Podcasts about Hazzan

Sephardic practice allows one to remain seated during Kaddish, but if one had been standing when Kaddish begins, then he must remain standing. If somebody sees his fellow about to sit down during Kaddish, then he should remind him of the Halachic requirement to remain standing. Sometimes a person enters the synagogue in the middle of the prayer service, and, seeing that people are sitting, he goes to sit down in his seat, not realizing that the Hazzan is reciting Kaddish. One who sees his fellow about to make this mistake should remind him that he must stand. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that if one fears that this might embarrass his fellow, then he should not say anything. There is a minority view among the Poskim – that of the Pekudat Elazar – that one is required to remain standing during Kaddish only if the entire synagogue is standing. According to this view, if one enters the synagogue in the middle of the Kaddish, and the congregation is sitting, then he is allowed to sit. Although Halacha does not follow this opinion, it may be relied upon to avoid the risk of making one's fellow uncomfortable by pointing out his mistake. Therefore, if one has reason to fear that the person who is mistakenly sitting might feel slightly embarrassed, it is better to remain silent and not say anything. Summary: If a person who had been standing before Kaddish begins sitting down after Kaddish began, his fellow should point out to him that Halacha requires him to remain standing, unless this would make him uncomfortable, in which case it is preferable to remain silent.

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

One who recites Kaddish should do so loudly enough for the entire congregation to hear him. If, however, one is incapable of reciting Kaddish loudly, he may nevertheless recite Kaddish – as long as others in the congregation are reciting Kaddish loudly at the same time. This is the ruling of the Petah Ha'debir (Rav Haim Pontromoli, Turkey, d. 1873), and of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his Rav Pe'alim. The Ben Ish Hai adds that the practice in Bet El – a yeshiva of Kabbalists in Jerusalem – was that the Hazzan recited Kaddish aloud with the deep kabbalistic intentions, and those who did know these intentions recited Kaddish silently along with the Hazzan. This way, they could be considered to recite Kaddish with these deep intentions. Nevertheless, the Ben Ish Hai writes that as a general rule, congregants reciting Kaddish should do so in a loud voice. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), by contrast, maintained that this practice is valid, though he added that the congregants who silently recite Kaddish should stand at a distance from the Hazzan, and that they should recite Kaddish loudly enough for two or three people near them to hear. By contrast, the Binyan Sion (Rav Yaakov Ettlinger, Germany, 1798-1871) ruled that one may not recite Kaddish silently. As for the final Halacha, one who cannot recite Kaddish loudly may recite it quietly, though he should try to ensure that at least two or three people near him can hear his recitation. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) ruled similarly regarding the case where many people recite Kaddish, and because they do not recite it in unison, the recitation is chaotic and none of them can be heard. While this situation is, of course, undesirable, and the people reciting Kaddish should strive to do so in unison, nevertheless, if the recitation is chaotic, one is nevertheless permitted to recite Kaddish with the others, even though he will not be heard. Summary: One who recites Kaddish must do so in a loud voice, so that he can be heard by everyone in the synagogue. If one cannot recite Kaddish loudly, he may recite it quietly, though he should try to ensure that at least two or three people near him can hear his recitation.

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

Kaddish is a prayer asking that Hashem's Name shall be recognized, revered and glorified throughout the world. When we answer to the Hazzan, "Amen, Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," we are essentially joining in this prayer, affirming that we, too, pray and yearn for the time when G-d's Name will be great. The Rabbis teach that during our period of exile, G-d's Name is "incomplete," as it were, consisting only of the first two letters – Yod and Heh. This is indicated in Hashem's pronouncement following the war against Amalek, "Ki Yad Al Kes Y-ah" (Shemot 17:16) – that as long as Amalek has yet to be defeated, and evil still exists in the world, G-d's Name is "Y-ah," consisting of only two letters. In the future, the Vav and the second Heh will be added to complete the Name. The Hazzan thus begins Kaddish with the words "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash," which together consist of eleven letters – an allusion to the letters Vav and Heh, which have the combined number value of 11. "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba" is a prayer that G-d's Name shall be "completed" through its glorification among all peoples on earth. We therefore proclaim in our response to Kaddish, "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" – that Hashem's Name shall be "Rabba," "large" and complete, with the arrival of Mashiah, when G-d's Name will be acknowledged and respected throughout the world. Because we respond to Kaddish so often – numerous times each day – we are prone to answering mindlessly, without paying attention to what we are saying. We should try, as much as possible, to concentrate on the meaning of the Hazzan's declaration, and on the meaning of our response – that we are praying for G-d's Name to be known and glorified throughout the world. Some have the custom when the Hazzan begins Kaddish to recite the verse, "Ve'ata Yigdal Na Koah Hashem…" (Bamidbar 14:17). However, the Arizal taught that this practice is incorrect. One should listen silently and attentively to the Hazzan's recitation, and then have in mind when responding that we are joining in his prayer for the glorification of the divine Name.

