Podcasts about Amida

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. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pourquoi Binyamin a-t-il été appelé ainsi par son père ? Comment voulait le prénommer sa mère ? Pourquoi est-ce précisément lui qui est appelé "l'aimé d'Hachem" ? En quoi l'arc est-il le symbole de la prière ? Comment Penina motivait-elle 'Hanna à prier pour avoir un enfant ? Pourquoi 'Eli pensait-il que 'Hanna était ivre ? Pourquoi fait-on la 'Amida à voix basse ? Que signifie le mot Kislev ? Quel lien y a-t-il entre les reins et l'envie ? Réponse à travers des propos du Chem Michemouel, du Ibn 'Ezra et du Nétsiv de Volozhin.

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

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

Toward the end of Parashat Vayera, we read the famous story of Akedat Yishak – where Abraham Abinu was commanded to offer his beloved son, Yishak, as a sacrifice upon the altar. At the last moment, as Abraham held the knife over Yishak, prepared to slaughter him in fulfillment of G-d's command, an angel called out to Abraham and told him to desist, explaining that the command was merely a test of Abraham's devotion to Hashem. The Zohar, in a fascinating passage, adds a remarkable component to this story – one which sheds light on one of the critical lessons that it teaches us. When Yishak saw the knife about to descend upon his neck, the Zohar tells, he, in a sense, died. His soul departed. He was then given a new soul, and came back to life. Yishak was the first to recite the Beracha of "Mehayeh Ha'metim" – praising Hashem who restores life to the dead, and for this reason the second blessing of the Amida prayer, which corresponds to Yishak – the second of patriarchs – concludes with this Beracha. This replacement of Yishak's soul laid the foundations of the emergence of the Jewish Nation. Yishak's original soul was incapable of begetting children, but this new soul was. It turns out, then, that it was only because of Akedat Yishak that Yishak was able to produce offspring. This gives us an entirely new perspective on the story of the Akeda, and its relevance to our lives. When Avraham received the command to slaughter to Yishak, he did not understand how G-d could instruct him to do such a thing. After all, G-d had earlier told him, "Ki Be'Yishak Yikareh Lecha Zara" – that his line would continue through Yishak, and not through his first son, Yishmael (21:12). How, Abraham wondered, could G-d assure him that Yishak would be heir to his covenant with G-d, and the father of the nation destined to emerge from him, and then command offering him as a sacrifice before he had a child? Abraham did not understand. It seemed that offering Yishak on the altar marked the end of G-d's promise, as it would prevent the birth of Am Yisrael. In truth, however, fulfilling this command is precisely what enabled Yishak to have children. Had Abraham refused to obey, in the interest of assuring that Yishak would father the great nation that Hashem had promised – it would not have happened. It was specifically by fulfilling G-d's command, which entailed doing something that appeared to sabotage the process of Am Yisrael's emergence, that Am Yisrael in fact emerged. The Midrash teaches that G-d implores us, "Obey Me, because nobody obeys Me and loses." We never lose by following Hashem's will, by observing the Misvot. We often find ourselves tested the way Abraham was, as a Misva appears detrimental to us. Many times, we face a situation where doing the right thing seems to work against us and our best interests. Staying in bed instead of getting up for Minyan is more comfortable and convenient. Avoiding places where we know we should not be might cost us social points. Dressing, speaking and acting the way we know we should might invite ridicule. Adhering to the Torah's strict ethical standards could cost us profitable opportunities. So often, the right thing to do seems to hurt us. But even when this is true in the short-term, it is never true in the long-term. Whatever sacrifice we need to make here in the present to remain faithful to our Torah values is more than worth it, because Hashem guarantees us that in the long run, we only benefit from obeying His commands. Rav Nachman of Breslav (1772-1810) taught that when a person feels himself becoming angry, he should imagine that Hashem is about to give him an enormous fortune – but he must earn it by restraining his anger. The person thinks that shouting and insulting is the right response to the situation – but by doing so, he will forfeit the inestimable future rewards that are promised to those who control their anger. This can be applied to all the many religious challenges that we face on a day-to-day basis. When we feel tempted to compromise our principles, we should remember the lesson of Akedat Yishak – that the short-term benefits we sacrifice to obey Hashem are far surpassed by the long-term benefits of obedience.

Each morning before Baruch She'amar, the congregation stands and the Hazan declares, "Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach, Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed" – "Hashem is King, Hashem was King, Hashem will be King for all eternity." The congregation then repeats this proclamation after the Hazan. Our custom is to make this proclamation twice. There is an opinion that a Minyan is required for pronouncing "Hashem Melech," but the accepted view is that this may be said even without a Minyan, and so if ten men have yet to arrive by this point, "Hashem Melech" may nevertheless be recited. Some communities have the practice that a child leads the congregation in reciting "Hashem Melech." It would seem, however, that it is more proper to choose someone who is at least Bar-Misva age to lead this proclamation. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) brings a custom to lift one's feet when reciting "Hashem Melech," like we do when reciting "Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh." This symbolizes the "elevation" that we experience through this recitation, as we make our way toward the higher realms until we reach the highest level in the heavens so we can recite the Amida directly in Hashem's presence. One who follows this custom must ensure to do so in a discreet, unassuming manner, and not in a way that draws attention to himself. The Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria, Safed, 1534-1572) taught that the pronouncement of "Hashem Melech" is associated with our quest to neutralize the 280 "Kelipot," or negative energies, that threaten us. These 280 forces are alluded to in the names of the five letters of the Hebrew alphabet that are changed when they appear at the end of a word: Mem, Nun, Sadi, Peh, Kaf (represented by the acrostic "Mansapach"). The combined numerical value of these letters is 280. When we succeed in "subjugating" these 280 forces, the Arizal taught, Mashiah will come. In the proclamation of "Hashem Melech," the words "Melech" and "Malach" both have the Gematria of 90, and the word "Yimloch" equals 100 – for a total of 280, thus alluding to the "Kelipot." The Name of "Havaya" is mentioned three times in this proclamation ("Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach, Hashem Yimloch"), and in Gematria it equals 26, for a total of 78 (26 * 3). Adding this to 280, we arrive at a total of 358 – the Gematria of "Mashiah" (40+300+10+8). This daily proclamation, then, is a crucial part of our effort to overcome the harmful spiritual forces in the world so that we will become worthy of the arrival of Mashiah.

