Podcasts about Hazzan

Just as it is improper to intentionally create a situation that requires an additional Beracha, it is similarly improper to intentionally create a situation requiring an additional recitation of Kaddish. For example, on the night of Hoshana Rabba, when it is customary to recite Tehillim, the group should not make unnecessary interruptions so that extra Kaddishim could be recited. Kaddish Yeheh Shelama is recited after the reading of Torah She'bi'chtab (Tanach), but it is improper to unnecessarily interrupt for the purpose of adding extra Kaddishim. Likewise, Kaddish is recited only at the designated points in the prayer service, and after a session learning, but not after other prayers or ceremonies. This is discussed already by the Rambam, in one of his published responsa. Kaddish is customarily recited after a Berit Mila only because we recite a chapter of Tehillim as part of the ceremony. Otherwise, Kaddish should not be recited. Kaddish is not recited after a Huppa, after a Pidyon Ha'ben, or after other ceremonies. If a Torah class was taught immediately before Arbit, and the class was followed by Kaddish Al Yisrael, then the Hazzan should begin Arbit with "Ve'hu Rahum," rather than with Hasi Kaddish, since Kaddish Al Yisrael was just recited. This is the ruling of Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, and this was the practice followed each day by his father, Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Rav Yisrael Bitan notes that seemingly, it should be acceptable to recite the Hasi Kaddish before Arbit in this case, since both Kaddish recitations are legitimately necessitated – the first because of the Torah class, and the second as the introduction to Arbit. Evidently, Rav Bitan writes, Hacham Ovadia felt that since the congregation begins Arbit immediately after Kaddish Al Yisrael, this Kaddish serves both purposes – concluding the Torah class, and introducing Arbit. Rav Bitan adds that this was the opinion also of Rav Mordechai Sharabi (Yemen-Jerusalem, 1908-1983) and Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998). It must be emphasized, however, that if an interruption was made following the Kaddish Al Yisrael before Arbit, then the Hasi Kaddish should be recited before Arbit as usual. The Kaddish is omitted only if the congregation begins Arbit immediately after the recitation of Kaddish Al Yisrael. A similar situation arises on Friday night, in synagogues where the Rabbi speaks just before Arbit. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025) writes that in such a case, Kaddish Al Yisrael should not be recited after the Rabbi's address, and the Hazzan should proceed to Hasi-Kaddish and Barechu. If the congregation insists on reciting Kaddish Al Yisrael after the Rabbi's talk. Rav Mazuz adds, then the service should be rearranged such that a different portion of the service requiring Kaddish – such as Lechu Neranena and Shir Hashirim – is recited after the Kaddish Al Yisrael, so the Hazzan can then recite Hasi-Kaddish before Barechu.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

This week I have three stories for you. The first about the Hazzan family being asked to send their religious children to school on Shabbos in the Soviet Union, the second about lumber merchants who need the Shinover Rebbe to pray for rain and the third about a stubborn Israeli policeman who encountered Baba Sali. If you're enjoying these Chassidic stories, please take a quick moment to buy me a coffee. https://ko-fi.com/barakhullman Thank you! I deeply appreciate your support! Also available at https://soundcloud.com/barak-hullman/the-chalk-the-logs-and-the-frozen-policeman To become a part of this project or sponsor an episode please go to https://hasidicstory.com/be-a-supporter. Hear all of the stories at https://hasidicstory.com. Go here to hear my other podcast https://jewishpeopleideas.com or https://soundcloud.com/jewishpeopleideas. Find my books, Figure It Out When You Get There: A Memoir of Stories About Living Life First and Watching How Everything Falls Into Place and A Shtikel Sholom: A Student, His Mentor and Their Unconventional Conversations on Amazon by going to https://bit.ly/barakhullman. My classes in Breslov Chassidus, Likutey Moharan, can be found here https://www.youtube.com/@barakhullman/videos I also have a YouTube channel of ceramics which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/@thejerusalempotter

