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

There are several different kinds of Kaddish, the first of which is commonly known as "Hasi Kaddish" – "half-Kaddish." The term "Hasi Kaddish" is actually a misnomer, as the text of this Kaddish is in fact the complete original text, composed either by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola (Men of the Great Assembly) at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth, or several generations later, by the Tanna'im. The prayers added to the other Kaddish texts were introduced later, during the period of the Geonim or the period of the Rishonim. These other texts are known to us as "Kaddish Titkabal," "Kaddish Yeheh Shelama," and "Kaddish Al Yisrael" (which is also referred to as "Kaddish De'Rabbanan"). "Kaddish Titkabal" includes a request that our prayers be answered, and it is recited after the Amida prayer, and after Shelihot. "Kaddish Yeheh Shelama" is said after the recitation of a text of Torah She'bi'chtab (Tanach), such as following an Arayat. Finally, "Kaddish Al Yisrael" is recited after a session of studying Torah She'be'al Peh (the oral Torah), such as Mishna or Gemara. This text contains a prayer for the wellbeing of the Torah scholars and their students (which is why this Kaddish is also known as "Kaddish De'Rabbanan" – the Rabbis' Kaddish). We recite this Kaddish in the morning after the Korbanot section, which includes the Mishnayot of "Ezehu Mekoman" and the Berayta of Rabbi Yishmael. It is recited again at the end of the prayer service, following the recitation of the Ketoret text which includes passages from the Gemara. This final "Kaddish Al Yisrael" after the Ketoret is known as "Kaddish Yatom" – the mourner's Kaddish, as it is recited by those in mourning for a parent. The Arizal taught that the recitation of this Kaddish by a mourner has the ability to extricate the parent from Gehinnom and bring him or her to Gan Eden. These final three Kaddish texts conclude with a prayer for peace and material blessings. The Rabbis explain that we first pray that "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba" – that G-d's Name should be glorified and become known throughout the world, before proceeding to ask for our personal needs. This is based on the concept that we must first pray for G-d's sake, so-to-speak, for the glory of His Name, and in this merit our personal requests will be granted. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings a teaching of the Midrash that if a person includes in his prayers the plea that Hashem should act for the sake of His Name ("Aseh Lema'an Shemecha, Aseh Lema'an Yeminecha…"), then he will be given the merit to greet the Shechina. We should pray not only for our own benefit, but also for the sake of the glorification of G-d's Name. This notion is alluded to in the first four words of Kaddish – "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba." These words begin with the letters Yod, Vav, Shin and Resh, which have the combined numerical value of 516. The Sages teach that Moshe Rabbenu prayed 515 times for the privilege of entering the Land of Israel, whereupon G-d commanded him to stop praying. Some commentators explain that Moshe was told to stop because if he had recited a 516 th prayer, then his prayer would have been accepted (and it was decreed that Moshe must not go into the land). Moshe prayed solely for the purpose of "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba," for the sake of the glorification of the divine Name, and not for his personal benefit, and his prayer therefore would have deserved to be accepted. When our intentions are sincere, when we pray for our needs so we can succeed in our mission in the world, the mission of bringing honor to the Almighty, then we are worthy of having our prayers answered.

