the greatest privileges we have is the opportunity to praise Hashem each and every day. The fourth of these five chapters exclaims, "Shiru L'Hashem Shir Hadash" – "Sing a new song to G-d." This verse uses the masculine term for song – "Shir" – as opposed to the feminine form – "Shira." The difference between the masculine and feminine form is that the feminine form implies succession, that there will be other songs, just as a woman produces children, whereas the masculine form refers to a song that does not produce more songs. The masculine term "Shir" is used in this Psalm because it speaks of the final song, the song that we will sing at the time of Mashiah's arrival. Indeed, the end of this chapter talks about G-d taking revenge from Israel's enemies – "La'asot Nekama Ba'goyim" – as it refers to the final redemption, when our enemies will be vanquished. The final of these chapters, "Halleluy-ah Halelu Kel Be'kodsho" – concludes with the verse, "Kol Ha'neshama Tehalel Y-ah Halleluy-ah" – "Every soul shall praise G-d, Halleluy-ah" – and it is customary to recite this concluding verse twice. One of the reasons given is that by repeating this verse, we end up recite the verb "Hallelu"/"Tehalel" twelve times, an allusion to the custom to recite Hallel on Rosh Hodesh, at the beginning of each of the twelve months of the year. The Arizal taught that the first letters of the words "Kol Ha'neshama Tehalel" – Kaf, Heh and Tav – spell a Name of Hashem associated with protection from danger. Having this intention while reciting these words can help protect a person from harm. It is likewise recommended to recite these words with this intention anytime one fears some sort of danger. The Arizal noted that this also helps protect pregnant women from miscarriage. Rav David Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century) writes that the Pesukeh De'zimra service is constructed in a manner that corresponds to the "Asara Ma'amarot" – the ten pronouncements through which G-d brought the world into existence. Pesukeh De'zimra begins with the blessing of Baruch She'amar, which corresponds to the first pronouncement. It is followed by Mizmor Le'toda – which parallels the second pronouncement, that of "Va'yehi Or" ("There shall be light"), and so on. The chapter of "Halleluy-ah Halelu Kel Be'kodsho" corresponds to the final pronouncement, the creation of Adam, and thus concludes, "Every soul shall praise G-d," emphasizing the point that the human being is the only one among the world's creatures capable of giving praise to G-d. After completing these five chapters of Tehillim, we recite four verses: "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53); "Baruch Hashem Mi'sion, Shochen Yerushalayim…" (Tehillim 135:21); "Baruch Hashem Elokim Oseh Niflaot Le'bado U'baruch Shem Kebodo Le'olam…" (72:18-19). The first of these verses marks the conclusion of the third of the five books of Tehillim, and the fourth and fifth verses mark the conclusion of the second book. We thus recite these verses as a fitting conclusion to our recitation of Tehillim in Pesukeh De'zimra. Additionally, the first verse has five words, corresponding to the congregation's five-word response to Barechu – "Baruch Hashem Ha'meborach Le'olam Va'ed." The second verse consists of six words, alluding to the six words of the verse "Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokenu Hashem Ehad." Finally, the third and fourth verses contain a total of 19 words, paralleling the 19 blessings of the Amida prayer. The first and final verses conclude with "Amen Ve'amen." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) explains that the word "Amen" is repeated to affirm the eternal truth of our praise of Hashem, both in this world and the next. One should not add other chapters of Tehillim or other verses in Pesukeh De'zimra. For example, if somebody completed Pesukeh De'zimra before the Hazan, he should not add recitations while he waits for the Hazan to finish. Neither should a person repeat any of the text of Pesukeh De'zimra. Even if one realized that he had recited Pesukeh De'zimra without Kavana (concentration), he should not repeat it. (The exception is the verse "Pote'ah Et Yadecha U'masbi'a…" which should be repeated if it was recited without Kavana, as we discussed in a previous installment.)

