Podcasts about Amida

Every effort must be made to arrive in the synagogue on time in the morning so one can recite the complete service – from the morning blessings, through the Akeda and Korbanot, followed by Pesukeh De'zimra, Shema and its blessings, the Amida, and so on. The Kabbalists in particular emphasized the importance of reciting the entire service without skipping any section. According to Kabbalistic thought, the prayer service is a process whereby one ascends from one level to the next, so that by the time he recites the Amida, he is on the highest level where he can speak directly to Hashem. Just as one cannot reach the third floor of a building without first reaching the second floor, likewise, one cannot reach the higher levels before passing through the lower levels, and so each stage of the prayer process is indispensable for the prayers to be effective. Indeed, in the work Maggid Mesharim (Parashat Beshalah), we read that the angel who taught Torah to Maran, author of the Shulhan Aruch, sternly admonished him to ensure to arrive on time in the synagogue so he can complete the entire prayer service. Skipping portions of the service, the angel warned, violates the "Heavenly protocol." Nevertheless, it occasionally happens that, for whatever reason, a person arrives late in the synagogue, and if he recites the entire service, he will be unable to pray the Amida together with the congregation. What should the individual do in this situation? Should he forego the recitation of the Korbanot for the sake of Tefila Be'sibur – praying the Amida together with the congregation – or must he follow the sequence of the prayer service even at the expense of Tefila Be'sibur? The Shulhan Aruch writes that if a person arrives late, then he should skip the introductory sections, and begin with Baruch She'amar so that he can catch up to the congregation and pray with them. If one has time for reciting some of the introductory portions of the prayer service, the Shulhan Aruch adds, then he should recite the morning blessings, as well as the paragraph of "Lefichach" through the verse of "Shema Yisrael" and "Baruch Shem." He should also recite the verses of the Tamid, and the section of the Ketoret, until but not including the paragraph that begins "Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel." Additionally, he should recite the Ana Be'cho'ah prayer. He should recite the first part of Hodu – until the words "U'bi'nvi'ai Al Tare'u" – and then skip until "Kel Nekamot Hashem," continuing through "Ya'anenu Be'yom Kor'enu." He should then skip until "Hashem Melech" and Baruch She'amar. If one does not have time to recite any part of the Korbanot section, then he should skip it entirely in order to pray the Amida with the congregation, as the value of Tefila Be'sibur – praying with the congregation – overrides the value of reciting the Korbanot. This is the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, based on the opinion of the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet, Spain, 1235-1310). Likewise, the Hacham Sevi (Rav Sevi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718), after noting the comments of the Zohar and the Arizal about the importance of reciting the entire prayer service, and of not skipping any portions of it, writes that Tefila Be'sibur is the highest priority, and thus one should skip the earlier sections of the service when necessary to pray the Amida with the congregation. This was the position taken also by the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806). By contrast, the Poskim who follow the teachings of the Kabbalah ruled that one may never skip any portion of the prayer service, even for the sake of Tefila Be'sibur. These include the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). This is the view accepted by Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998). He writes that notwithstanding the Shulhan Aruch's ruling, we cannot ignore the Kabbalists' teaching about the importance of the sequence of the prayer service. Furthermore, Hacham Bension adds, if we allow skipping the earlier sections of the prayer service, many people will do so habitually. It is preferable to forbid skipping, so people will see that by arriving late they forfeit the benefits of Tefila Be'sibur, and this will motivate them to make a greater effort to arrive on time. A mourner, Heaven forbid, should not skip the Korbanot section or any other portions of the daily prayer service. Although a mourner is not permitted to learn Torah, he may recite the passages from the Torah and other sources that have been incorporated into the prayer service.

After we recite in the morning the section of the Ketoret and the passage of "Abayeh Hava Mesader," we recite a very special prayer – Ana Be'cho'ah. This prayer was composed by one of the great Tanna'im – Rabbi Nehunya Ben Ha'kaneh, whom the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) describes as one of the earliest Kabbalists, preceding even Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai. The Ana Be'cho'ah prayer is so significant that the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and many others write that if a person arrives late to Shaharit, and needs to skip the introductory portions of the prayer service, he should not skip Ana Be'cho'ah. This prayer consists of seven lines, each of which with six letters, for a total of 42 letters, and these 42 letters spell the special 42-letter Name of Hashem. This Name is the "elevator," the Name associated with rising to the upper worlds. It is critically important to recite Ana Be'cho'ah as part of our introduction to Shaharit because it elevates us to the heavens so we can present our Tefilot to G-d. By the time we recite the Amida, we want to be standing before the Heavenly Throne, so we can speak directly to the Almighty. The recitation of Ana Be'cho'ah elevates us to the higher spheres so we can speak to Hashem while standing in front of His Throne. It is proper to recite this Tefila slowly and to take note of the first letters of the words. This Name is alluded to also in the first paragraph of Shema, which consists of 42 words (from "Ve'ahabta" through "U'bi'sh'arecha"), corresponding to the 42 letters of this Name. For this reason, some Siddurim feature the letters of this divine Name alongside the words of this paragraph of Shema. Another allusion to this Name is found in Kaddish – specifically, in the phrase "Ve'yishtabah Ve'yitpa'ar Ve'yitromam Ve'yitnaseh Ve'yit'hadar Ve'yit'aleh Ve'yit'halal," which consists of seven words that each contains six letters, for a total of 42. Some have the custom to recite Ana Be'cho'ah each night before going to sleep. The soul departs and rises to the heavens when one sleeps, and so it is appropriate to recite this prayer which, as mentioned, is associated with elevation and ascent. Likewise, it is customary to recite Ana Be'cho'ah at funerals, Heaven forbid, as the coffin is being taken for burial, and the soul is ready to rise to the heavens. In some communities, Ana Be'cho'ah is recited before Lecha Dodi on Friday night, as we elevate ourselves to the higher plane of Shabbat. Likewise, many recite this prayer after counting the Omer, as the Omer counting is intended to elevate us in preparation for Matan Torah on Shabuot. The custom to read Ana Be'cho'ah following the recitation of "Abayeh Hava Mesader" was taught by the Arizal, as brought in Sha'ar Ha'kavanot. This is cited by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). The Seder Ha'yom (Rav Moshe Ben Machir, Safed, 16 th century), by contrast, writes that it is better to recite Ana Be'cho'ah later, just before Baruch She'amar. He explains that the world was created with the power of this 42-letter Name, and so it is appropriate to allude to this Name just before reciting "Baruch She'amar Ve'haya Ha'olam," when we give praise to Hashem who created the world. However, we follow the Arizal's teaching, that Ana Be'cho'ah should be recited after the section of "Abayeh Hava Mesader." One possible explanation for the Arizal's custom is that the section of "Abayeh Hava Mesader," which lists the various Abodot (services) performed daily in the Bet Ha'mikdash, omits Birkat Kohaim (the priestly blessing), which was recited each day in the Bet Ha'mikdash. In the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Kohanim reciting Birkat Kohanim would use the Shem Ha'meforash – the divine Name that is normally forbidden to utter, and according to some, this was the 42-letter Name. Perhaps, then, we add Ana Be'cho'ah – which is associated with this Name – after the section of "Abayeh Hava Mesader" to allude to the daily recitation of Birkat Kohanim in the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Ana Be'cho'ah prayer concludes with the pronouncement of "Baruch Shem Kebod Malchuto Le'olam Va'ed," giving praise to the exalted Name of G-d, which this prayer expresses.