Learn all aspects of Halacha through our 10 minutes a day Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi with Rabbi Ya'akov Trump. This series is kindly sponsored by the Moshe Group & CA In the zechus of רבקה בילה בת נחמה שיפרה And in honor of Rabbi Trump Photo by Eldad Carin

Learn all aspects of Halacha through our 10 minutes a day Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi with Rabbi Ya'akov Trump. This series is kindly sponsored by the Moshe Group & CA In the zechus of רבקה בילה בת נחמה שיפרה And in honor of Rabbi Trump Photo by Eldad Carin

Learn all aspects of Halacha through our 10 minutes a day Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi with Rabbi Ya'akov Trump. This series is kindly sponsored by the Moshe Group & CA In the zechus of רבקה בילה בת נחמה שיפרה And in honor of Rabbi Trump Photo by Eldad Carin

After waking in the morning, a person is not permitted to learn Torah before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah. As we saw in earlier installments, however, this applies only to learning verbally. Merely thinking Torah in one's mind, without speaking, is allowed before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. (We saw, though, that reading a Torah book, even silently, might require the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah.) Intuitively, we might assume that silently listening to a Torah lecture should be no different than silently thinking about Torah. Seemingly, then, if a person attends a Torah class in the synagogue early in the morning, he does not need to first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. However, the Halachot Ketanot (Rav Yisrael Yaakob Hagiz, 1680-1757) rules that listening to a Torah class differs from thinking about Torah in this regard. He applies to this situation the famous Halachic principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" – that listening to the recitation of a text is akin to reciting it oneself. Thus, for example, every Shabbat, one person recites Kiddush, and everyone else at the table fulfills his obligation by listening to the recitation. Accordingly, people who listen to a Torah class are considered to be saying the words spoken by the teacher. Hence, listening to a Torah class is akin to verbally speaking words of Torah, and requires the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. Hacham Ovadia Yosef brought proof to this theory from the Gemara's inference of the Birkot Ha'Torah obligation from a verse in the Book of Debarim (32:3). The Gemara in Masechet Berachot (21a) cites as the Biblical source of this requirement the verse, "Ki Shem Hashem Ekra, Habu Godel L'Elokenu" – "When I call the Name of G-d, give praise to G-d." Moshe here was announcing that when he teaches Torah, the people should recite a blessing. Thus, the very source of Birkot Ha'Torah is a situation where people recite a Beracha before listening to words of Torah, clearly implying that even silently listening to a Torah lecture requires the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. This is the ruling also of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). Although several Poskim (including the Lebush and Hida) disagree, Halacha follows the opinion of the Halachot Ketanot. Therefore, those who attend a Torah class early in the morning must ensure to first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. Some addressed the question of how to reconcile the Halachot Ketanot's reasoning with the ruling of the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) that the person who receives an Aliya to the Torah must read along with the Ba'al Koreh (reader). Fundamentally, the obligation to read is upon the Oleh (person who was called to the Torah); the Ba'al Koreh reads the Torah on his behalf. Seemingly, the rule of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" should allow the Oleh to silently listen to the reader and thereby discharge his obligation. Indeed, the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) disputed the Rosh's ruling, and maintained that the Oleh does not need to read together with the reader. Halacha, however, follows the Rosh's ruling. If, as the Halachot Ketanot writes, listening to words of Torah is akin to reciting them, then why must the Oleh read along with the Ba'al Koreh? Several explanations were given for why the congregational Torah reading might be different, and is not subject to the rule of "Shome'a Ke'oneh." One theory is that "Shome'a Ke'oneh" applies only when there is a general obligation to recite a certain text. The congregational Torah reading is an obligation upon the congregation as a whole, and not on any particular individual, and it therefore is not included in the rule of "Shome'a Ke'oneh." Others explain that since the original format of Torah reading was that the Oleh reads the text, and the concept of a Ba'al Koreh was introduced later, the Oleh is required to read along, to preserve the initial arrangement. Yet another answer is that the rule of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" does not allow for one person to recite the Beracha over a Misva and another person to perform the Misva. On Purim, for example, the one who reads the Megilla for the congregation also recites the Beracha. Never does someone from the congregation recite the Beracha, and then the Ba'al Koreh reads the Megilla. Therefore, the Oleh cannot recite the Beracha and then fulfill his obligation by listening to the Ba'al Koreh's reading. Interestingly, Rav Shlomo Kluger (1785-1869) asserted that this Halacha regarding Birkot Ha'Torah before listening a Torah class hinges on a debate among the Rishonim regarding a different issue. It often happens that somebody is still in the middle of the Amida prayer when the Hazzan begins the repetition, and reaches Nakdishach. Common practice follows the view of Rashi, that the person in this situation should stop and listen silently to Nakdishach in order to fulfill this Misva. Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171), however, disagreed with this ruling, arguing that in light of the principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh," listening to Nakdishach in the middle of the Amida would constitute a Hefsek (forbidden interruption) in the Amida. This is no different than reciting Nakdishach in the middle of the Amida, which is of course not allowed. Seemingly, Rav Kluger writes, the ruling of the Halachot Ketanot, that listening to Torah is akin to speaking Torah, follows the view of Rabbenu Tam, that "Shome'a Ke'oneh" actually equates listening to speaking. According to Rashi, listening is not precisely the same as speaking, which is why he permits listening to Nakdishach during the Amida. By the same token, it would seem that Rashi would not require reciting Birkot Ha'Torah before listening to a Torah lecture. The question, then, becomes why we follow Rashi's opinion regarding listening to Nakdishach during the Amida, but we accept the Halachot Ketanot's ruling regarding Birkot Ha'Torah. These two rulings seem to contradict one another – as the first presumes that listening is not precisely like speaking, whereas the second presumes that listening is equivalent to speaking. Hacham Ovadia answers that when a person is reciting the Amida as the congregation reaches Nakdishach, he wants to fulfill the Misva of reciting Nakdishach, but he also does not wish to interrupt his Amida. Halacha therefore allows him to listen to Nakdishach – such that he will be credited with this Misva – without being considered in violation of disrupting the Amida. Since the person seeks to perform the Misva, an exception is made to allow him to do so. Even Rashi agrees that listening is equivalent to speaking, but in the specific instance where a person recites the Amida and hears Nakdishach, special permission is given to listen to Nakdishach. Hacham Ovadia cites in this context the Gemara's teaching (Kiddushin 39b) that a person's intention to transgress a sin is disregarded if he ends up being unable to commit the forbidden act. A person's thoughts are discounted as far as Halachic violations are concerned, and thus one cannot be considered guilty of disrupting his Amida by silently listening to Nakdishach. Another question that was asked regarding the Halachot Ketanot's ruling is whether the speaker and audience must have specific intention for "Shome'a Ke'oneh" to take effect. During Kiddush, the person reciting Kiddush must have in mind that his recitation will be effective in satisfying the listeners' obligation, and they must likewise intend to fulfill their obligation by hearing his recitation. Seemingly, then, if listening to a Torah class is akin to speaking words of Torah due to the principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh," this should depend on whether or not the speaker and audience have this specific intention. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his Yabia Omer (vol. 4, addendum to #8), writes that this specific intention is not necessary, and he draws proof to the fact that Torah study marks an exception to the general rule. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (38) infers the principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" from the story of King Yoshiyahu, before whom a man named Shafan read the Torah, and Yoshiyahu was considered to have read it himself. There is no mention of either Yoshiyahu or Shafan having specific intention that Yoshiyahu should be considered to have read the text – indicating that such intention is not necessary. Although in general "Shome'a Ke'oneh" requires the intention of both the speaker and listener, Torah study marks an exception, where such intention is not needed for "Shome'a Ke'oneh" to take effect. Rav Yisrael Bitan offers two possible explanations for this distinction, for why the mechanism of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" does not require Kavana (intent) in the context of Torah study, but it does in the context of all other Misvot. First, the primary method of Torah learning is through a teacher and listeners; this is the most common way that Torah is studied. Therefore, the listeners fulfill their obligation by listening without having to create a connection to the speaker through Kavana. Alternatively, one could say that in the case of Torah learning, the intent is present by default. When a Rabbi or teacher stands up before a room to teach Torah, everyone's intention is clearly to fulfill the Misva of Torah learning, and there is no need to consciously think this. The fundamental difference between these two explanations is that according to the first, Kavana is not necessary for "Shome'a Ke'oneh" to take effect when teaching Torah, whereas according to the second, Kavana is necessary, but it is presumed even without consciously having it in mind. These different perspectives will affect the fascinating question of whether a distinction exists between attending a Torah class and listening to a recording. According to the first explanation, listening to Torah is equivalent to speaking Torah even without Kavana, and this would be true even when listening to a recording of a Torah class. According to the second approach, however, Kavana is necessary for the listener to be considered to be speaking, and the speaker and listener are presumed to have this intent – and thus this would not apply in the case of a recording. When listening to a recording, there is no speaker to supply the Kavana, and thus the listener is not considered to be speaking the words. It would then follow that one would not be required to recite Birkot Ha'Torah before listening to a recorded Torah class in the morning. For example, if a person wishes to listen to a Torah class as he makes his way to the synagogue in the morning, he would not – according to this second explanation – be required to first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. In practice, however, as this matter cannot be conclusively determined one way or another, we must be stringent and recite Birkot Ha'Torah even before listening to a recorded Torah class. Therefore, one who wishes to hear a Torah class in the morning – either in person or a recording – must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah and the verses of Birkat Kohanim beforehand. Summary: One who wishes to hear a Torah class in the morning – either in person or a recording – must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah and the verses of Birkat Kohanim beforehand.