The heart of the Pesukeh De'zimra section consists of the final five chapters of Tehillim, each of which begin and end with the word "Halleluy-ah." While all five of these chapters are significant, the third and fifth chapters (Psalm 148 & Psalm 150) – "Halleluy-ah Halelu Et Hashem" and "Halleluy-ah Halelu Kel Be'kodsho" – are the most important. Therefore, if a person arrives late, and is unable to recite all five chapters, he should try to recite at least these two. We present here a number of insights into these chapters in order for us to get a glimpse of the unlimited depth and countless layers of meaning underlying the words. In the first of these chapters, we proclaim, "Ahalela Hashem Be'hayai, Azamera L'Elokai Be'odi" – "I shall praise G-d in my lifetime; I shall sing to my G-d while I still exist." The word "Be'hayai" ("in my lifetime") has been understood to mean when we are still healthy and functioning. As long as we are physically capable of speaking and giving praise to the Almighty, we are obliged to do so. Rav Chaim Brim (Jerusalem, 1922-2002) noted the implication of this verse that one of the most important things in life, one of our most central obligations, is to give praise to Hashem. Among the purposes of our existence here in this world is to recognize Hashem's goodness, to express our gratitude, and to sing His praises. If a person would be asked what he would do if, after his passing, he could be resurrected for five minutes, his response should be that he would use this time to praise Hashem. This concept is emphasized further in the next chapter, which begins, "Halleluy-ah Ki Tob Zamera L'Elokenu" – we should praise Hashem because "it is good to sing to our G-d." One of the greatest privileges we have is the opportunity to praise Hashem each and every day. The fourth of these five chapters exclaims, "Shiru L'Hashem Shir Hadash" – "Sing a new song to G-d." This verse uses the masculine term for song – "Shir" – as opposed to the feminine form – "Shira." The difference between the masculine and feminine form is that the feminine form implies succession, that there will be other songs, just as a woman produces children, whereas the masculine form refers to a song that does not produce more songs. The masculine term "Shir" is used in this Psalm because it speaks of the final song, the song that we will sing at the time of Mashiah's arrival. Indeed, the end of this chapter talks about G-d taking revenge from Israel's enemies – "La'asot Nekama Ba'goyim" – as it refers to the final redemption, when our enemies will be vanquished. The final of these chapters, "Halleluy-ah Halelu Kel Be'kodsho" – concludes with the verse, "Kol Ha'neshama Tehalel Y-ah Halleluy-ah" – "Every soul shall praise G-d, Halleluy-ah" – and it is customary to recite this concluding verse twice. One of the reasons given is that by repeating this verse, we end up recite the verb "Hallelu"/"Tehalel" twelve times, an allusion to the custom to recite Hallel on Rosh Hodesh, at the beginning of each of the twelve months of the year. The Arizal taught that the first letters of the words "Kol Ha'neshama Tehalel" – Kaf, Heh and Tav – spell a Name of Hashem associated with protection from danger. Having this intention while reciting these words can help protect a person from harm. It is likewise recommended to recite these words with this intention anytime one fears some sort of danger. The Arizal noted that this also helps protect pregnant women from miscarriage. Rav David Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century) writes that the Pesukeh De'zimra service is constructed in a manner that corresponds to the "Asara Ma'amarot" – the ten pronouncements through which G-d brought the world into existence. Pesukeh De'zimra begins with the blessing of Baruch She'amar, which corresponds to the first pronouncement. It is followed by Mizmor Le'toda – which parallels the second pronouncement, that of "Va'yehi Or" ("There shall be light"), and so on. The chapter of "Halleluy-ah Halelu Kel Be'kodsho" corresponds to the final pronouncement, the creation of Adam, and thus concludes, "Every soul shall praise G-d," emphasizing the point that the human being is the only one among the world's creatures capable of giving praise to G-d. After completing these five chapters of Tehillim, we recite four verses: "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53); "Baruch Hashem Mi'sion, Shochen Yerushalayim…" (Tehillim 135:21); "Baruch Hashem Elokim Oseh Niflaot Le'bado U'baruch Shem Kebodo Le'olam…" (72:18-19). The first of these verses