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Each morning, after the recitation of Hodu, we recite the 30 th chapter of Tehillim, which begins "Mizmor Shir Hanukat Ha'bayit Le'David." Sephardic practice is to omit this introductory verse, and to begin with the next verse – "Aromimcha Hashem Ki Dilitani…" The Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria, Safed, 1534-1572) taught about the importance of reciting this chapter each morning as part of the prayer service, though it is found already in earlier Siddurim, from the late 15 th century. After this recitation, we arrive at a particularly important point of the morning service – the declaration of "Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach, Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed" ("Hashem is King, Hashem has reigned, Hashem will reign for all eternity"). This declaration appears nowhere in Tanach, but is a composite of phrases from three different verses. The phrase "Hashem Melech" is taken from a verse in Tehillim (10:16) – "Hashem Melech Olam Va'ed, Abedu Goyim Me'arso." The source of the phrase "Hashem Malach" is a later chapter in Tehillim (97), which begins, "Hashem Malach, Ge'ut Labesh." Finally, "Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed" appears at the conclusion of Az Yashir, the song of praise which Beneh Yisrael sang after the miracle of the splitting of the sea (Shemot 15:18). The Shiboleh Ha'leket (Rav Sidkiya Ben Abraham Ha'rofeh, Rome, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Binyamin as explaining the custom to make this pronouncement in the morning based on the Midrash's description of the angels' daily praise of G-d. Each morning, the Midrash states, one angel stands in the center of the heavens and declares, "Hashem Melech…" whereupon all the other angels repeat this pronouncement. In commemoration, here in our world, too, the Hazzan makes this declaration in the synagogue, followed by the rest of the congregation. We stand for this recitation because the angels are always in a standing position. Some communities had the practice of proclaiming "Hashem Melech" only on Shabbat, but already the Bet Yosef (Maran Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulhan Aruch) observes the custom in his time to recite "Hashem Melech" each morning. This is, indeed, the common custom today. The proclamation of "Hashem Melech" is followed by the recitation of the 67 th chapter of Tehillim – "La'menase'ah Bi'nginot Mizmor Shir." This is an especially significant chapter of Tehillim, and the Arizal taught that this recitation has the power to protect a person throughout the day and bring great prosperity. It is customary to write this chapter of Tehillim in the shape of a Menorah and to hang it in the synagogue. The Rokeah (Rav Eliezer of Worms, Germany, c. 1176-1238) taught that a synagogue which has this chapter on the Aron is guaranteed protection.

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.

August 8, 2025

July 19, 2025The most amazing article appeared in the New York Times this week titled “The Tooth Fairy is Real. She's a Dentist in Seattle.” No seriously, I am not making this up. Apparently twenty years ago, when Purva Merchant was applying for dental school, her boyfriend set up an email account for her using her nickname “the tooth fairy.” Ever since, she has received somewhere between three to five emails per day from desperate parents and adorable, sometimes disbelieving children. And she has personally responded to each and every message.The article is full of amazing email exchanges. There is the letter from the mother who forgot to exchange a tooth two nights in a row, who writes to the tooth fairy to let her know that there has been a misunderstanding and to ask if she could stop by while her son was at school. There is the letter from the child who received $100 for her first tooth, but then a much lower sum for each subsequent tooth and is very upset at the injustice of it—shouldn't teeth all be worth the same amount of money?! And then, just some adorable little notes:“My tooth got pullen out at the dentist today and I am excited for you to cone to my house and give me a surprise for being a brave girl.I am sleeping in my mums bed tonight and my tooth is silver so you can zee it and it's under the black pillow and it's in a dog box wrapped in a tissue”and“I'm so sorry I swallowed my tooth. And I love you. XXX OOO”Reading these letters stole my heart. I love the whimsy of every exchange. The parents who, long before the advent of AI, were emailing random tooth fairy addresses in the hopes that somewhere, somehow, someone would save them and preserve the magic of the tooth fairy for their child. I love the image of parents sitting down to help their children write to “the tooth fairy” only to receive a real response in exchange. Can you imagine the squeals of joy?! The fact that these letters are all written by a pediatric dentist makes it even better.