The requirement to recite 100 Berachot each day refers to the period between sundown and sundown the following day. Hence, the Berachot recited in the evening count toward the next day's total with respect to this obligation. This gives rise to a number of interesting questions in situations where it is unclear how to classify a certain time-period. One such question involves Friday evenings in the summer, when many people recite Arbit and accept Shabbat early, before sundown (after the point of "Pelag Ha'minha"). Do those Berachot recited at Arbit – and the Berachot recited at the meal before sundown – count toward Friday's total of Berachot, since the sun has yet to set? Or, since one has accepted Shabbat, do these Berachot count toward the next day's number? Hacham Ovadia Yosef answered this question based on a ruling of the Taz (Rav David Segal, Poland, 1586-1667) regarding one who prayed Arbit early, before sundown, on the night of Shemini Aseret. In the case of Shemini Aseret, the day before this Yom Tob is Hoshana Rabba, the final day of Sukkot. Therefore, when one accepts Yom Tob early, before sundown, he faces the question of whether the time that remains until sundown is considered Sukkot or Shemini Aseret. In Israel, where people do not eat in the Sukka on Shemini Aseret, this question determines whether the individual must eat in the Sukka, because the sun has yet to set on the final day of Sukkot, or if he may eat inside his home, since he has already accepted Shemini Aseret, such that Sukkot has already ended. The Taz ruled that once the person recited Arbit, he has ushered in the new Halachic day, and so in this case, the individual does not need to eat in the Sukka. Hacham Ovadia accepts this ruling, and thus concludes that by the same token, one who accepts Shabbat early has transitioned to the next day, Shabbat, and all the Berachot he recites count toward Shabbat's total of Berachot, even though the sun is still out. This principle applies in the converse in the case of a Se'uda Shelishit meal that is eaten late in the afternoon on Shabbat, and continues after dark. Since the person has in effect extended Shabbat past sunset, the Berachot of Birkat Ha'mazon that he recites after dark still count toward Shabbat's total, as this period is still considered Shabbat. (However, if one recites Arbit during Se'uda Shelishit, then he has begun the new day, and thus the Berachot he recites subsequently during Birkat Ha'mazon will count toward Sunday's total.) This becomes especially important when we consider the difficulty entailed in reaching the total of 100 Berachot on Shabbat, when the Amida consists of only seven blessings (as opposed to the weekday Amida, which consists of 19 Berachot). Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) disagreed. He maintained that the obligation of 100 daily Berachot refers to the period from sunset to sunset, even if one accepts Shabbat before sunset or extends Shabbat past sunset. In his view, all the Berachot recited before sunset count toward the previous day's total, whereas the Berachot recited after sunset count toward the new day's total. (This poses a challenge for those who accept Shabbat early, as the Berachot of Arbit are not counted toward the required 100 Berachot of Shabbat.) In any event, we follow Hacham Ovadia's opinion, that if one accepts Shabbat early or extends Shabbat past sundown, the Berachot count toward Shabbat's total. Does this apply also on weekdays? If a person recites Arbit before sundown on a weekday during the summer, do the Berachot recited at Arbit, and Berachot recited subsequently, before sunset, count toward that day's number of Berachot, or the next day's total? This question seems to hinge on a debate among the Rishonim concerning the case of a woman who performed the Hefsek Tahara inspection (which establishes the cessation of bleeding, so she can begin the "seven clean days") after reciting Arbit. This inspection must be performed during the day, and the question thus becomes whether it is valid if was done before sundown but after the woman recited Arbit. The Terumat Ha'deshen (Rav Yisrael Isserlein, 1390-1460) maintained that once a person recites Arbit, even before sundown, he has begun Halachic nighttime, and thus the woman in this case has already begun the night, when it is too late to perform the Hefsek Tahara. By contrast, the Maharil (Rav Yaakob Moelin, Germany, 1365-1427) ruled that the recitation of Arbit does not affect the status of the time that remains until sunset, and it is still considered daytime. Therefore, the woman may still perform a Hefsek Tahara even after reciting Arbit, as long as the sun has not set. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his Taharat Ha'bayit, follows the Maharil's position, that a woman may perform a Hefsek Tahara after she recited Arbit if the sun has not set. We would thus seemingly assume that with regard to the obligation of 100 daily Berachot, too, reciting Arbit before sundown on a weekday does not mark the onset of nighttime, and thus the Berachot recited count toward that day's number of Berachot. A similar question arises in the case of a person who, for whatever reason, did not put on Tefillin all day, and recited Arbit before sundown. The Shulhan Aruch – seemingly following the opinion of the Terumat Ha'deshen – rules that this individual can no longer put on Tefillin, because by reciting Arbit he has begun the nighttime, when Tefillin are not worn. Hacham Ovadia, however, writes that the person can still put on Tefillin, since the sun had not set. Returning to the issue of the 100 daily Berachot, it would seem that according to the Shulhan Aruch, the Berachot recited during Arbit before sundown count toward the next day's total, whereas according to Hacham Ovadia, they count toward the previous day's total. Given the different opinions, this issue remains unresolved, and we cannot ascertain the status of Berachot recited after a person recited Arbit before sundown. Summary: If a person begins Shabbat early, before sundown, the Berachot he recites during Arbit and after Arbit count toward his number of blessings recited on Shabbat with respect to the obligation of 100 daily blessings, even though the sun has not yet. Likewise, if one extends Se'uda Shelishit past sundown, the Berachot of Birkat Ha'mazon count towards Shabbat's total, since he has yet to end Shabbat. On weekdays, however, if one recites Arbit before sundown, it is unclear whether those Berachot – and the Berachot recited after Arbit, before sundown – count toward the previous day's total, or the next day's total.

Send us a textThe Real Time Show is an official media partner of @GenevaWatchDays 2025. You can find our recording studio outside the Pavillon on the shores of Lac Léman.Learn more about Amida by following @amida_watches on Instagram. You can find the hosts there, too: @alonbenjoseph, @scarlintheshire, @davaucher and @robnudds.Thanks to @skillymusic for the theme tune.