marks the conclusion of the third of the five books of Tehillim, and the fourth and fifth verses mark the conclusion of the second book. We thus recite these verses as a fitting conclusion to our recitation of Tehillim in Pesukeh De'zimra. Additionally, the first verse has five words, corresponding to the congregation's five-word response to Barechu – "Baruch Hashem Ha'meborach Le'olam Va'ed." The second verse consists of six words, alluding to the six words of the verse "Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokenu Hashem Ehad." Finally, the third and fourth verses contain a total of 19 words, paralleling the 19 blessings of the Amida prayer. The first and final verses conclude with "Amen Ve'amen." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) explains that the word "Amen" is repeated to affirm the eternal truth of our praise of Hashem, both in this world and the next. One should not add other chapters of Tehillim or other verses in Pesukeh De'zimra. For example, if somebody completed Pesukeh De'zimra before the Hazan, he should not add recitations while he waits for the Hazan to finish. Neither should a person repeat any of the text of Pesukeh De'zimra. Even if one realized that he had recited Pesukeh De'zimra without Kavana (concentration), he should not repeat it. (The exception is the verse "Pote'ah Et Yadecha U'masbi'a…" which should be repeated if it was recited without Kavana, as we discussed in a previous installment.)

The section of Ashreh, which we recite three times each day, contains the famous verse, "Pote'ah Et Yadecha U'masbi'a Le'chol Hai Rason" – "You open Your hands and willfully satiate every living creature" (Tehillim 145:16). This verse is especially significant, and, in fact, it is one of the reasons why we are to recite this chapter of Tehillim three times each day (Berachot 4b). It must therefore be recited with concentration, and it behooves us to properly understand its meaning. While the verse's meaning is generally straightforward, the final word – "Rason" – requires explanation. This word means "will," that which a person wishes for. What exactly did King David mean when he said that Hashem satiates all living beings "Rason"? One explanation is that Hashem does not just give us a livelihood – but He does so willfully, lovingly. Just as a parent loves giving to his or her children, and wants to give them as much as possible, Hashem similarly loves us and wants very much to give us a livelihood. It is his pleasure, so-to-speak, to sustain us. Others explain "Rason" as referring to our will, the will of the beneficiaries of Hashem's kindness. He fills our needs and grants us what we wish for. There is also another possible interpretation of the word "Rason" in this verse. Very often, financial success results from a person's likeability, his finding favor in other people's eyes. He earns other people's respect and fondness, and it is because of this that they buy his product or solicit his services. It is not always the product itself which attracts buyers; sometimes it's the seller's character and demeanor. The phrase "U'masbi'a Le'chol Hai Rason" thus might refer to G-d's providing a livelihood by granting a person "Rason" – a certain charm and likeability. Hashem often helps a person succeed by giving him this quality whereby he attracts customers and his products or services are eagerly sought after. The scholars of Kabbalah have unearthed numerous additional layers of interpretations underlying this verse. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that the vast majority of people should not try to have deep kabbalistic intentions while praying, and should instead ensure to concentrate on the plain, straightforward meaning of the words. Seeking to pray with these deep intentions could lead one to overlook the plain meaning, and the Kaf Ha'haim warns that this could be harmful to the person's Tefila. Nevertheless, there are two relatively straightforward kabbalistic allusions in this verse which are worthwhile for even us to learn and have in mind while reciting it. The first letters of the words "Pote'ah Et Yadecha" – Peh, Alef, Yod – spell a Name of Hashem that is associated with His providing us with Parnasa. Another Name is formed by the final letters of these words – Het, Tav, Chaf. It is recommended, when possible, to have these Names in mind while reciting this verse in the Tefila. If one recites this verse in Ashreh and then realizes that he recited it without Kavana (concentration), then he must repeat it. This is