Cours Halakha Time du Dimanche 7 Juin 2026 (durée : 6 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

June 2 second from 2:36 There are many people – including yeshiva students and Talmideh Hachamim – who skip the section of Korbanot, which discusses the sacrifices offered in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and begin with Pesukeh De'zimra, from Hodu or from Baruch She'amar. The Hikreh Leb ( Rav Raphael Yosef Hazan, 1741–1820) considered the possibility that those who devote their days to Torah study are perhaps justified in omitting the Korbanot section. Since they spend their time immersed in Torah learning, they might be excused for saving time by skipping this part of the Shaharit prayer. However, the Hikreh Leb dismisses this possibility, writing that as this is part of the daily prayer schedule, there is no excuse for omitting it. We cannot emphasize enough the importance and value of reading the Korbanot section, whereby we access the atonement and blessings that the sacrifices in the Bet Ha'mikdash bring. This is true of all the Korbanot, but it is especially true of the Ketoret – the section dealing with the incense offering that was brought each day in the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Zohar (Midrash Ha'ne'elam, Parashat Vayera) relates that Eliyahu Ha'nabi once appeared to Rabbi Pinhas, and taught him that the public recitation of the section of the Ketoret has the power to protect against plagues. Rabbi Aha, the Zohar writes, once visited the town of Tarsha, and the residents informed him that a plague had been ravaging the town for seven days, and was increasing in severity. He instructed them to choose the forty most righteous men of the town, and divide them into four groups of ten. Each was to go to a different corner of the town and recite the section of the Ketoret. Afterward, Rabbi Aha urged them to visit those who were on the brink of death, and to read the verses that tell of Aharon ending a plague by offering incense (Bamidbar 17). Sure enough, these patients survived. Elsewhere (Parashat Vayakhel), the Zohar emphasizes the protective powers of the recitation of the Ketoret. It cites Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai's exclamation that if people recognized just how precious this text is, they would take each word and wear it as a crown on their heads. If one recites the Ketoret with proper concentration, Rabbi Shimon taught, he is spared from punishments both in this world and the next world. The Zohar further teaches that the Ketoret should be recited before the Amida prayer, because it helps clear the pathway to the heavens from the harmful spiritual forces that seek to sabotage one's prayers, ensuring that they reach the heavens. Some explain that the special offerings of the Nesi'im (tribal leaders) which they brought in honor of the consecration of the Mishkan were especially cherished by G-d because they included Ketoret. Moreover, Rabbenu Bahya (Spain, 1255-1340) writes that the moments after the offering of the Ketoret were the most auspicious time for blessings and prayers. This is why the Kohen Gadol would recite a special prayer for the people after offering the Ketoret on Yom Kippur, and why Moshe and Aharon blessed the nation on the day of the Mishkan's inauguration, following the offering of Ketoret. I witnessed the power of the Ketoret recitation firsthand. When my congregation's synagogue was being constructed, we encountered one problem after another. For reasons we do not know, Hashem decided to test us by making the process exceedingly difficult. Nothing was working. We consulted with the great Kabbalist Rav Mordechai Attieh, and he came with ten great scholars. They stood around the construction site and recited the Ketoret. Sure enough, after that point, we were able to move forward and complete the project. The power of the Korbanot section and the rewards offered by its recitation should incentivize all of us to do everything we can to ensure that we read this section each day.

Mezi modlitby, které se modlil Pán Ježíš, patřila v nějaké formě i modlitba osmnácti požehnání, tzv. Amida. O ní je šestý díl série "Ježíšovy modlitby. Aneb, jak se modlil židovský rabín." v Modlitbách podle Bible. Tato modlitba zahrnuje prosby společné i osobní, za mír i zdraví, i poděkování za Boží věrnost v předchozích generacích. Tento podcast můžete podpořit na https://radio7.cz

Is it permissible to recite the Korbanot section – which discusses the various sacrifices – very early in the morning, before sunrise? On Shabuot morning, for example, when it is customary to pray early such that the Amida is recited right at sunrise, the Korbanot section is recited earlier, before sunrise. And sometimes, especially in the winter, it happens that a person needs to leave before sunrise for a meeting, or to catch a flight. May the Korbanot be recited before sunrise, when it is still dark? One potential issue is the Kabbalistic practice to refrain from reading or studying Tanach at night. According to the teachings of Kabbalah, verses from the Tanach should not be read at night, and the night is the time for the study only of Torah She'be'al Peh (the oral tradition), such as Gemara, Halacha, and so on. Secondly, since we read the section of Korbanot in lieu of the offering of these sacrifices in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and sacrifices could be offered only during the daytime hours, perhaps one must wait until sunrise before reciting the Tamid. The Halacha is that one must recite the Korbanot no earlier than Alot Ha'shahar – daybreak, the moment when the sun's rays first appear on the eastern sky – which occurs 72 Halachic minutes before sunrise (the moment when the sun itself appears on the eastern sky). Since it was after Alot Ha'shahar that the service began in the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Korbanot may be recited at this time – even before sunrise – but no earlier. This is the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, and in Bet Yosef, he brings as the source of this Halacha a comment by the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) that the section of the Tamid should be recited no earlier than Alot Ha'shahar. The Bet Yosef deduced that all the Korbanot, too, must be recited only after Alot Ha'shahar, as the sacrifices could not be offered any earlier than that point. However, the Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1792) writes that if one is unable to recite the Korbanot section after Alot Ha'shahar, he may do so even earlier. This is based on a ruling of the Tebuot Shor (Rav Alexander Sender Shor, Poland, 1673-1737), who added that in such a case, the person should not recite the customary prayer asking G-d to consider the recitation as the actual offering of the sacrifice. Since sacrifices may not be brought during the night, one cannot ask that his recitation be deemed the equivalent of the actual offering of the Korbanot when he recites this section at night. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that although it is preferable to recite the Korbanot section after daybreak, it is acceptable when necessary to recite them earlier, even though the Korbanot cannot be brought during the night. He notes that we are credited with having offered the sacrifices by reciting and studying these portions of the Torah even though we are not in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and it is obviously forbidden to bring sacrifices anywhere besides the Bet Ha'mikdash. By the same token, it is acceptable to recite these sections even at times when sacrifices cannot be brought. The Leb Haim (Rav Haim Palachi, Turkey, 1788-1868) writes that one who cannot recite the Korbanot after Alot Ha'shahar may do earlier, but this would be considered simply as reading from the Torah, and not as the actual offering of the sacrifices. By contrast, the Mishna Berura rules that the Korbanot section may not be recited before Alot Ha'shahar. Those who cannot recite the Korbanot at the proper time may rely on the opinion that Alot Ha'shahar occurs 90 minutes before sunrise, rather than 72 minutes, giving them an additional 18 minutes. Summary: The Korbanot section of the morning prayer service must be recited no earlier than Alot Ha'shahar (daybreak), which occurs 72 Halachic minutes before sunrise. When necessary, one may follow the position that Alot Ha'shahar occurs 90 minutes before sunrise, and recite Korbanot at that time. If one cannot recite Korbanot even at that point, then according to some Poskim, he may recite it earlier.