Numerous different theories have been advanced to explain why the Kaddish prayer was written in Aramaic, and not in Hebrew. One reason given is based on the tradition that angels do not understand Aramaic. Kaddish is such a precious and valuable prayer that the angels would feel envious if they heard us recite it and they understood its meaning. This prayer was therefore composed in a language which the angels cannot understand. The Mahzor Vitri (Rabbenu Simha of Vitri, France, d. 1105) questioned this explanation, noting that there are many other beautiful and precious prayers which we recite that were written in Hebrew, without any concern that the angels might become envious. (We might also question how angels, which are perfect beings, can experience jealousy, a human flaw. Perhaps, envy over spiritual achievements is a laudable quality, and this feeling can be experienced by angels.) A second theory is that Kaddish is written in Aramaic as a reminder of the Babylonian exile. We emphasize to Hashem that He destroyed the Bet Ha'mikdash and drove us into a foreign land, where we spoke a foreign language, and we hope that this will lead Hashem to regret His decision and bring us back. If the angels understood this prayer, they would respond by pointing out our misdeeds, arguing that we are unworthy of redemption, and so we recite Kaddish in a language which the angels do not understand. Another reason given is that many of the people who would attend Torah classes were simple laymen who did not understand Hebrew. Therefore, the Kaddish recited after Torah classes was written in Aramaic for their benefit, so they would understand this prayer. It seems that according to this reason, the other Kaddish recitations were modeled after the Kaddish recited after Torah classes. The Maharam Me'Rotenberg (c. 1215-1293) suggested that we recite Kaddish in Aramaic to express our grief over the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash. Just as a mourner changes out of his fine garments and wears simple clothing as an expression of mourning, we, too, change the language from Hebrew, the sacred tongue, to the inferior Aramaic, as an expression of anguish. (Incidentally, some sources explain similarly why we begin the Haggadah at the Seder in Aramaic, reciting "Ha Lahma Anya." As we sit down to the Seder, we are cognizant of the fact that we are meant to celebrate this occasion in Jerusalem, with the Korban Pesach. We therefore begin the Seder in a foreign language, expressing our grief that we observe Pesach in exile.) Rabbi Binyamin Ben Abraham (Italy, 13 th century), as cited by his brother, the Shiboleh Ha'leket (Rabbi Sidkiya Ha'rofeh), suggested that the gentile authorities at a certain point forbade the Jews from reciting Kaddish. The Jews therefore began reciting it in Aramaic, so the authorities would not realize that they were reciting this prayer. The Kolbo (anonymous work from the period of the Rishonim) offered two explanations, one assuming that Aramaic was widely known at the time of Kaddish's composition, and one assuming that it was not. If it was widely known, he writes, then Kaddish may have been written in this language specifically for the purpose of spreading its message far and wide, to demonstrate to the entire world, including the gentiles, our belief in our ultimate redemption, when Hashem's Name will be glorified throughout the world. Conversely, if Aramaic was not widely known, then perhaps it is recited in Aramaic because the angels might otherwise understand the prayer and thus prosecute against us. The Kaddish speaks of the time of the future redemption, and at that time, the righteous will be granted a greater position of stature than the angels. Since we human beings must struggle against our evil inclination to faithfully observe G-d, those who succeed and serve G-d properly deserve far more reward than the angels, who are created perfect, without sinful impulses. If the angels would understand the Kaddish, which speaks of the time of the final redemption, they might proceed to prosecute against us to ensure that the righteous would not be given a more distinguished position in the future. Kaddish is therefore recited in Aramaic, a language which the angels do not understand.

The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908) writes that the text of the Kaddish prayer was likely written by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola ("Men of the Great Assembly") during the first years of the Second Commonwealth. This prayer expresses the wish that G-d's Name should be glorified and become known throughout the world. The destruction of the first Bet Ha'mikdash marked a grave Hilul Hashem – desecration of G-d's Name – and so when Jews returned to their land and began rebuilding the Temple, the Rabbis composed this special prayer that the glory of G-d's Name should be restored. The Yalkut Yosef (Hebrew edition) notes that this theory might be supported by the Gemara's comment (Berachot 33a) that our prayers and blessings were written