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

Our custom is to extend the "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response during Kaddish all the way to "Da'amiran Be'alma." It sometimes happens that the Hazzan does not recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" slow enough to allow the congregation to complete their response before he recites "De'Kudsha Berich Hu." The congregation is meant to answer "Amen" to "De'Kudsha Berich Hu," and the question thus arises as to whether they may answer if they are still in the middle of their "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response, having yet to reach "Da'amiran Be'alma." The Arizal, in Sha'ar Ha'kavanot, implies that one should not respond to "De'Kudsha Berich Hu" if he is still in the middle of "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." This is the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Rav Pe'alim. One could explain that the "Amen" response to "De'Kudsha Berich Hu" is less significant than the other "Amen" responses to Kaddish, as evidenced by the fact that not all customs require answering "Amen" at that point. This response therefore does not justify interrupting "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." In truth, however, the Ben Ish Hai applied this ruling even if the Hazzan recites "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" so fast that he reaches "Da'amiran Be'alma" before the congregation. In the Ben Ish Hai's view, even the "Amen" response to "Da'amiran Be'alma" does not justify interrupting "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." This was the position also of Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998). Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed. He maintained that although one should not interrupt "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" to respond to "De'kudsha Berich Hu," one should interrupt to respond to "Da'amiran Be'alma." Optimally, of course, the Hazzan should recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" slowly, in order to allow the congregation to complete their response before the Hazzan reaches "De'Kudsha Berich Hu." The Ben Ish Hai laments the fact that he was hardly ever able to answer "Amen" to "De'Kudsha Berich Hu," because the Hazzanim in Baghdad recited "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" too quickly. He repeatedly asked them to recite it more slowly, but they did not. The Hazzan should preferably pause before beginning "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," and then recite it slowly, so that the congregation can finish their response in time to answer to "De"Kudsha Berich Hu." Summary: Hazzanim should recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" in Kaddish slowly, to ensure that the congregation completes their response in time to answer "Amen" to "De"Kudsha Berich Hu." If one has yet to complete his "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response before the Hazzan reaches "De"Kudsha Berich Hu," he should not interrupt his response to answer "Amen." Regarding one who does not finish his "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response before the Hazzan reaches "Da'amiran Be'alma," different views exist among the Poskim as to whether he should interrupt his response to answer "Amen" at that point.

Even before she stepped into her ski boots to compete in Cortina, Lindsey Vonn's story was profound. To be a top contender at the age of 41, after six years of retirement, after a partial knee replacement and countless serious injuries, is remarkable in and of itself. But Vonn wasn't just competing 24 years after her first Olympic games, and she wasn't just competing on a body which had recovered from countless serious injuries. Just days before the Olympics, Vonn ruptured her ACL racing in Switzerland. Where most athletes would have taken a year to recover, Vonn was planning to ski nearly 100 mph down a notoriously difficult cliff face in the hopes of winning another Olympic gold.The New York Times story about her leading up to the race was titled, “Linsey Vonn is Skiing on One Good Knee, but It's a Helluva Knee.” There was so much excitement for her race. As her teammate, Mikaeila Shiffrin put it, “her tenacity and grit, and what she's showing up with this Olympics and staying true to her own values, that's just straight up beautiful.”When Lindsey crashed, all that positive energy shifted. There were nasty comments all over the internet and social media. People said she had no business skiing on a ruptured ACL. That of course she wiped out. How irresponsible. The blow back was so intense that her teammates and coach, even the president of the International Ski and Snowboard Federation, all began making public statements to defend her.It was a fascinating turn-around. Before Vonn crashed into the gate, there was no critique of her choice, simply admiration. Everyone was talking about how amazing it would be if she could win. But when she caught the gate and crashed, suddenly there was so much blame, so much anger and resentment directed towards her. As if she were wrong to dream. As if the only thing that mattered was winning. As if losing with an injury was somehow embarrassing.We have to talk about that turn-around, about that shift. Because that move, to applaud effort as long as it's successful, to criticize risk-taking when it doesn't turn out, that instinct is so tempting and so dangerous. How often do we hold back because we are too afraid of failing? How often do we foreclose the possibility of joy because we are too afraid to take a risk?