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 1:5) writes that it is commendable to recite each morning the sections in the Torah – in the beginning of Sefer Vayikra – that speak of each of the Korbanot. People who follow this custom recite the sections discussing the Ola, the Minha, the Shelamim, the Hatat and the Asham. This custom is based on the notion developed by the Midrash that by reciting the verses that speak of a certain Korban, we are considered as having offered that Korban, and this is how we can attain atonement even without a Bet Ha'mikdash. Nevertheless, our custom is not to recite these sections in the Torah. It has been explained that we do not follow this practice because we instead recite the Mishnayot of Ezehu Mekoman – the fifth chapter of Masechet Zevahim – which briefly goes through the procedure for each kind of sacrifice. As discussed in previous installments, we do recite the section in the Torah discussing the Tamid – the daily sacrifice which was offered each morning and afternoon in the Bet Ha'mikdash. We do not, however, recite the sections in the Torah dealing with the other sacrifices. The Shulhan Aruch writes that after reciting the section from Torah of each of the sacrifices, one should recite a prayer asking G-d to regard his recitation as the actual offering of that sacrifice. Those who recite these sections add the prayer after the voluntary sacrifices – the Ola, Minha and Shelamim – but not after the Hatat (sin-offering), which cannot be brought voluntarily. The Hatat is offered only in very specific circumstances where atonement through the offering of this sacrifice is required, and it cannot be offered voluntarily. The Shulhan Aruch explains that those who follow this custom read the section of Hatat in case they have committed an act requiring this sacrifice, but they should not add the prayer asking that it be considered as the actual offering of the sacrifice, since they do not know for certain that they are required to bring this sacrifice. As for the Asham (guilt-offering), the Shulhan Aruch brings two opinions. Some maintain that since the Asham – like the Hatat – is brought only in very specific circumstances, the prayer should be omitted, except after the recitation of the Asham Talui – the Asham brought in situations where one is unsure whether he committed an offense requiring a Hatat. This sacrifice may be brought even if there is a remote possibility that it is required, and so it is valid to ask Hashem to accept the recitation of this section as though the sacrifice was actually offered. Others maintain that this prayer may be recited even after the section discussing other Asham sacrifices. The Shulhan Aruch writes that the first opinion seems more correct. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that if one wishes to observe this practice, he should recite these sections of the Torah after the Amida prayer. He explains that the recitation of the Amida functions as the offering of the daily Tamid sacrifice, and no sacrifice may be offered before the offering of the morning Tamid. Therefore, one must not recite these sections – which are recited in lieu of the offering of the sacrifices – before he recites the Amida. This opinion appears to contradict the justification mentioned above for our custom to not recite the sections in the Torah – that we instead recite the Mishnayot of Ezehu Mekoman. According to the Hida, it would seem, we are not permitted to recite Ezehu Mekoman before the Amida as a substitute for the actual offering of the sacrifices. It stands to reason that since, as mentioned, we recite the section of the Tamid before Ezehu Mekoman, the reading of the Tamid is considered as our offering of the Tamid sacrifice, well before the recitation of the Amida. We are thus justified in then reciting Ezehu Mekoman, which counts as the offering of the other sacrifices. Although we do not follow this custom brought by the Shulhan Aruch, nevertheless, this discussion is important as it underscores for us the significance of the Korbanot section. As we have seen, the Poskim took this recitation very seriously, viewing it as being actually considered as though the sacrifices have been offered. By reciting the Korbanot each morning, we truly have the opportunity to access the power of the sacrifices even though we do not yet have the Bet Ha'mikdash.

It is reported that the Arizal made a point of reciting all the prayers quietly, without raising his voice – even the chapters of Tehillim recited in the Pesukeh De'zimra section. He felt that praying in a low, subdued voice reflected awe, fear and humility, which is the appropriate manner in which to stand in prayer before the Almighty. On Shabbat, he raised his voice somewhat during the prayers as an expression of honor for the special sanctity of Shabbat. Nevertheless, there are those who recite the prayers (besides the Amida, which must be recited quietly) out loud and with great emotion and enthusiasm. Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that this is allowed if this helps a person pray with greater Kavana (concentration). Ultimately, he says, a person should pray in a manner that helps him serve G-d to the best of his ability. However, those who pray out loud to enhance their Kavana must ensure that their prayers do not disturb the people around them, for if they do, then the benefits of their Kavana are offset by the harm caused to other people's prayers.

Cours Halakha Time du Vendredi 8 Mai 2026 (durée : 6 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

Cours Halakha Time du Jeudi 7 Mai 2026 (durée : 5 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

​1)      Vort from the Rebbe on the Hagodo:[1]2)     When the Gabbai gives an Aliya to the Baal Korei, is Yaamod appropriate?[2]3)      May I keep sold Chometz wrapped in a sealed bag in a corner of the fridge or freezer?[3]4)      May a Kohen be Chazan for Musaf on Yomtov – requiring him to move from his place during the Amida - even when there are ample others to do so?[4]5)      Is it better to replace an old Tallis for a new one, or is there merit in maximising the amount of times you can use the same Tallis?[5]6)      On Shabbos may one filter water for drinking (especially over Pesach)?[6]7)      May one use scented candles for Neiros Shabbos? [7]8)      Does a Ger who is a firstborn need to fast (or join a Siyum)for Taanis Bechoros?[8]9)      My local Shul doesn't have a weekday minyan. I can bike 12-18 minutes to a steady minyan. Am I obliged to do so?[9]10)  Why do we raise the cup of wine when והיא שעמדה is said?[10]11)  When the Tzemach Tzedek did a שאלת חלום: [11]12)  Pouring for the ‘Ten Plagues' – with the finger or from the cup? [12]To sponsor a Shiur – to honour a special occasion -contact: dayan@lubavitchuk.com[1] תורת מנחם חל"ט ע'283.[2] בדרכי משה ר"ס קלטכ' שהסגן אומר לש"ץ "לעלות" – אע"פ שהוא כבר עומד שם.[3] דין מחיצה י' טפחים –בחמץ שהשאיר הגוי ברשות ישראל (שוע"ר סי' תמ ס"ה). בפסקי תשובות שם משמעדהוא הדין לגבי חמץ הנמכר. והכי פשיטא לי' בנטעי גבריאל – פסח רפמ"ז. אכןבהליכות שלמה (פסח, פ"ו, דבר הלכה יב) מקיל במונח בארון, אע"פ שאין דלתוגבוה י' טפחים, כי החמץ מופרד ממנו.[4] ראה שוע"ר סי' קכחסל"ג.[5] ראה פסקי תשובות סי' כדאות ה, ובהערה שם מביא מנהג הט"ז – לחבב טליתו הישנה. ומציין לפלא יועץ ע'ציצית בגנאי הלובש בגדים נאים וטלית קרוע ובלוי.[6] בס' שמירת שבת כהלכתה מהדו"ג פ"גסנ"ג הורה להקל. ומש"ש להתיר סינון מי-פירות, ציין שם שזה בסתירה לדבריובמהדו"ב. [7] ראה שוע"ר סי' רסד ס"ו.[8] בפסקי תשובות סי' תע אות ב הביא משו"ת שבטהלוי ח"ח סי' קיז שנסתפק בזה. [9] מבואר בשוע"ר סי' צסי"ז במוסגר.[10]סדור האריז"ל בשם הרוקח.[11]ספר השיחות תרצ"ט ע' 321 [364].[12]פסקים ותשובות יו"ד סי' קכ אותכ.​