by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola. However, as noted by Rav Yisrael Bitan, the Gemara did not specifically mention Kaddish, and thus this proof is not conclusive. In any event, this is the opinion followed also by Rav Shlomo of Worms (Germany, d. 1096), in his Siddur. He explains that after seventy years in Babylonian exile, the Jews' primary language was Aramaic, instead of Hebrew, and for this reason the Kaddish text was written in Aramaic. A different view is presented by the Orhot Haim (Rav Aharon of Lunel, late 13 th -early 14 th century), who maintained that the Kaddish text was written several generations later, by the Tanna'im. The unique significance of the Kaddish prayer, and its precious value, is clearly expressed in several passages in the Gemara. In Masechet Berachot (3a), the Gemara tells that Rabbi Yossi was once traveling and stopped to pray in one of the ruins of Jerusalem. While he was there, he heard a voice weeping and lamenting, "Woe unto the children because of whose iniquities I destroyed My home, burned My sanctuary, and exiled them among the nations." Afterward, he was informed by Eliyahu the Prophet that this cry is sounded three times each day. However, Eliyahu added, when Jews assemble in synagogues and study halls and pronounce in Kaddish, "Yeheh Shemeh," the Almighty "nods His head," so-to-speak, and regrets having driven the Jewish People into exile. The Kaddish recitation thus arouses G-d's love and compassion, and brings the final redemption closer. Moreover, the Gemara teaches in Masechet Shabbat (119b) that if one answers "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" with all his might, harsh decrees that were issued against him are rescinded. And the Gemara states in Masechet Sota (49a) that since the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash, the world's condition has been increasingly worsening, yet the world survives in the merit of "Kiddusha De'sidra" and the Kaddish recited after Torah study. ("Kiddusha De'sidra" refers to the section known to us as "U'ba Le'sion," when we cite several verses followed by their Aramaic translation.) Rav Amram Gaon (9 th century) tells that Rabbi Yishmael was once shown by an angel the horrific tragedies that were decreed to befall the Jewish People. The angel explained that new decrees are issued against the Jews every day, but these decrees are left unfulfilled in the merit of the Jews' recitation of "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." There was once a member of our community who suffered a stroke, and the family, who heard of the great power of Kaddish to annul harsh decrees, brought a Minyan to the rehabilitation center. They prayed there with the patient, ensuring to have special Kavana (concentration) when responding "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." The patient quickly recovered, returned to work, and lived for many years – a clear demonstration of the special power of Kaddish.

Normally, a person who hears Kaddish or Nakdishach may respond even if he hears from a distance, and is not present with the Minyan. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. The Shulhan Aruch writes that a person standing outside a synagogue may respond to Kaddish or Nakdishach, but then adds that according to some opinions, this is not allowed if there is "Tinuf" (filth, such as a trash can), or a non-Jew, in between him and the congregation. At first glance, it appears that the Shulhan Aruch here cites two different opinions, and according to the first opinion, one may respond even if there is "Tinuf" or a non-Jew in between him and the Minyan. If so, then we follow the general rule that the Shulhan Aruch accepts the first opinion when he brings two different views, and thus one may may respond regardless of what is between him and the congregation. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, understands the Shulhan Aruch as clarifying his initial statement, and not as citing a dissenting view. Therefore, one may not, in fact, respond to Kaddish or Nakdishach if there is either "Tinuf" or a gentile in between him and the Minyan. The word used by the Shulhan Aruch in this context is "Akum," an acrostic that refers either to an idol – "Avodat Kochabim U'mazalot" – or to an idolater – "Obed Kochabim U'mazalot." The Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) understood that the acrostic "Akum" in this context refers to an idol, and not to a gentile. According to this reading, a non-Jew does not interrupt between a Minyan and a person listening from a distance, and he may respond. However, Hacham Ovadia notes that in earlier editions of the Shulhan Aruch, the word used in this passage was not "Akum," but rather "Goy." It is clear that the word was changed as a result of censorship, as Jewish communities needed to avoid giving the impression of looking disdainfully upon their non-Jewish neighbors, and so texts that might be misunderstood as such were occasionally emended. Hence, the Magen Abraham's reading is incorrect, and even the presence of a non-Jew in between a person