June 28, 2025

June 7, 2025

This week, I was speaking with a member who has been struggling with an intense family situation and was heading into a tense and painful meeting. She was riding in a Lyft. The driver was playing Christian radio quietly in the front. A few minutes before they arrived at their destination, she heard something on the radio that piqued her interest. "Can you turn that up?" she asked. The hosts of the Christian radio show were discussing a verse from the book of Joshua where God says to Joshua, "I will be with you as I was with Moses. I will not fail you and I will not forsake you." Just then, the car stopped at her destination.She shared that as she was riding in the Lyft, she was feeling deeply afraid and alone. Hearing that verse gave her strength. As she put it, “how freaking amazing to get that message from Christian radio of all places in the exact moment I needed it….[and] of all the verses they could possibly be discussing, they are not only discussing verses from my part of the Bible as a Jew, but they are also discussing the exact verses that I need to put my faith in right now.” When she got out of the Lyft, she stood taller and stronger, fortified by the wisdom of Torah echoing through Christian radio.Now, let's just pause for a moment. Think about this: What if our member had just been in that car, stressing about her meeting, messing around on her phone, tuning out the world? That would have been a totally reasonable response. In a stressful situation, it is so tempting to disconnect. It is so tempting to lose oneself in music, social media, reading and entertainment, or in chemical substances. But she was sitting in that car with her phone put away, looking out the window, listening to a random radio broadcast in her Lyft. Because her eyes and ears were open to possibility, that's how she received the wisdom she needed for that moment.

In 1992, then 25-year-old Sinéad O'Connor appeared on Saturday Night Live. She was a budding international musical superstar with two chart-topping records to her name. And, unbeknownst to producers, she had decided to use her platform to protest rampant child abuse in the Catholic Church. At the end of her performance, she stared straight into the camera, tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II and threw it at the camera as she shouted, “fight the real enemy.”Now remember, 1992 was almost a decade before the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church would come to light in this country. Not only were most Americans unaware of the evils that had unfolded behind closed doors, but they were also outraged that a pop star would dare to dishonor and defame a venerated religious leader. Sinéad was immediately and very publicly scorned, mocked, and ridiculed.Two weeks later, she was scheduled to perform at a special Madison Square Garden concert. Country music star Kris Kristofferson introduced her by saying, “I'm real proud to introduce this next artist, whose name's become synonymous with courage and integrity, Sinéad O'Connor.” As soon as he says her name, the crowd begins to boo and jeer at her. Sinéad walks on stage and stands in the face of that hate for what seems like forever. She adjusts her mic, tries saying “thank you” the way she would begin any other performance, but the crowd just keeps screaming at her. The band tries to save her by starting her song, but she cuts them off. 20,000 people in the audience are still booing. Jeering. The hate doesn't end. She stares out, waiting. Kris returns. He leans in and whispers something in her ear, then walks away. Again, the band tries to temper the vitriol of the crowd with instrumentals to no avail. Finally, Sinéad says, “turn this up,” and then begins to sing/scream the same song she sang on Saturday Night Live. She gets out every word. The crowd is still booing. She finishes, turns and begins to walk off the stage. Kris meets her, hugs her, and the two exit together.As a performer, I cannot imagine the grit it took to stand strong in front of 20,000 angry, booing audience members; not only to stand strong but to have the presence of mind to be able to pause and reflect about what she wanted to do, how she wanted to proceed, to decide to sing the very same song that earned her all of this vitriol. Later she would share that she herself was the victim of abuse growing up. That the picture she shredded belonged to her abusive mother. That she wasn't just taking a stand for victims in general, but for herself and for every child that had ever been abused. That she believed that she was more than a pretty voice and had an obligation to stand for justice. Fundamentally she was right. A decade later, the country would be roiled by revelations of abuse, cover ups, and the church would begin paying out settlements. But she was a ahead of her time. That courageous stand ended her career.This story made the rounds in September of 2024, when Kris Kristofferson passed away, because this moment of support kindled a beautiful friendship that would last for the next thirty-one years. But it resurfaced in my memory this week for a very different reason.