the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). If the person realized his mistake before he completed Ashreh, then he simply returns to the verse of "Pote'ah Et Yadecha" and continues from there. If he did not realize his mistake until he began the next chapter of Tehillim ("Hallelu-ya Haleli Nafshi"), then he should complete that chapter and then recite "Pote'ah Et Yadecha…" before beginning the following chapter ("Hallelu-ya Ki Tob Zamra"). Meaning, the verse should be inserted in between the subsequent chapters, and not in the middle of a chapter. If a person realized his mistake only later, after Pesukeh De'zimra, then he should ensure to have Kavana when reciting this verse in Ashreh before U'ba Le'sion. And if he failed to have Kavana also at that point, then he should try again while reciting Ashreh at Minha. Some Poskim maintained that one who did not recite this verse with Kavana and realized his mistake only later should repeat it after the Amida, but Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that it suffices to ensure to recite it with Kavana in Ashreh before U'ba Le'sion. The Ben Ish Hai and the Hesed La'alafim (Rav Eliezer Papo, 1785-1828) write that when one needs to repeat this verse, he should begin two verses earlier, from "Somech Hashem Le'chol Ha'nofelim." From the Shulhan Aruch and other Poskim, however, it appears that it suffices to recite just "Pote'ah Et Yadecha…" This is the view of Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Yalkut Yosef. Nevertheless, if time allows, it is recommended to begin from "Somech Hashem Le'chol Ha'nofelim." Some noted the distinction drawn by Halacha between one who recites "Pote'ah Et Yadecha" without Kavana, and one who recites the first blessing of the Amida without Kavana. While one of course must endeavor to concentrate throughout the entire Amida, one must minimally have Kavana while reciting the first Beracha. Nevertheless, the Halacha is that if one did not have Kavana during the first blessing, he does not repeat the Amida, because of the likelihood that he will not concentrate the second time, either. When it comes to "Pote'ah Et Yadecha," however, as we have discussed, one who recited this verse without Kavana is required to repeat it. Two explanations are given for this distinction. First, quite simply, it is far easier to concentrate while reciting a single verse, and so there is little reason to think that one who did not have Kavana while reciting this verse during Ashreh will not have Kavana when he repeats it. Additionally, Halacha is always more careful when it comes to the recitation of Berachot, given the prohibition against reciting a Beracha in vain. Therefore, a person who did not have Kavana during the first Beracha of the Amida is told not to repeat the Amida due to the concern that he will not concentrate the second time, and the blessings of the Amida will then have been recited in vain. When reciting a verse from Tehillim, however, there is no such concern, and thus the person should repeat the verse despite the possibility that he will not concentrate. It is customary to open one's hands when reciting this verse, which speaks of Hashem opening His hands to give us our livelihood. This is done to symbolize our preparedness to receive the blessing that G-d bestows. Of course, we do not need to actually open our hands to receive the Beracha, but we nevertheless perform this action as a visual expression of our desire to receive Hashem's blessings. The Ben Ish Hai writes that one should open his hands horizontally, side to side, without lifting them up in the air. Some stand for the recitation of "Pote'ah Et Yadecha," but this is not our practice. Summary: One must have Kavana (concentration) when reciting the verse "Pote'ah Et Yadecha…" in Ashreh during the prayer service. If one realized during Ashreh that he had recited this verse without Kavana, then he must go back to recite it with Kavana, and then proceed from there. If he remembers after Ashreh, then he should add this verse in between chapters of Pesukeh De'zimra. According to some opinions, if the person did not realize his mistake until after Pesukeh De'zimra, then he should repeat the verse after the Amida. Others maintain that he should just ensure to have Kavana during Ashreh before U'ba Le'sion. If one needs to repeat this verse, it is preferable to begin two verses earlier, from "Somech Hashem Le'chol Ha'nofelim." It is customary to open one's hands while reciting "Pote'ah Et Yadecha." They should be opened only horizontally, side to side, and not lifted in the air.