Toward the end of the Maggid section, we read the famous teaching of Rabban Gamliel: "Whoever did not say the following three things on Pesach has not fulfilled his obligation: Pesach, Masa, and Marror." Rabban Gamliel then proceeds to explain the meaning and significance of these three Misvot. The Pesach sacrifice was offered in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash to commemorate the miracle of the plague of the firstborn, when Hashem "skipped" ("Pasach") over Beneh Yisrael's homes on the night of the Exodus, protecting them from the plague. The Masa commemorates the fact that Beneh Yisrael left Egypt hastily, without having had time to prepare and to allow their dough to rise. And the Marror symbolizes the "bitterness" of slavery from which our ancestors were saved. At the Seder, we are obligated to discuss the meaning of these three Misvot. Many commentators noted that this passage is stated out of chronological sequence. The "bitterness" of slavery, quite obviously, preceded the plague of the firstborn and Beneh Yisrael's frantic departure from Egypt. Yet, surprisingly, Rabban Gamliel first discusses the Pesach sacrifice and Masa – which commemorate the events of the Exodus – and only then mentions the Marror, which represents the slavery that our ancestors endured prior to their redemption. Why is the Marror mentioned last? Numerous answers have been given to this question, one of which emerges from a deeper understanding of Rabban Gamliel's teaching. Many years ago, as a young Rabbi, I was approached by a group of young men in the community who asked me to deliver a weekly class, which they would host on a rotational basis. These fellows were not particularly observant, and I was very pleased that they expressed interest in a weekly Shiur (Torah class). But when I showed up for the first class, I was aghast. The table was set up for a card game, with chips, cigarettes and beer bottles. I felt very uncomfortable, and I asked the host what this was all about. He explained that this group meets every week for a card game, so they figured they would begin the evening with a Torah class. After that first class, I consulted with a certain great Rabbi to receive guidance. I did not think it was appropriate for me to give a Shiur to these people under these conditions. I'll never forget what the Rabbi told me. "What they do after the Shiur is none of your business," he said. "Your job is to teach them Torah. And the light of Torah will change them." I accepted the advice, and he proved correct. Gradually, all these young men discontinued their improper behavior. It did not happen immediately, but it happened. On another occasion, I was asked to deliver a weekly Torah class to a group of men on Shabbat. Every week, the man who hosted the Shiur in his home would get up and leave in the middle. I later found out that he left for work. Once again, I consulted with a great Rabbi in the community, asking if it was appropriate for me to continue teaching a Torah class in the home of a Shabbat desecrator who gets up to leave in the middle to go to work. "Are you going to wait for him to stop working on Shabbat before teaching him Torah?" the Rabbi told me. Now this man is fully observant, learns Torah for two hours every day, and gives large amounts of money to Sedaka. Three times every weekday, in the Amida prayer, we ask Hashem to help us repent. We ask, "Hashibenu Abinu Le'Toratecha Ve'korbenu Malkenu La'abodatecha" – "Bring us back, our Father, to Your Torah, and draw us close, our King, to Your service." We ask that we be returned to Torah even before our service is complete. We do not wait until our behavior is perfect, until we have fully performed Teshuba, before learning Torah and trying to draw close to Hashem. To the contrary – we are to take the first steps even in our state of imperfection, as these steps will help us improve. This might be the deeper meaning of Rabban Gamliel's teaching about "Pesach, Masa, U'marror." The word "Pesach" means to skip. Rabban Gamliel is teaching us to "skip" right to the "Masa." In a different context, the Sages commented that the word "Masa" is associated with the word "Misva," for we must observe Misvot with zeal and alacrity just as the dough must be handled quickly and rigorously to avoid becoming Hametz. We are to skip to the stage of "Masa," of Misva observance, even before addressing the "Marror" – the "bitterness" of sin and religious failings. Theoretically, we should first cleanse ourselves of wrongdoing before coming to serve G-d. In practice, however, this does not work. If we refrain from Misvot until we fully repent from our misdeeds, we will likely never feel ready to begin our service of Hashem. Rabban Gamliel therefore urges us to skip the stage of "Marror," to begin performing Misvot even if our behavior is far from perfect – as the light of Misvot will help us improve. We begin the Seder with the words "Kadesh U'rhatz" – referring to Kiddush and hand-washing. The message here is that we should strive for "Kadesh" – for holiness, even before we have "washed" ourselves, before we are fully "cleansed" of wrongdoing. Hashem wants us to begin learning Torah and performing Misvot even if we are currently far from perfect, and to trust that the good habits we develop, and the spiritual power of Torah and Misva observance, will impact our souls and our behavior, and lead us to greater purity.

Tanya 9 Nissan Cap 39 Parte 3 -Quem tem acesso a elevação espiritual do atzilut.anulação na amida

The Kaddish text (specifically, "Kaddish Titkabal" and "Kaddish Yeheh Shelama") concludes with the famous prayer for peace: "Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Alenu Ve'al Kol Yisrael, Ve'imru Amen" – "He who makes peace in His high places shall bestow peace upon us and upon all Israel, and say: Amen." This prayer, as we know, also concludes the silent Amida and Birkat Ha'mazon, and for good reason – because the most important thing we can pray for is peace. The previous line in Kaddish also prays for peace ("Yeheh Shelama Rabba" – "May there be an abundance of peace…"), but the prayer of "Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav" adds a particular element of our wishes for peace. We speak of Hashem bringing peace in the upper worlds ("Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav"), a reference to the peace and harmony that exists among the angels in heavens. These include an angel of water and angel of fire, which should, at first glance, be archrivals, and should be in a constant state of competition and tension. In truth, however, Hashem maintains the peace in the heavens – even among diametrically opposite forces. We thus pray that here on earth, too, we should have peace among different people, and among those with different opinions. Hashem specifically created the world such that no two people are the same. No two people think exactly alike, view things exactly alike, or have the exact same preferences, likes and dislikes. In the prayer of "Oseh Shalom," we ask Hashem to maintain the peace among people despite their differences, to help all of us live harmoniously with those who are unlike us. The Torah allows room – within certain limits, of course – for a wide range of different opinions and ideas, and we are encouraged to form opinions, but to show respect toward those who think differently than we do. It is no coincidence that just before we leave the synagogue, at the end of the final Kaddish, we recite the prayer of "Oseh Shalom," as we beseech G-d to help us as we go out and interact with many different kinds of people, to ensure that we can engage them peacefully and respectfully. It is customary during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba (the ten-day period from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur) to slightly emend the text at the end of "Kaddish Titkabal," by reciting "Oseh Ha'shalom" instead of "Oseh Shalom." Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that this change is made only in "Kaddish Titkabal" recited by the Hazzan after repeating the Amida – meaning, at Shaharit, Musaf and Minha, but not at Arbit. The reason for this change is that the Gematria of the word "Ha'shalom" is 381, and thus alludes to the angel "Safri-el" whose name equals this same number, and who is assigned the task of counting our merits during the High Holidays so we receive a favorable judgment. The Hazzan should try to have this in mind when reciting "Oseh Ha'shalom" at the end of Kaddish. However, although this is a proper practice, the Hazzan does not need to repeat this line if he mistakenly recited the usual text. (In fact, the word "Oseh" also equals 381, so this allusion is made even if the Hazzan forgets to recite "Ha'shalom.") Before reciting "Oseh Shalom," one should take three steps back, by first moving the left foot back such that the toes are aligned with the heel of the right foot, then moving the right foot such that the toes are aligned with the heel of the left foot, and finally moving the left back next to the right foot. One should then bow to the left and recite "Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav," bow to the right and recite "Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Alenu," and then bow to the center and recite "Ve'al Kol Yisrael." He should then rise and say, "Ve'imru Amen." Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) asserted that the correct way to divide this sentence is to pause after the word "Shalom," and then recite "Alenu Ve'al Kol Yisrael." This is in contrast to the common practice to recite "Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Alenu," and then "Ve'al Kol Yisrael." And the way we bow – bowing to the right for "Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Alenu," and then bowing to the center for "Ve'al Kol Yisrael," as explained – seems more consistent with the conventional practice of pausing between "Alenu" and "Ve'al Kol." It seems that according to Rav Haim Palachi, when bowing to the center, one must pause after the word "Shalom," before saying "Alenu." Summary: Before reciting "Oseh Shalom," one should take three steps back, bow to the left and recite "Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav," bow to the right and recite "Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Alenu," and then bow to the center and recite "Ve'al Kol Yisrael." He should then rise and say, "Ve'imru Amen." During the period from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur, the word "Shalom" in "Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav" at the end of Kaddish is changed to "Ha'shalom." This change is made only by the Hazzan when he recites "Kaddish Titkabal" at Shaharit, Musaf and Minha.