There is an obligation to recite the entire Hallel service on each of the eight days of Hanukah. This obligation applies regardless of whether one prays privately or with a Minyan; in either case, one is required to recite Hallel. Before reciting Hallel, one recites the Beracha, "…Asher Kideshanu Be'misvotav Ve'sivanu Li'gmor Et Ha'Hallel," and after the recitation, one recites the concluding Beracha of "Yehalelucha." If one mistakenly recited the "half-Hallel" on Hanukah – meaning, he omitted the sections of Hallel that are not recited during Hallel on Rosh Hodesh – then he must repeat the Hallel. However, he does not recite a Beracha before or after his repetition of Hallel. Women are exempt from the obligation of Hallel. Even though they are included in the obligation of the Hanukah candle lighting, they are nevertheless exempt from the Hallel obligation, just as they are not required to recite Hallel on the Yamim Tobim (Pesah, Shavuot and Sukkot). A woman who wishes to recite the complete Hallel on Hanukah may certainly do so, but she should not recite the Berachot before or after the Hallel. One may not make any interruptions during the recitation of Hallel. One should not speak at all during Hallel, or use any gadgets – such as cell phones or Tablets – during Hallel. (Of course, one should not be using these gadgets at any point during the prayer service, as this is very disrespectful to the service.) However, if a person hears somebody recite a Beracha while he recites Hallel, he should answer "Amen" to the Beracha. Likewise, one may respond to Kaddish, Kedusha or Barechu during the Hallel recitation. It occasionally happens that the congregation completes Hallel and the Hazzan begins Kaddish before some congregants completed Hallel. They may interrupt their recitation of Hallel in order to answer to Kaddish. It is interesting to note that there is a verse in the Torah which alludes to the twenty-one days when we recite the complete Hallel. The Torah writes that before the flood, "Shenayim Shenayim Ba'u El Noah" ("two of each [animal] came to Noah" – Bereshit 7:9). The first word, "Shenayim" ("two"), alludes to the first two days of Pesah, when Diaspora communities recite the complete Hallel (as opposed to the other days of Pesah, when the half-Hallel is recited). The second "Shenayim" alludes to the two days of Shabuot, and the word "Ba'u" ("they came") has the numerical value of nine, referring to the nine days of Sukkot, Shemini Aseret and Simhat Torah. Finally, Noah's name in the phrase "El Noah" may be read as an acronym for the phrase "Ner Hanukah," thus alluding to the eight days of Hanukah, when we recite the full Hallel. Summary: Men are obligated to recite the complete Hallel on each day of Hanukah; women who wish to recite Hallel may do so, but without the Berachot. One who mistakenly recited "half-Hallel" on Hanukah must recite the whole Hallel, but without the Berachot. One may not make any interruptions during the Hallel recitation, except to answer "Amen" to a Beracha, or to respond to Kaddish, Kedusha or Barechu.

The volume of outrage in our world has hit a crescendo. All the time I hear questions like, “how can you bear to be around someone who voted like that?!” or “how can you stand working with people who are so anti-Zionist or who are so pro-Israel?” As if people who do not rage against those they disagree with are somehow condoning or supporting evil perspectives. Young people, already stressed by the pressures of their own lives, feel pressured to respond to hateful social media posts and/or to present content that will fight against what they see as evil lies. Everything is pitched as though the conversation is an existential battle between good and evil and each one of us is either fighting for good or conceding to forces of evil. We saw this so sharply this week. When Luigi Mangione murdered Brian Thompson in broad daylight, the story on the street and on social media wasn't about a horrific crime against humanity. People lionized Luigi, they asked him on dates, they offered to be his alibi, they fundraised for his legal costs, they even competed in dress-alike competitions. Why? Because they see him as someone willing to take decisive action against the evils of our world, never mind that he committed an atrocious crime and never mind that killing Brian Thompson does nothing to fix our broken health care system nor address the real pain of the American people. There's a word for this energy in our tradition: zealotry. Zealots are people who are inspired by passion, who take action without due process, and who force the world to align with their vision. The most famous zealots in our tradition arose in a tumultuous time in our history. Way back in the first century, during the Second Temple Period, our ancestors were fighting to build a life in the shadow of the Roman Empire. At the time, the future of Judaism and Jewish community was precarious and there were different groups that had different ideas about what should happen. Some groups fought for justice and against elitism and classism that they felt were destroying society. Some believed that the Roman Empire was the way of the future. They promoted assimilation and Hellenization and worked to try to suppress Jewish revolt against the occupying power. While others raged against Roman rule, encouraging resistance to Roman culture and strict adherence to Jewish cultic rites. According to the Talmud, the elders of the Jewish community wanted to mobilize their community thoughtfully. But the zealots didn't have the patience for this. They felt an existential threat and believed it was their duty to force the Jewish community into action. They provoked and attacked the Romans, trying to incite violence. And when their guerilla tactics worked and the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem, the zealots burned the granaries and food stores in the city so our ancestors would be forced to fight for their lives. When we tell this story, we focus on our survival. We focus on Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's improbable escape in a coffin. We focus on his heroic journey to Yavne and the way he preserved the Judaism that he and the other rabbis believed in. But that leaves out a critical piece of our history. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had to escape because of the zealots, because their radical ideology created a toxic culture of violence which threatened our very existence. Today, more than ever, we need to remember the zealots.