After completing the paragraph of Yehi Chebod, one should proceed immediately to the recitation of Ashreh. Ashreh consists of the 145 th chapter of Tehillim – "Tehila Le'David" – which is introduced by two other verses from Tehillim: "Ashreh Yosheveh Betecha…" (84:5) and "Ashreh Ha'am She'kacha Lo…" (144:15). While one must of course avoid interruptions at any point during Pesukeh De'zimra, the Kabbalists taught that one must be especially careful not to make any interruption between the end of Yehi Chebod and the beginning of Ashreh. In fact, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) ruled that if one hears Kaddish right when he concludes Yehi Chebod, then he should respond to Kaddish but then repeat the final three verses of Yehi Chebod so he can connect the end of Yehi Chebod with Ashreh without any interruption. Alternatively, if one hears during his recitation of Yehi Chebod that Kaddish will soon be recited, he should pause in the middle of Yehi Chebod so he can respond to Kaddish then, and not at the end of Yehi Chebod. Hacham Ovadia Yosef disagreed, and maintained that responding to Kaddish does not constitute a Hefsek (interruption). In his view, then, if one hears Kaddish between Yehi Chebod and Ashreh, he responds to Kaddish and then proceeds to Ashreh as usual. Summary: It is critically important to proceed to Ashreh immediately after concluding the recitation of Yehi Chebod. According to some opinions, if one hears Kaddish between Yehi Chebod and Ashreh, then although he should respond to Kaddish, he should repeat the final three verses of Yehi Chebod before beginning Ashreh. Others disagree and maintain that the person in this case simply proceeds to Ashreh as usual.

Each morning, immediately after Baruch She'amar, we recite the 100 th chapter of Tehillim – Mizmor Le'toda, the Psalm that was sung during the offering of the Korban Toda (thanksgiving sacrifice) in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Several explanations have been given for why this chapter was incorporated into our daily prayer service. One reason is that we recite this chapter to express gratitude for the creation of light which we enjoy anew each morning. The Kab Ha'yashar (Rav Tzvi Hersh Kaidanover, d. 1712) explains that we thank Hashem for the daily miracles He performs for us without us even knowing. We are all aware of many things that Hashem does to help and protect us, but there are also countless occasions when we are helped in ways we know nothing about. We'll never know about the germs in the air that we do not inhale, or the looming threats that were neutralized before affecting us. We therefore recite Mizmor Le'toda each morning to acknowledge that our debt of gratitude to the Almighty is far greater than what we can imagine. Another reason is that this chapter contains the famous verse, "Ibdu Et Hashem Be'simha," urging us to serve Hashem joyfully. This chapter is meant to put us in a state of genuine Simha (joy) as we begin to recite Pesukeh De'zimra. What's important is not just what we say, but how we say it. If we speak Hashem's praises feeling unhappy, then we are not properly fulfilling our obligation. And so we recite "Ibdu Et Hashem Be'simha" right at the outset of Pesukeh De'zimra to put ourselves in the proper frame of mind for this section of praise. Yet another reason for reciting Mizmor Le'toda is that this recitation serves as our own Korban Toda. In the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash, a person would bring this sacrifice after being saved from a perilous situation – specifically, after being rescued from captivity, after recovering from a serious illness, after a sea voyage, or after traversing a desert. We all experience these situations in various forms, and thus in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, when we are unable to offer this sacrifice, we instead recite Mizmor Le'toda, the chapter which was sung during this offering. For this reason, some Kabbalists maintained that one should stand while reciting Mizmor Le'toda, just as one would stand during the offering of his sacrifice. We, however, follow the practice taught by the Arizal to recite Mizmor Le'toda sitting. We are not actually reenacting the offering of the Korban Toda – as evidenced by the fact that we recite it even on days when this sacrifice could not be brought, such as on