and the Minyan creates an interruption, preventing him from responding. Since the Shulhan Aruch used the word "Goy" – "gentile" – and not "Obed Kochabim" – "idolater," this Halacha applies to all gentiles, even to those who do not worship idols. The Rambam famously ruled that Muslims are not considered idol-worshippers, since they believe in a single Deity who created the world. For the purposes of this Halacha, however, the non-Jew's religious beliefs are irrelevant, and his presence is considered an obstruction regarding the ability to respond to Kaddish and Nakdishach. The Magen Abraham and Mishna Berura asserted that the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572) disputed this entire Halacha, and maintained that the presence of filth or of a gentile does not affect the ability to respond to Kaddish or Nakdishach. Nevertheless, Sephardic practice follows the Shulhan Aruch's ruling. It must be noted that this entire discussion refers to the case of a person who is not inside together with the Minyan, and there is a gentile in between him and the Minyan. In such a case, the presence of the Shechina needs to extend from the Minyan to the person standing at a distance, and this extension can be obstructed. A gentile's presence inside the Minyan, however, has no effect whatsoever. If, for example, a political figure is visiting the synagogue, or a congregant has a non-Jewish aide helping him in the synagogue, it is certainly permissible for everyone to respond to all the prayers, even if the non-Jew stands in between a person and the Hazzan. Although there is an opinion among the Poskim that is stringent in this regard, the consensus follows the lenient position. One example where this problem arises was noted by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), who describes how it was common in Baghdad for merchants to display their wares in the hallways of synagogues. If a person was in the hallway of such a synagogue, he needed to ensure that the non-Jewish merchant was not standing in between him and the sanctuary. Another situation where this could arise is an airport. If ten men find an area to pray, and someone joins their Minyan from a distance, he may not answer unless he ensures that no gentiles come in between him and the Minyan. This could arise also when a person hosts a catered event in his home, and a Minyan is formed in the living room. If someone wishes to participate in the Minyan from the kitchen, he must ensure that non-Jewish workers are not standing in between him and the Minyan. Some Poskim place a very significant limitation on this entire Halacha, maintaining that it applies only if the person can see the "Tinuf" or the non-Jew in between him and the Minyan. But if, for example, a person lives near a synagogue, and he hears the prayers through the window, then he may respond even if there is "Tinuf" or a gentile in between. This is the view taken by the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797) and by Rav Shlomo Zurafa (Algeria, 1785-1859). Although others seem to disagree with this ruling, it is accepted as Halacha by Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Yehaveh Da'at, and by his son, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura. This Halacha becomes relevant in the case of a person who hears a live broadcast of a prayer service. Some congregations arrange a livestream of the Tefila for the benefit of those who are unable to attend due to health reasons, or for those in remote areas without a Minyan. The accepted Halacha is that although one cannot fulfill his obligation to recite a text – such as the reading of Megilat Ester on Purim – by listening via telephone or some other communication system, one can respond to Berachot, Kaddish and Nakdishach if he hears the recitation through a live broadcast. Quite obviously, there is "Tinuf" and gentiles in between the individual listening to a broadcast and the synagogue miles away where the prayers are being recited. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia ruled that one may respond, in light of the aforementioned ruling that everything in between may be disregarded if it cannot be seen. A Minyan may be formed even though non-Jews live in the same building, above the Minyan. Hacham Ovadia writes that there is no source whatsoever for the notion that the presence of gentiles above a Minyan obstructs the prayers from ascending to the heavens. Therefore, it is entirely permissible to pray on a ground floor even though gentiles are present above the Minyan. Summary: If a person hears Kaddish or Nakdishach from outside the area where the Minyan takes place, he may respond, unless there is "Tinuf" (filth) or a non-Jew in between him and the Minyan. If, however, the "Tinuf" or the gentile cannot be seen – such as if a person hears a Minyan from a window in his home – then he may respond. Therefore, a person who hears a Minyan via livestream may respond. A gentile's presence in the synagogue, or in the area where the Minyan is held, has no effect, and everyone in the room may respond.