Last week, I came across a fascinating article in the New York Times Magazine. Kim Tingley, in her article “‘Nature's Swiss Army Knife': What can we Learn from Venom ?” writes about the incredible potential of highly toxic reptile and insect venom to provide pharmaceutical miracles. It turns out that reptile and inspect venom contains hundreds, even thousands of molecules, which each have the ability to act in powerful ways on the human body. In the aggregate, the venom can have disastrous consequences. But applied strategically and sparingly, these compounds can make a world of difference. Take, for example, the wildly popular weight-loss drugs Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. These drugs were created from research into a venomous reptile called the Gila monster which lives mostly underground in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. It's a very striking lizard—typically they have a black head and matching black tongue, black legs, and a tiger-like pattern of orange and black down their back and tail. And they are highly toxic. If you Google them after shabbos, you'll find a bunch of stories of people who have lost their lives to chance encounters on hiking trails or from bites from Gila monster pets. Gila monster venom had been screened back in the 80s, but when gastroenterologist Jean-Pierre Raufman and endocrinologist John Eng re-screened it, they discovered a molecule that had been previously overlooked which resembled a hormone that regulates insulin in healthy humans. That molecule, which they called Exendin-4, is the basis for these weight-loss drugs which have so transformed the medical landscape. Learning about this research and these medicines made me wonder—what would happen if we were able to look at the toxins in our lives with the same outlook?  There is no universe where we would see all the misfortunes of our lives as helpful or even healing, but would it ever be possible to get to a place where we could see elements of the challenges in our lives as having blessed us with possibility?

November 9, 2024

When I was growing up, we spent a lot of time with my Grandpa Gene feeding the geese. My Mom kept a 50 lb. bag of birdseed in the car, and, even when Sir Grandfather, as he liked to be called, was not feeling well, we would drive to the pond, and he would sit and watch from the front seat as we tossed out birdseed to grateful honks. My grandfather also had this superpower. He could spot any flock of birds in the sky and would just know exactly the number of birds in an instant. He would look up and say 39 or 17 or 22 and we would start counting and a minute later, we would confirm his internal knowing. I loved my grandfather, and I loved the time we spent together, but I did not love birds. My mom and sister spent hours learning the different names and calls and colorings of all the local birds, but not me. I did not want to learn more. If someone would say to me, “wow, that's a beautiful bird—do you know what kind it is?” I would always say definitively, “yes, that's a mongor.” If they really didn't know, then I seemed smart, and we could move on to more interesting topics of conversation. And if they did know, well then, they would laugh, and then we could move on to more interesting topics of conversation. When Eder was born, we named him after my Grandpa Gene. It's funny, whenever I meet with soon-to-be parents and they want to talk about how to name their children, I always tell them that when you give your child the name of an ancestor, it's more than a name. I share that according to Jewish tradition, each one of us accrues blessings in our lifetime that live far longer than we do. When you name a child after someone you love, it's like giving them a spiritual trust fund. They get all the mitzvah points that their ancestor accrued during their lifetime, and they also earn their own mitzvah points with a great interest rate. I believed in this Torah, but I didn't fully get it. In my mind, by naming Eder after my grandfather, I was trying to create a link so that my grandpa could be connected to this little one even though they would never meet in real life. I wanted to create opportunities to talk about my grandfather and the qualities I hope Eder will emulate when he's older. I never could have predicted what has actually happened. Eder is 17 months old. He is just starting to express himself and to share his preferences. What does he love more than almost anything in the world? Birds.