Whereas some Kaddishim end with "Da'amiran Be'alma Ve'imru Amen," others consist of additional prayers and conclude with "Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav…" Is the one reciting Kaddish required to take three steps back for "Oseh Shalom" at the end of Kaddish, as we do for "Oseh Shalom" at the end of the Amida? The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his Od Yosef Hai, distinguished in this regard between the "Kaddish Titkabal" that the Hazzan recites following the repetition of the Amida, and other Kaddishim. For the Hazzan reciting "Kaddish Titkabal," the Ben Ish Hai writes, taking three steps back is required, because he needs to step back after repeating the Amida. When reciting the other Kaddishim, however, this is not necessary. The Ben Ish Hai cites this ruling in the name of earlier Poskim (Shalmeh Sibur, Mateh Yehuda). This is the view also of the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), who observed that this was the common practice, adding that this is consistent with the teachings of Kabbalah. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed, and ruled that it is proper to step back for "Oseh Shalom" at the end of every Kaddish. He refuted the Kaf Ha'haim's claim that Kabbalistic teaching does not require stepping back, noting that Rav Eliyahu Hamwe of Aleppo (1839-1915), a great Kabbalist, writes in his Peh Eliyahu that one must step back at the end of every Kaddish. Moreover, the Radbaz (Rav David Ben Zimra, Egypt, 1479-1573) maintained that one should take three steps back at the end of every Kaddish, and this is also the position of Maran, in Bet Yosef and Shulhan Aruch. Therefore, whenever one recites a Kaddish that ends with "Oseh Shalom," he should take three steps back. The proper procedure is to move the left foot back, then move the right foot behind the left foot, and then move the left foot next to the right foot. One then recites the words "Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav" while bowing to the left, "Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Alenu" while bowing to the right, and "Ve'al Kol Yisrael" while bowing frontward. He then stands upright for "Ve'imru Amen."

Cours Halakha Time du Jeudi 19 Mars 2026 (durée : 5 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

Our community's practice is to recite in Kaddish Titkabal the phrase "Kodam Abuna De'bi'shmaya Ve'ar'a" – asking that our prayers be accepted "before our Father who is in the heavens and the earth." Hacham Ovadia Yosef was of the opinion that this text is incorrect, as the word "Ve'ar'a" ("and the earth") does not belong. Several Rishonim omit this word from their text of the Kaddish, and, moreover, we cannot speak of G-d as our "Father on earth," as every person already has a father here on earth. Hashem is our Father in the heavens, in addition to our father here on earth. All Siddurim that bear a Haskama (letter of approval) by Hacham Ovadia omit the word "Ve'ar'a." Nevertheless, the custom among the communities in Aleppo, Syria was always to include the word "Ve'ar'a," and the work Yosef Haim justified the legitimacy of this text. Therefore, it is proper for Syrian Jews who follow the customs of Aleppo to add the word "Ve'ar'a." I am reminded of the time when, as a youngster, I became aware of Hacham Ovadia Yosef's ruling that the Beracha of "La'minim" in the Amida prayer should conclude with the words "U'machni'a Zedim," as opposed to the text which is customarily used in our community – "U'machni'a Minim." Hacham Ovadia advanced several compelling proofs to his ruling, and so I figured that this is the correct text. When I served as Hazzan in the synagogue, I recited "Zedim" in accordance with Hacham Ovadia's ruling. Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim approached me afterward and asked why I had changed the word from "Minim" to "Zedim," and I explained to him that I thought I should follow Hacham Ovadia's view. The Hacham reprimanded me, noting that notwithstanding Hacham Ovadia's ruling, it is improper to change the text that has been used in our community for generations. With regard to "Ve'ar'a," too, given the longstanding tradition among Syrian Jews to include this word in Kaddish, this is the custom that our community should follow. Summary: The custom in our community is to recite in Kaddish Titkabal the phrase "Kodam Abuna De'bi'shmaya Ve'ar'a," including the word "Ve'ar'a."

The Hazzan recites a special Kaddish after the Amida (or the repetition of the Amida) known as Kaddish Titkabal. Following the basic Kaddish text (which ends with "Da'amiran Be'alma"), the Hazzan adds a request that the congregation's prayers should be accepted along with those of the entire Jewish Nation: "Titkabal Selotana U'ba'utana Im Selot'hon U'ba'ut'hon De'chol Bet Yisrael…" The Hazzan mentions the prayers of the entire nation in fulfillment of the Gemara's teaching in Masechet Berachot (30a) that when a person prays, he should pray not as a lone individual, but rather as part of the entire nation. A person himself may not be worthy of having his prayers accepted, but when he joins with all Am Yisrael, he accesses the collective merit of the nation, including the merits of the great Sadikim, and this helps ensure the acceptance of his prayers. We therefore ask not only that G-d accept our prayers, but also that He accept the prayers of the entire Jewish Nation. We can perhaps gain further insight into the expression "Selotana U'ba'utana" – literally, "our prayers and our requests" – from the Targum Onkelos translation to a verse in Parashat Vayehi (Bereshit 48:22). Yaakob Abinu recalls how he seized the city of Shechem from his enemies "Be'harbi U'b'kashti" – "with my sword and with my bow." Targum Onkelos, interestingly enough, translates these words as "Bi'sloti U'b'ba'uti" – "with my prayer and with my request." It was clear to Yaakob that although he waged war, his success in vanquishing the enemy resulted not from his weapons, but rather from his prayers to G-d. It is also significant that Yaakob viewed Tefila as his "ammunition," as the weapons with which he defeated those who threatened him. Exploring Oneklos' translation more closely, the "sword" and the "bow" are used here as metaphors for two kinds of prayer – "Seloti" and "Ba'uti." The commentators explain that whereas a sword is used in close combat, when the enemy is right in front of the soldier, the bow is used to target enemies stationed at a distance. Correspondingly, then, "Selotana" and "Ba'utana refer to two different kinds of Tefila. Sometimes we pray like a sword – to address an immediate need, such in the case of an illness. Other times, however, we pray in the form of a bow – beseeching G-d to protect us from distant threat, from future dangers. When the Hazzan recites, "Titkabal Selotana U'ba'utana," he asks that all our prayers should be mercifully accepted – our prayers for our immediate needs, as well as our prayers for the future.