Pesach (since this sacrifice included leavened bread). This recitation merely commemorates the sacrifice, and so we do not need to stand. The Shulhan Aruch writes that Mizmor Le'toda should be sung in a pleasant melody. This is not commonly done, and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Jerusalem, 1910-2012) is said to have left unanswered the question of why this is the case. Others suggested different theories to justify the widespread practice not to sing this chapter. Rav Haim Kanievsky (1928-2022) said that the Shulhan Aruch perhaps meant not that this chapter should actually be sung, but rather that it should be recited slowly. Others explain that it should be recited with joy, but not necessarily in a melody. The Hesed La'alafim (Rav Eliezer Papo, 1785-1828) writes that we do not know the correct tune to sing, and so we recite this chapter instead of singing it. These reasons were suggested in defense of the custom not to sing Mizmor Le'toda, but it seems clear that if one can, it is preferable to sing this chapter. Rashi, commenting to the opening verse of Parashat Hayeh-Sara, tells us that "Bat Kuf Ke'bat Chaf" – Sara at the age of 100 was no different from the way she was at age 20. Some have explained this remark as an allusion to two very different chapters of Tehillim that we include in our morning prayer service: Mizmor Le'toda – the 100 th chapter, and La'menase'ah Mizmor Le'David Ya'ancha Hashem – the 20 th chapter. Mizmor Le'toda, as discussed, is a song of thanksgiving, whereas La'menase'ah is a desperate plea for help during times of distress. Rashi's comment alludes to us that Sara Imenu treated "chapter 100" no different than "chapter 20" – meaning, she thanked Hashem for all the goodness He bestowed upon her no less than she begged for help during times of hardship. As important as it is to always turn to Hashem for His assistance and to fill our needs, it is no less important to say "Mizmor Le'toda," to thank Him from the bottom of our hearts for His kindness toward us and all the wonderful blessings in our lives.

One may answer "Amen" to a Beracha that he hears while reciting Pesukeh De'zimra in the morning. Thus, for example, if one finished reciting Baruch She'amar – the introductory blessing to Pesukeh De'zimra – and then hears the Hazzan conclude Baruch She'amar ("Baruch Ata Hashem Melech Mehulal Be'tishbahot"), he answers "Amen." For that matter, if one hears the person next to him conclude Baruch She'amar after he had finished the blessing, then he answers "Amen." This applies to any Beracha, such as if a person hears someone who had arrived late reciting the Beracha over the Tallit of Tefillin. However, a number of Poskim (including the Ben Ish Hai and Hesed La'alafim) maintain that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha after he concluded Baruch She'amar unless he had proceeded to Mizmor Le'toda, the first chapter recited after Baruch She'amar. After all, Baruch She'amar is, as mentioned, the introductory blessing to Pesukeh De'zimra. Seemingly, then, just as one may not make any interruption after reciting a blessing over food before eating some of the food, one must likewise proceed immediately to Pesukeh De'zimra after reciting Baruch She'amar, without any interruption. Hacham Ovadia Yosef disagrees with this position, and maintains that one may answer "Amen" to a Beracha he hears after Baruch She'amar even before he began reciting Mizmor Le'toda. He concedes, however, that one should certainly try not to pause between the end of Baruch She'amar and Mizmor Le'toda so that no such interruption will be necessary. If one recites Baruch She'amar together with the Hazzan, and he concludes the blessing with the Hazzan, then he does answer "Amen" to the Hazzan's blessing, as this would give the appearance of answering "Amen" to his own Beracha, which is not permitted. This is true generally, as well – whenever one hears somebody finish a Beracha just as he finishes a Beracha, he does not answer "Amen," so as not to give the impression that he answers "Amen" to his own blessing. It is worth emphasizing in this context that Halacha forbids speaking after the recitation of Baruch She'amar, through the end of the Amida. Actually, as speaking is forbidden between the Amida and "Ana" and "Le'David," one may not talk at all until the end of those prayers. For matters