Hacham Ovadia Yosef ZT"L rules that when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat, the Kabbalat Shabbat service is not recited on Friday night, the night of Yom Kippur. In such a case, he writes, we do not recite Mizmor Le'David or Lecha Dodi, and we instead begin the service with "Mizmor Shir Le'yom Ha'Shabbat" and then proceed directly to the hymn "Lecha Keli Teshukati." This is based on the position of the Kanhag ("Kenesset Ha'gedola" – Rabbi Haim Banbenishti, Turkey, 1603-1673), who writes that we do not receive a "Neshama Yetera" ("extra soul") when Shabbat falls on Yom Kippur, as we do on an ordinary Shabbat. Since we do not eat meals when Shabbat falls on Yom Kippur, we are not endowed with a "Neshama Yetera." (This is also the reason why we do not recite a Beracha on Besamim after Yom Kippur even when it falls on Shabbat.) The Kanhag thus writes that according to Kabbalistic teaching, we do not recite Kabbalat Shabbat on the eve of Shabbat Yom Kippur. From the Gemara, however, it appears that there is no difference between Shabbat Yom Kippur and ordinary Shabbatot with respect to Kabbalat Shabbat. Therefore, Hacham Ovadia Yosef follows the position that we omit most of Kabbalat Shabbat but recite "Mizmor Shir Le'yom Ha'Shabbat," to satisfy all views. However, the custom of our community does not follow Hacham Ovadia's ruling in this regard. As written in our Mahzorim, we follow the custom to recite the ordinary Kabbalat Shabbat on the eve of Shabbat Yom Kippur. The only exception is that we obviously omit the recitation of "Bameh Madlikin." Thus, according to our custom, the procedure for the Yom Kippur eve prayers when it falls on Friday night is as follows: Mizmor Le'David, Lecha Dodi, Mizmor Shir, Kol Yisrael, Rabbi Hananya, and Lecha Keli, followed by the standard Yom Kippur service. It should be noted that "Lecha Keli," with which we begin the Yom Kippur service, is an especially significant prayer. Some say it was authored by Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (Spain, 1089-1164), whereas others claim that it was written by his contemporary, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi. The hymn is a confession of sin, and it is recited as the sun sets on the eve of Yom Kippur in order to ensure that we have no opportunity to sin between or confession on Ereb Yom Kippur and the onset of Yom Kippur itself. (In fact, some claim that it was originally written as a deathbed confession to be recited in the final moments of one's life.) This is not a song that we sing for inspiration, or simply to feel joyous and uplifted, but rather a very significant prayer that must be recited with seriousness and concentration. When Yom Kippur eve falls on Friday night, we recite after the Amida prayer in Arbit "Vayechulu" and the Me'en Sheba blessing. The Hazzan must ensure to recite "Ha'Melech Ha'kadosh She'en Kamohu," as opposed to the usual text of "Ha'Kel Ha'kadosh She'en Kamohu." There is considerable discussion and debate among the Poskim concerning the case where a Hazan mistakenly recited "Ha'Kel Ha'kadosh" and completed the Beracha before his mistake was noticed. Hacham Ovadia Yosef rules that since this issue is subject to debate, the Hazan does not repeat the Beracha in such a situation. Clearly, however, care must be taken to recite the Beracha properly and to avoid this question. Summary: Different customs exist concerning the Kabbalat Shabbat service on the night of Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat. The custom in our community is to recite the full Kabbalat Shabbat service as we do every Friday night, omitting only "Bameh Madlikin." When Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat, we recite after the Amida of Arbit "Vayechulu" and "Me'en Sheba." The Hazzan must remember to recite "Ha'Melech Ha'kadosh She'en Kamohu," as opposed to the usual text of "Ha'Kel Ha'kadosh She'en Kamohu." If he mistakenly recited "Ha'Kel Ha'kadosh," he does not repeat the Beracha.