On Shabbat (and Yom Tob), fulfilling the daily requirement of reciting 100 Berachot is more difficult than on weekdays, due to the fact that the Amida prayer on Shabbat consists of only seven Berachot (as opposed to the weekday Amida, which contains 19 Berachot). As discussed in previous installments, the Poskim have proposed several different strategies for reaching the required total of 100 Berachot. Amidst this discussion, the Poskim addressed the question of whether one may intentionally delay dessert during the Shabbat meals until after Birkat Ha'mazon in order to facilitate an additional Beracha. If dessert is eaten before Birkat Ha'mazon, one does not recite a separate Beracha Aharona over the dessert, because it is covered by Birkat Ha'mazon which is recited over the entire meal. (One does recite a Beracha before eating dessert, as the dessert is separate from the main meal and is thus not covered by the Beracha of Ha'mosi recited over the bread.) Thus, by reciting Birkat Ha'mazon before dessert, one puts himself in a position where he would need an additional Beracha – the Beracha Aharona after dessert – which could help him reach the required total of 100 blessings. At first glance, this practice seems improper, as it falls under the category of "Beracha She'ena Sericha" – an unnecessary Beracha. Halacha does not allow intentionally arranging a situation that necessitates a Beracha that would otherwise not be needed. We might therefore assume that one should not recite Birkat Ha'mazon before dessert for the purpose of facilitating an additional Beracha. However, the Shela Ha'kadosh (Rav Yeshaya Ha'levi Horowitz, d. 1630) writes that the effort to reach 100 Berachot on Shabbat qualifies as a legitimate need, such that facilitating an extra Beracha is acceptable. Although normally Halacha would not allow intentionally arranging a situation that requires an additional Beracha, this is allowed if one's goal is to ensure to fulfill the obligation of 100 daily blessings. This view is taken by several other Poskim, as well, including the Elya Rabba (Rav Eliyahu Shapira, Prague, 1660-1712) and the Erech Ha'shulhan (Rav Yishak Tayeb, Tunisia, 1786-1830), and this is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Hacham Ovadia adds that one should preferably not bring the dessert to the table until after Birkat Ha'mazon in such a case, so he does not recite Birkat Ha'mazon with the dessert right in front of him at the table. Additionally, Hacham Ovadia emphasizes that this is allowed only on Shabbat and Yom Tob, due to the challenge of reaching a total of 100 Berachot on these days. On weekdays, when one naturally reaches 100 Berachot by reciting the required daily prayers and Berachot, one should not intentionally facilitate an additional Beracha. Summary: If one is concerned that he might not reach the obligatory total of 100 daily Berachot on Shabbat (when the Amida prayer consists of only seven Berachot), he is allowed to facilitate additional Berachot by reciting Birkat Ha'mazon before dessert at the Shabbat meals, such that he must recite a Beracha Aharona. If one does this, he should preferably ensure to recite Birkat Ha'mazon before the dessert is brought to the table. This may be done only on Shabbat and Yom Tob, but not on weekdays, when it is relatively easy to reach a total of 100 blessings.

The Shulhan Aruch (in Bet Yosef) presents a list of Berachot which a Jew recites as part of his daily routine, showing that at least on weekdays, one will generally reach the required sum of 100 daily Berachot without difficulty. In this list, he includes the nighttime Shema (which includes the Beracha of "Ha'mapil") as part of the total of the following day's Berachot – clearly indicating that the "day" with regard to this requirement begins in the evening. Meaning, when Halacha requires one to recite 100 Berachot each day, this means that one must recite 100 Berachot from after sunset until sunset the following day. The Torat Haim Sofer disagrees, noting that the Birkot Ha'shahar (morning blessings) cover the period from the morning through the next night. These Berachot thank Hashem for various phenomena that we experience each day, and we recite them in the morning, not at night. By the same token, the Torat Haim Sofer asserts, the requirement of 100 Berachot applies to the period from the morning through the following nighttime. According to this view, we have a partial solution to the problem discussed in a previous installment regarding Shabbat, when the Amida consists of only seven Berachot – as opposed to the 19 Berachot of the weekday Amida – making it more difficult to reach the total of 100 Berachot. If the "day" begins in the morning, then the 19 Berachot during the Amida on Mosa'eh Shabbat count toward that day's total, making it at least somewhat less difficult to reach a total of 100. This point reinforces our previous inference that the Shulhan Aruch did not accept this opinion, as the Shulhan Aruch did not mention the Mosa'eh Shabbat prayer as a partial solution to this problem. (As we saw, the Shulhan Aruch writes that listening to the Berachot over the Torah reading counts toward the sum of 100 Berachot.) Regardless, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that the "day" begins at sundown, and thus one must ensure to recite 100 Berachot from the period between sundown until sundown the following day. The period in between sunset and Set Ha'kochavim – nightfall, when the stars become visible – is called Ben Ha'shemashot. (There is considerable discussion regarding the length of Ben Ha'shemashot, but let us assume for our purposes that it extends for 13 minutes after sunset.) This is a time of Halachic uncertainty, as it is unknown whether this period is considered daytime or nighttime. The question thus arises as to whether Berachot recited during this period count toward the previous day's total number of Berachot, or the next day's total. The answer emerges from a position taken by Hacham Ovadia Yosef in numerous contexts regarding the status of Ben Ha'shemashot, applying the principle of "Sefek Sefeka" (literally, a "double doubt"). This principle says that when there is a Halachic uncertainty, but one of the two possibilities is itself uncertain, as there is another doubt at play, then this second doubt tips the scales, so-to-speak, in favor of the other side of the initial uncertainty. In the case of Ben Ha'shemashot, we are uncertain whether this period qualifies as daytime or nighttime – but the possibility that it qualifies as nighttime is subject to a different question. Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171) maintained that halachic sunset occurs not what we consider sunset – when the sun dips below the western horizon – but nearly an hour later. Accordingly, there are two reasons why we might consider the period of Ben Ha'shemashot daytime: 1) perhaps Ben Ha'shemashot really is part of the day; 2) perhaps Halacha follows Rabbenu Tam's opinion, that what we consider Ben Ha'shemashot is actually the period preceding sundown, and Ben Ha'shemashot begins much later. (Hacham Ovadia also noted a third factor – a view that Ben Ha'shemashot begins a half-minute after the period we consider to be Ben Ha'shemashot.) On this basis, Hacham Ovadia ruled that as a practical matter, one may assume that Ben Ha'shemashot is still Halachic daytime. Thus, for example, on Ereb Yom Kippur, if someone was unable to put on his Tallit before sunset, he may still do so – and recite the Beracha – during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot after sunset, based on the assumption that it is still daytime. Likewise, if a person did not read the Megilla reading on Purim before sundown, he may do so after sundown, during Ben Ha'shemashot, and recite the Berachot over the reading. Another example is Berit Mila on the child's eighth day– if the Mohel was delayed, and arrived right after sunset, he may perform the Berit and recite the Berachot, as long as it is still within the period of Ben Ha'shemashot. This applies also to the "Hefsek Tahara" inspection that a married woman must perform to establish the cessation of bleeding so she can begin the "Shib'a Nekiyim" (seven clean days). This inspection must be made before sundown, but if a woman was unable to do so before sunset, she may perform the inspection during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot. Applying this principle to our subject, Berachot recited during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot after sunset are counted toward the previous day's total of Berachot, as we assume that this period has the status of Halachic daytime. Summary: The obligation to recite 100 Berachot each day means that one must recite 100 Berachot from sundown until sundown the next day. Berachot which one recites during Ben Ha'shemashot – the 13-minute period after sundown – count toward the previous day's total.