If a person prays outside the room where the Minyan is taking place, or in an adjoining room, and he hears the entire service and fully participates, does he receive the same credit for praying with a Minyan as those inside the sanctuary? Halacha establishes that men in a different room – or, for that matter, in the ladies' section – cannot be counted toward the Minyan, as ten men must be together in the same room to form a Minyan. But once a Minyan is formed, are those outside the room considered to be praying with a Minyan? The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his Mahazik Beracha, cites the Malki Ba'kodesh (Rav Ezra Malki, 1710-1768) as stating that those who pray together with a Minyan, and can hear the Hazzan, are credited with praying with a Minyan even if they are not in the room. By contrast, the Hayeh Adam (Rav Abraham Danzig, Vilna, 1748-1820) maintained that one is not considered to pray with a Minyan unless he prays in the room where the Minyan is taking place. An intriguing middle position is taken by the Radbaz (Rav David Ben Zimra, Egypt, 1479-1573). He rules that a person outside the room is considered to pray with a Minyan if people in the Minyan need to pass through his location in order to exit. Thus, for example, if a person prays in a hallway outside the sanctuary, and the people in the sanctuary need to pass through that hallway to leave the building, then the sanctuary and the hallway are sufficiently connected for him to be viewed as part of the Minyan. If, however, the people do not need to go through his area to exit – such as if he prays in the ladies' section, or in an adjoining room – then he is not considered to pray with a Minyan. As for the final Halacha, both the Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908) and the Hazon Ish (Rav Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, 1878-1953) wrote that one may follow the lenient position. This is the conclusion also of Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura. Therefore, one who can hear the Hazzan and participates with the Minyan receives credit for praying with a Minyan even if he is not in the room where the Minyan is taking place.

If a person happens to be in the vicinity of a prayer service, and he hears Kaddish, Barechu or Nakdishach, is he required to answer? The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) seems to indicate that one who hears these parts of the service is required to respond, even if he is in a different room and not part of the Minyan. By contrast, several other Poskim, including Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998), maintained that although one is permitted to respond in such a case, this is not obligatory. Rav Shmuel Wosner (1913-2015), in Shebet Ha'levi, writes that if a person is learning Torah near a Minyan, and responding to Kaddish and the other prayers would disrupt his study, then he does not need to respond. Thus, although it is certainly worthwhile to respond to Kaddish, Barechu and Nakdishach, as each response fulfills a Misva and is very significant, this is not obligatory, and one does not need to interrupt his Torah learning for this purpose.

Occasionally, there are men who sit in the ladies' section in the synagogue on weekdays, when women generally do not come to the synagogue. While this is permissible, it is important to realize that they cannot be counted for the Minyan. If there are only ten men in the shul, and one or several of them are in the ladies' section, they do not form a Minyan, because the ladies' section is considered a separate domain. At least ten men must be present in the main section to form a Minyan there. In some synagogues, the Teba is more than just a table; it is a large structure enclosed by walls. Despite the enclosure, the Teba is nevertheless considered part of the synagogue, and thus the Hazzan may lead the service from inside this area. Since the Teba was built as part of the synagogue's furnishings, it is not viewed as a separate domain. (If the walls would extend all the way to the ceiling, then this would pose a problem, but quite obviously this never happens.)

In order for ten men to form a Minyan, they must all be situated in the same room. In some circumstances, though, two rooms might perhaps be considered a single room. One such situation is where a narrow room opens into a wider room. If some men are in the narrow room, and some are in the wider room, can they form a Minyan? The basic principle in such a situation is that a minority of the people can be seen as joining the majority if the majority is in the large room, but not in the reverse case. Meaning, if nine men are together in the wider space, and one man is in the narrower space, they can form a Minyan, because we view the lone individual in the smaller space as if he is together with the other nine in the larger area. In the converse case, however, they cannot form a Minyan. Meaning, if nine men are in the smaller area, and one is in the larger area, we cannot view the lone individual in the larger area as being together with the other nine. If five people are in the larger room and five in the smaller room, then in this case, too, they cannot form a Minyan. If the Hazzan is in the narrow room, and everyone else is in the wider room, then we may view them as being together, such that they form a Minyan. If there is a Minyan in the smaller space, and some people are in the larger space, the Hazzan must be a person situated in the smaller space. No one in the larger area can serve as Hazzan.