What do we do when the way we feel on the inside doesn't match what we feel we have to project on the outside? Or even more generally, what do we do when our insides don't match our outsides? I was thinking about this recently as I was reading a fascinating New York Times interview with Steve Burns, the actor on Blue's Clues. If you weren't tuned into preschool television in the late 90s and early 2000s, Blues Clues was a show on Nickelodeon wherein the host, Steve Burns, invited little kids to help figure out what Blue the dog had been up to by interpreting Blue's pawprints. On the show, Steve was a gregarious, curious, engaging adult who reveled in the joy of simple discovery. Viewers saw him ensconced in a cozy, cartoon living room and surrounded by friends including the cheery dog, Blue. Viewers saw him as a star—the show became immediately and wildly popular. In its heyday, it was the highest rated American tv show for preschoolers and was syndicated in 120 countries and translated into 15 languages. But, in the interview, Steve shared that his experience on the show was very different. He would show up at work wearing his signature green shirt and walk into a plain blue room. There were no props, no pets, no visual stimulation, no one else—just him, the blue screens, and the cameras. And, because the show was designed to help kids to think creatively and to spark their own problem-solving skills, there wasn't much to the script either. Much of his time was spent asking questions to the air and pretending to hear the responses. It was exhausting and intense. He says his years on the show were some of the loneliest years of his life. And yet, what is so interesting is that he got caught up in the hype of the show. At the time, he didn't recognize what he was feeling. It was only years after he left the show that he began to process what it was like for him then. And it took decades for him to discover that he had been battling undiagnosed clinical depression for all that time. In other words, here is someone who looks like he's having fun and is so happy and fulfilled, who feels exhausted and depressed on the inside, and yet swallows those emotions to get through the day. That dichotomy is one that many of us can relate to. We too sometimes move through the world with seemingly happy smiles and cartoonish well-being that covers up the challenges we are struggling with on the inside. Or we're filled with joy, but our inner happiness is juxtaposed against the world's tsuris in a way that makes us feel like we shouldn't be so happy. Or we're trying to broadcast smart, capable professional all the while we feel on the inside like an imposter and a failure. No matter what the difference is between what other people see and what we feel, the experience of living in multiple realities can feel painful. What do we do with this dichotomy?

It is customary to conclude the Selihot service with "Kaddish Titkabal," the Kaddish which is normally recited after the repetition of the Amida. This Kaddish includes the phrase, "Titkabal Selot'hon U'ba'ut'hon De'chol Bet Yisrael," in which we ask the Almighty to accept the prayers we had just recited. It is therefore normally reserved for after the Hazzan's repetition of the Amida, and the question arises as to why we recite it following the Selihot service. The Lebush (Rabbi Mordechai Yaffe, 1530-1612) suggests that "Kaddish Titkabal" is indeed an appropriate conclusion to the Selihot service because this service is structured in a manner resembling the normal prayer service. We introduce Selihot with "Ashreh," and some communities add other chapters from Tehilim, as well. This introductory section of Selihot thus parallels "Pesukeh De'zimra," the series of chapters from Tehilim which we recite as the first stage of our daily prayer service. The main body of the Selihot service is the recitation of the "Yag Midot," or thirteen attributes of divine compassion, which, according to the Lebush, parallels the Amida prayer. Thereafter, we recite "Le'David," just as we do following the Amida prayer. Thus, since the Selihot service was structured in this manner, it is only fitting to conclude Selihot with "Kaddish Titkabal," just as we conclude the regular prayer service with this Kaddish. Divergent customs exist concerning the recitation of "Va'ya'abor" and the thirteen attributes of divine mercy in the Selihot service. The practice in the Bet-El Yeshiva in Israel, based on the teachings of Kabbala, is to recite this section four times during the Selihot service, corresponding with the four letters in the Divine Name of "Havaya." We, however, follow the custom to recite this section five times, corresponding with the five books of the Humash. We recite during the Selihot service, "Re'eh Be'oni Amecha Yisrael, Refa Kol Holeh Amecha Yisrael" – "Behold the destitution of Your nation Israel; heal all the ill of Your nation Israel." What connection is there between these two clauses – "the destitution of Your nation Israel," and the request that God "heal all the ill of Your nation Israel"? Rabbi Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1869) explained the connection based on a comment in Masechet Derech Eretz that if one does not give money to charity, then he will ultimately be forced to give money to a physician. The money that a person failed to give to charity, the Sages teach, will be given to cover extra medical costs, Heaven forbid. Accordingly, we cry to the Almighty to "behold the destitution of Your nation Israel," to look upon the charitable donations that we have made. In that merit, we beseech Him to "heal all the ill of Your nation Israel," as the great merit of Sedaka has the power to save us from illness. Summary: It is customary to recite "Kaddish Titkabal" at the conclusion of the Selihot service, since Selihot is structured just like the daily prayer service, in which "Kadidsh Titkabal" is recited after the Amida. The custom in our community is to recite the section of "Va'ya'abor" and the thirteen attributes of mercy five times over the course of the Selihot service.