If a person hears a Beracha for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation, and he listens attentively and responds "Amen," then hearing this Beracha counts toward the required recitation of 100 blessings each day. Thus, for example, when a person hears Kiddush on Friday night to fulfill the Misva of Kiddush, those two Berachot – "Ha'gefen" and "Mekadesh Ha'Shabbat" – count as two of the 100 Berachot which he is obligated to recite each day. The same is true of the Misva over the Shofar blowing on Rosh Hashanah ("Li'shmoa Kol Shofar") and the Berachot recited over the Megilla reading on Purim ("Al Mikra Megilla," "She'asa Nissim," and – at night – "She'hehiyanu"). By listening to these Berachot and responding "Amen," one adds to his total number of Berachot recited that day. If a person recites a Beracha for others to fulfill their obligation, then, according to the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995), this Beracha counts toward his recitation of 100 blessings. Thus, for example, if someone works as a chaplain in a hospital, and on Friday night he goes around the hospital making Kiddush for patients, all those Berachot can be counted toward his obligation. Even though he had already fulfilled the Misva of Kiddush, and he is reciting Kiddush solely for the sake of others, nevertheless, since he is, after all, reciting these Berachot, they count toward his 100 daily blessings. An interesting question arises in the case of somebody who recited the Amida, and then realized that he did not concentrate on the meaning of the words during the first Beracha. The Shulhan Aruch ruled that although we must of course endeavor to pray the entire Amida with Kavana (concentration), one fulfills his obligation even if he prayed without Kavana, as long as he recited the first blessing with Kavana. If, however, one did not concentrate on the meaning of the words while reciting the first Beracha, then he did not fulfill his obligation. Nevertheless, the accepted practice follows the ruling of the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572) that one does not repeat the Amida in such a case, given the likelihood that he will not have Kavana the second time, either. The Poskim posed the question of whether these 19 Berachot – the blessings that comprise the Amida – can be counted toward one's required 100 daily Berachot in such a case. Seemingly, since it turns out that the person did not fulfill his obligation through the recitation of the Amida, the Berachot are considered to have been recited in vain, and thus they cannot count toward the required 100 blessings. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, however, ruled that these Berachot do, in fact, count toward the 100 Berachot. He proves this from the fact that if a person realizes during the recitation of the Amida that he did not have Kavana while reciting the first Beracha, he nevertheless continues reciting the Amida. Although he cannot fulfill the Amida requirement, as he recited the first blessing without Kavana, nevertheless, he completes the Amida. This proves that the Berachot of the Amida are not considered to have been recited in vain even if one had not concentrated while reciting the first Beracha. Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that although the person does not fulfill his obligation in this case, his prayer still formally qualifies as a valid Amida prayer. Thus, for example, the prohibition against walking in front of someone praying the Amida applies even if someone prays the Amida and did not have Kavana during the first blessing. Since the remainder of his Amida qualifies as an Amida – notwithstanding the fact that the individual does not fulfill his prayer obligation through this Amida – one may not pass in front of him. By the same token, Rav Shlomo Zalman rules, the Berachot can be counted toward the obligatory 100 blessings. Rav Shlomo Zalman applies this ruling also to the case of somebody who mistakenly omitted "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo" from the Amida on Rosh Hodesh, or recited "Ve'ten Tal U'matar" in the summer, and thus needs to repeat the Amida. Although the Amida was invalid, and the individual did not fulfill his obligation, Rav Shlomo Zalman maintained that these blessings count toward the 100 required daily Berachot. Rav Shlomo Zalman writes that if someone hears his fellow make such a mistake in his Amida prayer without realizing it, and the fellow continues the Amida, the person may not walk in front of him, as the one reciting the Amida is still considered to be praying the Amida. As in the case of one who did not concentrate during the first Beracha, the Amida still qualifies as an Amida prayer, even though the person does not fulfill his prayer obligation through the recitation of this prayer. (Regarding "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo," there is a debate among the Rishonim as to whether one who mistakenly omits this addition is considered not to have prayed at all, or has simply not fulfilled the obligation of "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo." According to one view, if one forgets "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo" at Minha on Rosh Hodesh, and he realizes his mistake only that night, when it is no longer Rosh Hodesh, he must recite an extra Amida at Arbit, even though he will not be adding "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo," since he is considered not to have prayed Minha. The other view maintains that this fellow has fulfilled his obligation of Minha, but failed to fulfill his obligation to recite "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo," and so there is no value in adding an Amida at Arbit, since he will not be reciting "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo." At first glance, it seems that Rav Shlomo Zalman's ruling was said specifically according to this second view, though in truth, it applies according to all opinions. A comprehensive analysis of this subject lies beyond the scope of our discussion here.) The Poskim offer different solutions for reaching a total of 100 Berachot on Shabbat and Yom Tob, when the Amida prayer is much shorter than the weekday Amida. The Amida prayer on Shabbat and Yom Tov consists of only seven blessings, as opposed to the weekday Amida, which contains 19. The Musaf prayer – with its seven Berachot – is added on Shabbat and Yom Tob, but nevertheless, one is left with 19 fewer Berachot – and these become 20 Berachot once we consider that one does not recite the Beracha over Tefillin on Shabbat and Yom Tob. Several of these missing Berachot are supplied by reciting and listening to Kiddush, but nevertheless, one is missing a considerable number of Berachot. The Shulhan Aruch writes that this problem can be solved by listening attentively and answering "Amen" to the Berachot recited over the Torah reading. On Shabbat morning, eight people are called to the Torah (seven regular Aliyot, and Maftir), and another three are called to the Torah at Minha – and each of these 11 men recite two Berachot. If a person listens to these Berachot and recites "Amen," he adds 22 Berachot to his total. The Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, 1633-1683) writes that this solution should be relied upon only if one has no other possibility of reaching a total of 100 Berachot. Preferably, one should fulfill the obligation in other ways. This is the position taken by others, as well, including the Shulhan Aruch Ha'Rav (Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812), and the Mishna Berura. This was also the view taken by Hacham Ovadia Yosef in his earlier works. However, in his Hazon Ovadia, which he wrote later in life, he cites the Magen Giborim as stating that one can rely on this solution even Le'chatehila (on the optimal level of Halachic observance), and this is the Halacha. By listening attentively to the Berachot recited before and after the Haftara reading, one adds even more Berachot to his total. Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim taught us an allusion to this Halacha in the final verses of Shir Hashirim, which speak of the fruit of King Shlomo's vineyard. The Gemara tells that if someone slaughtered a chicken, and before he fulfilled the Misva of Kisui Ha'dam (covering the blood), somebody else came along and covered the blood, the person who covered the blood owes the Shohet (slaughterer) 100 gold coins. The reason, the Gemara explains, is that this person caused the Shohet to lose the opportunity to recite the Beracha over this Misva, and so he owes compensation. It thus turns out that a Beracha is worth 100 gold coins – such that the 100 Berachot we recite each day have a total value of 1000 gold coins. The verse in Shir Hashirim says, "A thousand for you, Shlomo, and 200 for those who guard the fruit." The name "Shlomo" in Shir Hashirim sometimes refers to Hashem, and thus this verse alludes to the 1000 gold coins we are to earn through the recitation of 100 Berachot each day. The phrase "and 200 for those who guard the fruit" alludes to the 20 missing Berachot on Shabbat – valued at 200 gold coins – which some people achieve through "fruit," by eating extra delicacies on Shabbat so they add more Berachot. The next verse then says, "Haberim Makshibim Le'kolech" – "friends heeding your voice," alluding to attentively listening to the Torah reading, which is the other method of reaching the required 100 blessings. Rabbi Bitan notes that in light of this Halacha, it seems that one should not respond "Baruch Hu U'baruch Shemo" to Hashem's Name in the blessings recited over the Torah reading. Since one needs to be considered as though he recites these Berachot, so he can reach a total of 100 blessings, he should listen silently without saying "Baruch Hu U'baruch Shemo." Moreover, those who are called to the Torah should ensure to recite the Berachot loudly and clearly, so that everyone can hear the recitation. The Mishna Berura writes that if one listens attentively to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida, then he is considered to have recited those Berachot, and they count toward his total of 100 Berachot. The Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century), quoted by the Bet Yosef, goes even further, saying that one is considered to have recited the Hazan's blessings by listening to them, and then, by answering "Amen," he receives credit again for all those Berachot. According to the Abudarham, then, one can be credited with 57 Berachot at each weekday Shaharit and Minha. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) finds an allusion to this concept – that listening to the Hazan's repetition counts as the recitation of Berachot – in the verse, "L'Hashem Ha'yeshu'a Al Amcha Birchatecha Sela" (Tehillim 3:9). This could be read to mean that G-d's salvation is upon those who bless Him "Sela" – who recite 95 blessings, the numerical value of "Sela." By listening to the Hazan's repetition, one is considered as though he recites 38 Berachot (19 X 2) at Shaharit, another 38 at Minha, and 19 at Arbit (when the Hazan does not repeat the Amida), for a total of 95. However, the Shulhan Aruch clearly disagreed with this opinion. In presenting the way to reach 100 Berachot each day, he makes no mention at all of the Hazan's repetition, indicating that he did not feel that this counts toward the required 100 daily blessings. Some Poskim proposed that one can be considered to have recited 100 Berachot simply by reciting the blessing of "Modim" in the Amida with concentration. The word "Modim" in Gematria equals 100, and thus reciting this Beracha properly, with Kavana, is equivalent to reciting 100 blessings. Others suggest that this can be achieved through the recitation in Shaharit, after Shema, of the phrase "Ve'yasib Ve'nachon Ve'kayam…Ve'yafeh." This clause consists of 15 words which begin with the letter Vav, which in Gematria equals 6, for a total of 90. The next two words – "Ha'dabar Ha'zeh" – both begin with the letter Heh, which in Gematria equals 5, thus adding another 10, for a total of 100. By reciting these words with this in mind, one can perhaps be considered to have recited 100 Berachot. The Shiboleh Ha'leket (Rav Sidkiya Ben Abraham, Rome, 13 th century) writes that the recitation of "En K'Elokenu" adds an additional 12 Berachot to one's total. This prayer begins, "En K'Elokenu, En K'Adonenu, En Ke'Malkenu, En Ke'Moshi'enu" – four phrases that begin with the word "En." It continues with the same four phrases but that begin with "Mi," followed by these four phrases beginning with the word "Nodeh." The first letters of "En," "Mi" and "Nodeh" are Alef, Mem and Nun, which spell "Amen." Reciting this hymn, therefore, is akin to answering "Amen," and by answering "Amen" one is considered to have recited a Beracha. These three lines, then, can qualify as 12 Berachot (as each line contains four phrases). Other Poskim, however, are skeptical as to whether this recitation is really effective to be considered as the recitation of Berachot. The Ben Ish Hai, in Parashat Vayesheb, brings a source that suggests a different way of reaching 100 Berachot: reciting seven or ten times each day the verses of "Va'yebarech David" (Divrei Hayamim I 29:10-12), which contains a Beracha ("Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeh Yisrael…") and reciting after each time the verse "Baruch Ata Hashem Lamedeni Hukecha" (Tehillim 119:12). This recitation qualifies as the recitation of 100 Berachot. This practice is recommended for women, who do not recite as many Berachot as men, and thus face a challenge trying to reach a total of 100 Berachot each day. (As we saw in an earlier installment, Hacham Ovadia maintained that women are included in the obligation to recite 100 daily Berachot.) Hacham Ovadia Yosef had the practice of smelling different fragrant items over the course of Shabbat in order to add more Berachot. One who smells Hadas branches recites "Boreh Aseh Besamim"; before smelling mint leaves one recites "Boreh Asbeh Besamim"; over the scent of a fragrant fruit one recites "Ha'noten Re'ah Tob Ba'perot"; and over perfume one recites "Boreh Mineh Besamim." By smelling different items at different points over the course of Shabbat, one can add more Berachot. One can recite a new Beracha over a fragrance after "Heseh Ha'da'at" – meaning, when he smells it again after it was no longer on his mind. Normally, if a person has a fragrant plant requiring the Beracha of "Aseh Besamim," another which requires "Asbeh Besamim," and a third whose Beracha is uncertain, he simply recites the Brachot over the first two, having mind to cover the third. However, Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) writes that on Shabbat, one should first recite the generic blessing of "Boreh Mineh Besamim" over the questionable plant, and then recite the Berachot over the other two, in order to have the opportunity to recite an additional Beracha. Although we generally discourage unnecessarily putting oneself into a position to recite a Beracha ("Beracha She'ena Sericha"), this is permitted on Shabbat for the purpose of reaching a total of 100 blessings.