Based in Washington, DC, Born I creates at the intersection of hip-hop and mindfulness, blending lyricism, spirituality, and cultural storytelling into a body of work that's both innovative and deeply human. His influences span Wu-Tang Clan, Ka, André 3000, Alice Coltrane, and Buddhist teachers like Thích Nhất Hạnh, and his music has garnered over 20 million streams worldwide. Born I's most recent album, Komorebi (2025), has been hailed by listeners as “a missing piece in hip-hop,” praised for its meditative flow and spiritual depth. The companion book, Lyrical Dharma: Hip-Hop as Mindfulness (Parallax Press), arrives with a foreword by Pulitzer Prize winner Alice Walker, further cementing Born I as a unique voice at the intersection of art and contemplative practice. A certified meditation teacher, Born I is also the male voice on the Balance app, where his teachings reach millions of listeners daily. He regularly leads retreats, concerts, and hybrid events that weave live hip-hop with meditation and sound baths – including performances at the Kennedy Center, Buddhist Arts & Film Festival, and alongside the monks of Plum Village Monastery. Through his label YAE (You Are Enough), Born I has released a wide range of projects, from the autobiographical hip-hop album In This Moment (2021), to the spiritual lo-fi project AMIDA (2023), to his latest genre-defying live shows and immersive short films. His children's books, You Are Enough and Love Your Amazing Self, encourage young people to practice self-compassion and have been featured at the Grammy Museum in Los Angeles. Whether performing for a packed festival crowd or guiding intimate circles in meditation, Born I carries one message across every medium: You are enough. Right now, exactly as you are. https://bornimusic.com/ Natalie Brown, host of Sounds Heal Podcast: http://www.soundshealstudio.com http://www.facebook.com/soundshealstudio http://www.instagram.com/nataliebrownsoundsheal http://www.youtube.com/soundshealstudio Music by Natalie Brown, Hope & Heart http://www.youtu.be/hZPx6zJX6yA Email: soundshealstudio@gmail.com

Cours Halakha Time du Dimanche 8 Mars 2026 (durée : 5 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that when one recites Kaddish, it is proper for him to keep his feet together, just as we do when reciting the Amida and Nakdishach. The reason for this practice is to resemble the angels, who have but one leg. Certainly, one should not be walking about while reciting Kaddish. The Kav Ha'yashar (Rav Tzvi Hersh Kaidanover, Germany, d. 1712) writes that even those who are listening to Kaddish should keep their feet together in their seats. However, this was said only as a measure of extra piety, and not as an actual requirement. It is customary when reciting Kaddish to face toward Jerusalem, just as when reciting the Amida. Strictly speaking, however, this is not necessary. Therefore, when Kaddish is recited in a cemetery, and it is difficult to determine the direction of Jerusalem, one may face whichever direction he wishes.

It is well-known that one may not walk in front of somebody while he recites the Amida. Is it similarly forbidden to walk in front of somebody while he recites Kaddish? The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his Birkeh Yosef, references a manuscript written by Rav Yaakob Molcho (Jerusalem, 17 th century) stating that it is forbidden to walk in front of somebody reciting Kaddish. This ruling is cited later approvingly by both the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer (Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). The reason is that passing in front of the person can easily cause him to be distracted and lose concentration. Hacham Ovadia Yosef clarified that this applies only through the recitation of "Da'amiran Be'alma Ve'imru Amen." The rest of Kaddish was added later, and is thus treated more leniently. Hence, it is permissible to walk in front of somebody while he recites these additions. Unlike in the case of somebody reciting the Amida, it is permissible to sit within four Amot of somebody reciting Kaddish. The reason, as explained by Hacham Ovadia Yosef, is that one does not disrespect the recitation of Kaddish by sitting next to the person, since he responds to the Kaddish recitation. Halacha forbids sitting near a person reciting the Amida because this disrespects the recitation; in the case of Kaddish, however, one is actively participating by responding to the Kaddish, such that there is no display of disrespect, and so this is allowed. Summary: It is forbidden to walk in front of somebody while he recites the main body of Kaddish – from the beginning until "Da'amiran Be'alma Ve'imru Amen." One is allowed to sit near somebody who is reciting Kaddish.

Our practice follows the custom of the Arizal to remain sitting during Kaddish. Although Ashkenazim make a point of standing for Kaddish, Sephardic practice is to remain seated. The exception to this rule is the Kaddish recited before Barechu at the beginning of Arbit on Friday night, when many have the custom to stand. The Arizal taught that one should stand during this recitation of Barechu, as part of the extra Shabbat soul descends upon a person at this point. Therefore, since in any event one stands for Barechu, many have the custom to stand already during the Kaddish that precedes Barechu. As a general rule, however, Sephardic custom allows one to remain sitting for Kaddish. This applies only if a person was sitting before Kaddish began. If one was already standing when Kaddish starts, then he must remain standing. This was the practice of the Arizal. According to some Poskim, if one was standing when Kaddish began, then he must remain standing throughout the entire recitation of Kaddish. Others maintain that one must remain standing only until the Hazzan reaches "Da'amiran Be'alma Ve'imru Amen." Our custom follows a third opinion, that of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) – that one may sit after he completes his "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response, which, according to our community's practice, ends with the words "Da'amiran Be'alma." Once a person completes his response, he may sit, even though the Hazzan has not yet reached "Da'amiran Be'alma." Some have the misconception that it is improper to sit before the Hazzan reaches "Da'amiran Be'alma," but in truth, one may sit once he reaches that point. On Friday night, the congregation stands during the recitation of Vayechulu and the Hazzan's recitation of "Me'en Sheba," which is then followed by Kaddish. In some synagogues, people rush to sit down after the Hazzan concludes "Me'en Sheba" (with the recitation of "Baruch Ata Hashem Mekadesh Ha'Shabbat"), before he begins Kaddish, so they would not have to remain standing during Kaddish. Some Hazzanim even pause before Kaddish to give the congregants the opportunity to sit before Kaddish. Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that this is improper, as specifically rushing to sit down before Kaddish begins shows disrespect to Kaddish. He brings as an example a ruling of the Ma'amar Mordechai (Rav Mordechai Karmi, 1749-1825) regarding the situation of somebody standing next to a person who is about to begin the Amida. Halacha requires one to stand if the individual next to him is reciting the Amida, unless he was sitting before his neighbor began the Amida, in which case he may remain seated. The Ma'amar Mordechai writes that one who is standing and sees that the person next to him will soon begin the Amida should not rush to sit down so he would not need to remain standing. By the same token, Hacham Ovadia writes, it is inappropriate to specifically rush to sit down before Kaddish in order to avoid having to stand during Kaddish. During Arbit, one may remain seated during the recitation of the Kaddish that precedes the Amida. Since one is already seated during Hashkibenu, he may remain seated for Kaddish, and then stand for the Amida prayer. On days when Tahanunim are not recited after the Hazzan's repetition of the Amida, and only the brief "Yehi Shem" recitation precedes Kaddish, it is proper to remain standing for Kaddish. Some people mistakenly think that they may sit down for Kaddish – even though they had been standing before Kaddish began – if the Hazzan sings the Kaddish and thus prolongs its recitation. This is incorrect; one must remain standing even if the Hazzan sings the Kaddish. However, the Poskim write that if the Hazzan knows that people are standing, he should ensure not to prolong the recitation of Kaddish, in order not to overburden the congregation by making them remain standing for several minutes. This Halacha alerts us to the care that must be taken to avoid "Tirha De'sibura" – causing the congregation even minor inconvenience. If Hazzanim are discouraged from prolonging the Kaddish recitation by several minutes when people are standing, then this shows us the sensitivity that Halacha requires toward the congregation. In fact, a well-known Hazzan told me that when he led the service on the High Holidays in Hacham Ovadia Yosef's synagogue, and he wanted to sing a special melody for Birkat Kohanim that was traditionally sung in Jerusalem communities, Hacham Ovadia instructed him not to. He explained that it would be inconsiderate to overburden the congregation who are standing during Birkat Kohanim – especially on Yom Kippur, when the people are fasting – by prolonging this part of the service. Unfortunately, it has become common to sing a great deal at Huppa ceremonies, which causes a great deal of inconvenience to the guests, and this practice should be discouraged. Summary: Sephardic custom is to remain seated during Kaddish. If one was standing before Kaddish began, then he must remain standing until he completes his "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response, through "Da'amiran Be'alma," at which point he may sit, even if the Hazzan has not yet reached "Da'amiran Be'alma." A Hazzan who knows that people are standing for Kaddish should not prolong the Kaddish recitation. It is improper to rush to sit down before Kaddish to avoid having to remain standing.