Ten men form a Minyan only if they are all assembled in the same room. If the ten are interspersed among two rooms, then even if there is no door between the two adjoining rooms, and they can all see each other, they do not form a Minyan. (However, if ten men are situated together in one room, then others who are situated in the adjoining room are considered to pray with a Minyan.) The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1340) cites his father, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), as making an interesting exception to this rule. He asserts that if five men are in one room, and five others are in an adjoining room, they combine to form a Minyan if the Hazzan stands in the doorway between the two rooms. As long as all ten men can see the Hazzan – even if they cannot see each other – they are considered a Minyan, as the Hazzan in this case combines them together. Several Poskim extended this Halacha to apply in a case where nine people are in a room, and the Hazzan stands in the entranceway to the room. Normally, a man who stands in the doorway cannot be counted toward the Minyan together with those inside the room. However, if it is the Hazzan standing in the doorway, then, according to this opinion, he combines with nine men inside to form a Minyan. This view is advanced by Rabbi Akiva Eger (1761-1837), who argued that if a Hazzan standing in a doorway between two rooms can combine the men in the two rooms to form a Minyan, then certainly he himself can combine with the nine men of the room when he stands in the doorway. This is the view also of the Perisha (Rav Yehoshua Falk, d. 1614). By contrast, the Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1792) argued that the Rosh's ruling cannot be extended to the case of a Hazzan standing in the doorway with nine men in the room. The Mishna Berura accepts the lenient ruling of Rabbi Akiva Eger and the Perisha. This is the conclusion also of Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, who noted that different views exist regarding the status of a person standing in a doorway. Although Halacha follows the opinion that he cannot be counted together with the people standing in the room, nevertheless, the opposing view creates a "Sefek Sefeka" – a situation where two Halachic uncertainties are at play. To begin with, there are those who allow counting a person standing in the doorway, and even according to the stringent opinion, some Poskim allow counting him if he is the Hazzan. Hence, we can rely on this leniency, and allow nine men to form a Minyan with a tenth man in the doorway if that tenth man is the Hazzan. Summary: If ten men are together in two adjoining rooms, with some in one room and some in the other, they do not form a Minyan, unless the Hazzan stands in the doorway connecting the two rooms, and everyone in both rooms can see him. Similarly, if nine men are in a room and a tenth man is in the doorway, the tenth man can be counted if he is the Hazzan.

If nine men are assembled in a room, and a tenth men is outside by the window, can this tenth men be counted so a Minyan can be formed? It is clear that the fellow outside cannot be counted if the window is closed. Even if the window is open but there are security bars running across the area of the window, the man cannot count toward the Minyan. Regarding the case of an open window, different views exist among the Poskim. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Yeruham (1290-1350) as ruling that the fellow outside does not count toward the Minyan, unless he brings his head and the main part of the body through the window. This is the view accepted by the Hayeh Adam (Rav Abraham Danzig, Vilna, 1748-1820). The Bet Yosef then cites the more lenient ruling of Rav Yishak Abuhab (Spain, 14 th century) that it suffices for the person to put his head inside through the window for him to be counted toward the Minyan. Thirdly, the Bet Yosef cites the position of Rav Hai Gaon (Babylonia, 939-1038), brought by the Orhot Haim, that if the man outside "shows them his face" then he may be counted toward the Minyan. The Bet Yosef posits that these final two views actually are the same opinion, expressed in different words, though he is uncertain what this opinion is. It is possible, he writes, that Rav Hai Gaon agreed that the fellow outside must bring his head into the room through the window, but his position was not made clear in the citation in the Orhot Haim. Conversely, it is possible that Rav Yishak Abuhab agreed that it suffices for the person to merely show his face to the people inside, and does not actually have to bring his head through the window. A number of other Rishonim (the Radbaz and Rav Moshe Ibn Habib) ruled clearly that the individual must bring his head inside the room through the window in order to count toward the Minyan, perhaps giving us reason to assume that this was the view also of Rav Yishak Abuhab and Rav Hai Gaon. This question is debated by later Poskim. The Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) and the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) ruled leniently, that nine men in a room can form a Minyan with a tenth man outside a window if he faces them through the window. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in Mahazik Beracha, cites those who require the person to bring his head through the window, and then brings those who rule leniently, that it suffices for the tenth men outside to face the nine men inside. As for the final Halacha, although the Mishna Berura follows the lenient view, the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakov Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) ruled stringently, that the person outside must bring his head inside the room to be counted. This is the position followed by Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, and this is the Halacha according to Sephardic practice. Summary: If nine men are in a room, and a tenth man is outside a window that is completely open, they can form a Minyan if the man outside brings his head inside through the window.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.