The requirement to recite 100 Berachot each day is easily fulfilled each weekday, as each of the three Amida prayers consists of 19 Berachot – such that just with the Amida alone, one already recites 57 Berachot. This is alluded to in the verse in Tehillim (55:18), "Ereb Va'boker Ve'sahorayim Asiha Ve'ehemeh" – "Evening, morning and afternoon, I pray and cry out." The word "Ve'ehemeh" in Gematria equals 57, hinting to the 57 Berachot we recite in the three Amida prayers, in the morning, afternoon and evening. In addition, we recite each morning the 18 Birkot Ha'shahar (morning blessings), the three blessings of the Torah (Birkot Ha'Torah), and Berachot on the Tallit and Tefillin, for a total of 80. We then recite "Baruch She'amar" and "Yishtabah" – the two Berachot at the beginning and end of Pesukeh De'zimra, as well as seven Berachot associated with Shema: in the morning, we recite two Berachot before Shema and one after Shema; and in the evening, we recite two Berachot before Shema and two after Shema. This brings us to a total of 89. If a person eats only one meal with bread, he recites one Beracha over hand-washing, another over the bread, and four in Birkat Ha'mazon, for a total of 95. And this is before we include the recitation of "Asher Yasar" after using the restroom, and the Berachot recited before and after eating and drinking throughout the day. The Poskim debate the question of whether women are included in the obligation to recite 100 Berachot each day. Rav Shmuel Wosner (1913-2015), in Shebet Ha'levi, notes that when the Shulhan Aruch (and the Bet Yosef) lists how one can easily reach 100 Berachot every day, he includes the Berachot on the Tallit and Tefillin, as we saw. The Shulhan Aruch thus appears to assume that this issue is relevant only to men, who wear Tallit and Tefillin. If women were also required to recite 100 Berachot each day, then the Shulhan Aruch would not have included these two Berachot in his list. Similarly, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) writes that the Shulhan Aruch includes three Amida recitations, and women are required to one only Amida each day – indicating that this obligation applies only to men. Other Poskim follow this view, as well. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagrees. He observes that although Maran (author of the Shuihan Aruch) indeed includes the Berachot over Tallit and Tefillin when listing the blessings in the Bet Yosef and Shulhan Aruch, elsewhere – in his Kessef Mishneh – he does not include these two Berachot. Therefore, we cannot conclude on this basis alone that Maran held that women are exempt from this obligation. Hence, in the absence of any clear indication to the contrary, we must assume that men and women alike are bound by the obligation of 100 daily Berachot. This poses a difficult challenge – particularly given that Hacham Ovadia ruled that women are required to recite only one Amida each day, and that they specifically should not recite "Baruch She'amar," "Yishtabah," or the Berachot before and after Shema. It would thus seem that women should try to recite three Amida prayers each day to make it easier for them to reach a total of 100 Berachot.