When a person recites Kaddish, he says at several points, "Ve'imru Amen" ("And say: Amen"), urging the congregation to respond "Amen" to what he has recited. The question thus arises as to what to do when all the men in the Minyan need to recite Kaddish. If they all recite Kaddish, then, seemingly, they cannot say, "Ve'imru Amen," because there is nobody present whom they can invite to respond "Amen." Some Poskim rule that in this situation, one or two men should volunteer not to say Kaddish, so there will be people responding to Kaddish. Others, however, contend that the men may all recite Kaddish without concern. These Poskim point to the fact that we end the silent Amida prayer with "Oseh Shalom Bi'mromav… Ve'imru Amen" – saying, "Ve'imru Amen" even though there is nobody listening. According to the Kabbalists, when we say, "Ve'imru Amen" at the end of the silent Amida, we are speaking to the angels. This can be applied also to Kaddish. Therefore, even if there is nobody responding, it is still acceptable to recite, "Ve'imru Amen." This is the position of Rav Eliyahu Mani (Hebron, 1818-1899), cited by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his work Rav Pe'alim. However, in Ben Ish Hai (Parashat Vayehi), after mentioning this position of Rav Eliyahu Mani, the Ben Ish Hai writes that it is preferable to have at least one person refrain from reciting Kaddish so he can respond. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) added that it is best to have two people refrain, as the phrase "Ve'imru Amen" is formulated in the plural form, inviting more than one person to respond. This is, indeed, the final Halacha – that although it is acceptable for everyone in the Minyan to recite Kaddish, it is preferred that at least two people refrain from reciting Kaddish so they can respond to the others.

When a person answers "Amen Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" to Kaddish, he is expressing his agreement to the prayer recited by the Hazzan, that G-d's Name should be glorified throughout the world. The question thus arises as to whether a person can respond "Amen Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" if he entered the synagogue after the congregation began responding. Must he have heard the beginning of Kaddish from the Hazzan in order to respond, or does it suffice that the congregation is responding at that time for him to join? Hacham Ovadia Yosef, based on the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) in Parashat Vayehi, writes that the person in this case may, in fact, join the congregation. As long as the congregation is still in the middle of the "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response, the person may respond together with them. The Poskim debate the question of whether the person in this case should begin his response with "Amen," or if he should omit "Amen" and begin with "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." The Ben Ish Hai brings those who maintain that since the person did not hear the Hazzan's recitation of the beginning of Kaddish, he cannot answer "Amen," as this would constitute an "Amen Yetoma" (literally, "an orphan Amen") – an "Amen" that does not respond to anything, which is improper. Hacham Ovadia Yosef cited opinions that permit the person to begin with "Amen" if he can quickly think of the words of Kaddish to which he will be responding. However, Hacham Ovadia then brought the ruling of the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) that if a person hears others answering "Amen" to a Beracha which he did not hear, he may not answer "Amen" with them even if he knows precisely which Beracha they are responding to. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, 1870-1939) agreed with this ruling. According to this opinion, one should not answer "Amen" to Kaddish if he did not hear the Hazzan, even if he can quickly think of the Hazzan's words in his mind. Hacham Ovadia thus concluded that it is preferable not to begin with "Amen" in this case, though he added that one who wishes to begin with "Amen" has a basis on which to rely. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, noted that different views exist among the Poskim as to whether the rule of "Amen Yetoma" applies to one who responds to Kaddish. In light of this question, Hacham David ruled that one may, in fact, respond "Amen" to Kaddish even if he did not hear the Hazzan, as long as he can think the words in his mind. We generally follow the rulings of Hacham Ovadia, and so it is preferable in this case for the person to begin his response with "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," omitting "Amen." This entire discussion applies only if the Hazzan had not yet begun "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." If a person arrives after the Hazzan had begun "Yeheh Shemeh," then according to all opinions, he should not begin with "Amen." This situation is comparable to one who did not answer "Amen" to a blessing of the Amida during the Hazzan's repetition, until the Hazzan began the next Beracha. Once the Hazzan begins the next Beracha, one can no longer answer "Amen." By the same token, one cannot answer "Amen" to Kaddish once the Hazzan had proceeded with "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." The Poskim debate the question of whether one answers "Amen" if he arrived in the synagogue during Kaddish just as the Hazzan recited, "Ve'imru Amen" ("And say: 'Amen'"). The Ben Ish Hai implies that the person cannot answer "Amen," even though he heard the Hazzan announce "Ve'imru Amen," since he did not hear the words to which the congregation now responds. By contrast, both the Kaf Ha'haim and Hacham David Yosef maintain that the person can answer "Amen" in such a case. The Hazzan must ensure not to repeat the word "Amen" before he begins "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." After declaring, "Ve'imru Amen," and then pausing to allow the congregation to begin their response, he should proceed directly to "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," and must not make the mistake of repeating the word "Amen." Summary: If a person arrived in the synagogue as the congregation was responding "Amen Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" to Kaddish, he may join in their response, unless the Hazzan had begun reciting "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," in which case it is too late to respond. If the Hazzan had yet to begin "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," the person joins the congregation's response but should preferably omit "Amen" and begin from "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." If a person arrived just when the Hazzan recited "Ve'imru Amen," he may respond "Amen" with the congregation.