Often, on Shabbat and Yamim Tobim, the Hazzan sings the Kaddish in a melodious tune, and in some synagogues, the congregation joins the Hazzan's singing. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that this is improper. The Kaddish is only for the Hazzan to recite; the congregation must listen silently and respond, without joining in the Hazzan's recitation.

The final Kaddish recited in the prayer service (either Kaddish Al Yisrael, or Kaddish Yeheh Shelama) is customarily recited by mourners. If there are no mourners, then the Kaddish is usually recited by somebody whose mother or father had passed away, Heaven forbid. It sometimes happens, however, that there is nobody in attendance to say Kaddish – no mourners, and nobody who had lost a parent. What should be done in this situation? I recall hearing Rabbi Max Maslaton teach that Kaddish is part of the prayer service, and it must therefore not be skipped, just like no other part of the prayer service may be skipped. Beyond the benefit the Kaddish recitation brings to the soul of a departed parent, it also is intrinsically significant as an important part of the Tefila. Therefore, Rabbi Maslaton said that somebody who is not prepared to recite the final Kaddish should not serve as Hazzan, because if there is nobody in the congregation to recite the final Kaddish, then the Hazzan should recite it. In practice, however, there are many people who feel uneasy about reciting Kaddish if both their parents are alive. I recall as a student in Magen David, where I would often serve as Hazzan, Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim told me to ask my father if he allowed me to recite the final Kaddish. I did, and my father did not permit it. This feeling is quite common, and one whose parents do not feel comfortable with him reciting this Kaddish should not do so. Inherently, however, there is no concern whatsoever about this Kaddish recitation bringing "bad luck" or posing any sort of danger to the parents. Therefore, unless the Hazzan's parents have strong feelings about the matter, he should recite the final Kaddish if nobody in the congregation does.

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

The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat (119) speaks of the great merit earned by responding "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" to Kaddish, stating that responding "with all one's strength" has the ability to annul harsh decrees issued against a person. The conventional understanding of this teaching is that it refers to responding with Kavana (concentration), with full attention and emotion. However, Tosafot cite an explanation that the Gemara speaks here of responding in a loud voice. Accordingly, the Shulhan Aruch writes that one should respond to Kaddish both with Kavana, and in a loud voice. Although it is proper to respond to Kaddish out loud, one must ensure not to turn his response into a spectacle. The purpose of Kaddish is to bring glory to Hashem – not to bring glory to oneself. Therefore, if one responds to Kaddish in a manner that brings attention to himself, this undermines the entire purpose of this prayer. Generally speaking, it is improper when responding to the Hazzan's prayer to do so more loudly than the Hazzan. The verse in Tehillim (34:4) states, "Gadelu L'Hashem Iti" – "Give praise to G-d with me," implying that the leader and the congregation should pray together, at the same volume, without trying to drown out each other. Accordingly, when responding to Kaddish, one should ensure not to respond in a louder voice than the Hazzan (or of whoever it is who recites Kaddish). Interestingly, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that this Halacha does not apply to the response of "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." He contended that "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" is not a response to the Hazzan, but rather an independent declaration. Therefore, one may recite "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" even more loudly than the Hazzan. The accepted Halacha, however, does not follow this view, and instead treats "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" as a response, which must therefore not be declared in a louder voice than the Hazzan's. Accordingly, the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that the Hazzan or person reciting Kaddish should ensure to say Kaddish loudly, so that the congregation can answer out loud without answering more loudly than him. Summary: One should respond to Kaddish with concentration and in a loud voice, though one should not respond more loudly than the Hazzan (or other person reciting Kaddish). Therefore, one who recites Kaddish should do so loudly, so that the congregation can respond loudly but not more loudly than his recitation.

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.

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

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

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.