involving a Misva, one may speak after Yishtabah, before beginning the Beracha of "Yoser Or." But general conversation is strictly forbidden from Baruch She'amar until after "Ana" and "Le'David." Certainly, this is a difficult Halacha for many to observe. We are a social community, and socializing and friendly conversation is undoubtedly something that we strongly encourage. In fact, for many, seeing friends is a motivation to come to the synagogue, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nevertheless, our primary reason for coming must be to pray properly, to spend time focusing on our relationship with Hashem through Tefilla. We must therefore delay our conversations until after the prayer service, and give the Tefilla and attention and respect that it deserves and that Halacha requires. Summary: One may not speak from Baruch She'amar through the end of "Ana Le'David" after the Amida. If one hears a Beracha while he recites Pesukeh De'zimra, he may answer "Amen." If one recites Baruch She'amar with the Hazzan, and ends the blessing at the same time as the Hazzan, then he does not answer "Amen." If, however, he completed Baruch She'amar before the Hazzan, then he answers "Amen." This applies even if he had yet to begin Mizmor Le'toda, but preferably one should recite Mizmor Le'toda immediately after completing Baruch She'amar, without any pause.

In some editions of the Siddur, several words are added to the text of Baruch She'amar on Shabbat. However, these additions are incorrect. The text of Baruch She'amar – which, according to tradition, was revealed to the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola (Men of the Great Assembly) on a piece of paper that fell from the heavens – contains precisely 87 words, and this is the exact text that we should recite. There are some editions of the Siddur in which additions for Shabbat appear before Baruch She'amar. One may recite these additions, though he should ensure to have in mind that they are not said as part of Baruch She'amar, but rather comprise a separate text. The custom is to stand during the recitation of Baruch She'amar. However, since standing is required only by force of custom, and not as a strict Halachic obligation, one who is ill or otherwise frail may sit. Our custom is to hold the front two Sisit of the Tallit in our hand during the recitation of Baruch She'amar. This is based on a Kabbalistic teaching mentioned in the Sha'ar Ha'kavanot (a work based on the teachings of Rav Haim Vital, 1542-1620), according to which there is a deep connection between Baruch She'amar and Sisit. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) adds that one should kiss the Sisit upon concluding Baruch She'amar, as an expression of love and affection for the Misva of Sisit. In the phrase "Ha'mehulal Be'feh Amo," there are some who say "Be'fi" instead of "Be'feh." However, this is incorrect. The proper text is "Be'feh." Significantly, the word "Be'feh" in Gematria equals 87 – the number of words in Baruch She'amar. The correct pronunciation of the final word of Baruch She'amar is "Ba'tishbahot," and not "Ba'tushbahot." One who arrives in the synagogue late, and skips Pesukeh De'zimra in order to recite the Amida together with the congregation, does not recite Baruch She'amar afterward. This Beracha is to be recited only before the Amida. (This applies also to Yishtabah, the concluding Beracha of Pesukeh De'zimra.) The first four words of Baruch She'amar are "Baruch She'amar Ve'haya Ha'olam," the first letters of which (Bet, Shin, Vav, Heh) spell the word "Be'shaveh" – "equal." This has been understood as alluding that reciting Baruch She'amar properly earns us rewards equal to the rewards granted to the angels for serving G-d. Moreover, these four words express praise to Hashem for bringing the world into existence – and so reciting this blessing properly helps us tap into G-d's creative powers. So often, we need Hashem to bring us a salvation, to "create" a solution for us. People frequently approach me asking how they can earn something that they so desperately need. One thing we can do is to recite Baruch She'amar properly, slowly, from the Siddur, and with concentration, thinking about how Hashem created the world from sheer nothingness, and in this merit we will, please G-d, be worthy of Him "creating" the solutions that we all need in our lives.