During Kaddish, the Hazzan must recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" along with the congregation. The Mishna Berura writes that the Hazzan recites "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" silently, and then raises his voice again when he reaches the word "Yitbarach." The work Az Nidberu (Rav Binyamin Zilber, 1916-2008) explains the Mishna Berura to mean that the Hazzan may recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" silently if he so wishes, but he must then raise his voice beginning with the word "Yitbarach." This ruling, the Az Nidberu explains, is based on the Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, 1530-1612), who writes that when the congregation responds to Barechu by declaring, "Baruch Hashem Ha'meborach Le'olam Va'ed," the Hazzan also makes this declaration, and may do so silently if he so wishes. By the same token, the Hazzan may recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" silently. It is unclear, however, why, according to this view, the Gemara's promise of reward for one who responds to "Yeheh Shemeh" with "all his strength" ("Be'chol Koho") does not apply to the Hazzan. We would assume that just as the members of the congregation are encouraged to respond "with all their strength," this should be true of the Hazzan, as well. The answer, as some have suggested, might be that the "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response is primarily for the congregation, and not for the Hazzan. The Hazzan joins only so that he does not exclude himself from the congregation. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to recite it loudly. However, there seems to be a different reason to require the Hazzan to recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" aloud. The Shulhan Aruch (104:7) writes that if somebody hears Nakdishach or Kaddish while he recites the Amida, he should pause and listen attentively to the Hazzan, whereby he can be considered to have responded to Nakdishach and Kaddish. This ruling clearly assumes that the Hazzan recites the entire Kaddish – including "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" – loudly, such that the congregants who are still reciting the Amida can listen and thereby fulfill the Misva of responding. It is possible that the Mishna Berura referred to a case where nobody in the congregation was still reciting the Amida, and for this reason, he wrote that the Hazzan does not need to recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" out loud. Regardless, the accepted practice is that the Hazzan recites "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" aloud, just like the rest of the Kaddish. In light of what we have seen, the Hazzan must have in mind when reciting Kaddish (and Nakdishach, for that matter) that his recitation should fulfill the obligation for those who are reciting the Amida and thus cannot respond. Those who wish to fulfill the Misva by listening to the Hazzan can do so only if both they and the Hazzan have this in mind, and it is therefore imperative that the Hazzan has in mind to fulfill the obligation for those who cannot respond. In fact, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that if a person reciting the Amida knows that the Hazzan is unaware of this Halacha, and does not have in mind for his Kaddish recitation to fulfill the obligation for those reciting the Amida, then there is no reason for this person to interrupt his Amida prayer to hear the Kaddish. Since the Hazzan does not have in mind for his recitation to fulfill the listeners' obligation, the listeners have no possibility of fulfilling their obligation, and they might as well just continue their Amida without pausing to hear the Hazzan's recitation of Kaddish. Hacham Ovadia Yosef concurred with this ruling. Summary: During Kaddish, the Hazzan recites "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" together with the congregation. He should do so in a loud voice – like the rest of Kaddish – and should have in mind that those who are reciting the Amida, and thus cannot respond, will fulfill their obligation by listening to his recitation.

One of the points during Kaddish when the congregation answers "Amen" is after "Shemeh De'Kudsha Berich Hu." Ashkenazic custom, however, is not to recite "Amen" at that point, and to recite "Berich Hu" instead of "Amen." Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) rules that according to the Ashkenazic custom, a person who hears Kaddish while reciting Pesukeh De'zimra should not respond "Berich Hu." Although he may answer "Amen" to Kaddish, he may not answer "Berich Hu," as this does not qualify as an obligatory response that warrants interrupting Pesukeh De'zimra. This position was taken also by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky (1891-1986) and Rav Chaim Kanievsky (1928-2022) went even further, ruling that Ashkenazim should preferably not answer "Berich Hu" to the Hasi-Kaddish recited before the Amida prayer during Arbit. Interruptions are not permitted during Arbit from Barechu through the Amida prayer, though "Amen" responses are allowed. According to the aforementioned Poskim, the response of "Berich Hu" is not significant enough to warrant an interruption before the Amida, and so the congregation should not respond "Berich Hu." Rav Moshe Feinstein, however, maintained that the "Berich Hu" response is allowed at that point.

The Shulhan Aruch writes that one should "run" to hear and respond to Kaddish. If one has the opportunity to hear the recitation of Kaddish, he should enthusiastically seize the opportunity. Sometimes, people are in a rush to leave the synagogue early, and they forfeit opportunities to hear Kaddish. Responding to Kaddish is a precious Misva, and so one should eagerly seize opportunities to do so. If a person is in a place where two different Minyanim are occurring simultaneously – such as at the Kotel in Jerusalem – and he hears one Minyan reciting Kaddish, and another Minyan reciting Nakdishach, then he should respond "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" at the expense of responding to Nakdishach. However, this applies only if the person does not need to fulfill his Nakdishach obligation at that time – meaning, he already recited that prayer, or he will be reciting that prayer in a Minyan later. But if a person is praying with a Minyan, and as the Hazzan reaches Nakdishach he hears Kaddish from a different Minyan, then he should respond to Nakdishach in the Minyan in which he is participating at that time. In this instance, his current prayer service takes precedence over the Kaddish being recited in a different Minyan. If a person began responding "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" to Kaddish, and at that moment he hears Nakdishach, then he should end his response after "Almaya Yitbarach" so he can respond to Nakdishach Normally, our custom is to extend our response of "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" through "Be'alma." In this case, however, in the interest of being able to respond to Nakdishach, one should end his response with "Almaya Yitbarach." If one hears Kaddish while listening to Nakdishach, he should respond to Nakdishach as usual without interrupting to respond to Kaddish. If a person finds himself near two Minyanim, one of which is about to recite Kaddish Titkabal (the Kaddish recited after the Amida) and the other is about to recite Nakdishach, then he should join the Minyan that is about to recite Nakdishach. The reason is, quite simply, that the Minyan which is now starting Nakdishach will recite Kaddish Titkabal after the repetition of the Amida. Therefore, by going to that Minyan, one has the opportunity to hear both Nakdishach and Kaddish Titkabal. This is the ruling of the Mishna Berura. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) adds that this applies even if one must pass by the Minyan reciting Kaddish to get to the Minyan reciting Nakdishach. Whereas normally it is improper to pass by a Misva opportunity, in this instance it is preferable to go to the further Minyan for the reason discussed.

The Bet Yosef cites the Shiboleh Ha'leket (Rav Sidkiya Ha'rofeh, Italy, 13 th century) as establishing that one should hear at least seven Kaddish recitations each day. This is inferred from the verse in Tehillim (119:164), "Sheba Ba'yom Hilalticha" – "I have praised You seven times each day." By contrast, the Arizal maintained that one should hear at least twelve daily Kaddish recitations. Our customary prayer service is arranged in such a way that a total of thirteen Kaddishim are recited. In the morning, "Kaddish Al Yisrael" is recited before Hodu, "Hasi Kaddish" is recited after Yishtabah, another "Hasi Kaddish" is recited after the Hazzan's repetition of the Amida, "Kaddish Titkabal" is recited after "U'ba Le'sion," another Kaddish is recited after the daily Shir Shel Yom, and then "Kaddish Al Yisrael" is recited before Alenu, for a total of six Kaddishim. At Minha, another three Kaddishim are recited – the "Hasi Kaddish" before the Amida, the "Kaddish Titkabal" following the repetition of the Amida, and another Kaddish after La'menase'ah Bi'nginot, before Alenu. An additional four Kaddishim are recited at Arbit, bringing the total to thirteen: before Barechu, before the Amida, after the Amida, and before Alenu. These thirteen Kaddishim correspond to the thirteen attributes of divine mercy. In some communities, Kaddish is not recited after La'menase'ah Bi'nginot at Minha, such that they recite a total of twelve Kaddishim, following the teaching of the Arizal. In Ashkenazic communities, Kaddish is recited also after Alenu. This custom is followed in some Moroccan and Tunisian communities, as well. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) cites the Arizal as explaining how the various Kaddish recitations serve to facilitate our transition between the different spiritual realms. We cannot proceed immediately from our current realm – the realm of Asiya – to the highest realm, the realm of Asilut, where we stand before G-d and pray the Amida. We need to ascend incrementally, and it is through the Kaddish recitation that we advance from one realm to the next. The first "jump" occurs with the "Kaddish Al Yisrael" before Hodu, which elevates us to the realm of Yesira. The Kaddish after Yishtabah then lifts us to the realm of Beri'a. As no interruption is permitted during the section of "Yoser Or" until after the Amida, we ascend to the highest realm, Asilut, for the Amida prayer without a Kaddish. We then "descend" back to the realm of Beri'a with the "Hasi Kaddish" recited after the Amida, and then to Yesira with the Kaddish after U'ba Le'sion. Finally, the Kaddish following the Shir Shel Yom brings us back down to the realm of Asiya.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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