Podcasts about Minyan

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 99:1) rules that if a person has become inebriated such that he cannot articulate his words properly, and is not fit to appear before a king, then he may not pray, and if he does pray in such a condition, his prayer is considered an "abomination." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) cites the Bet Yehuda (Rav Yehuda Ayash, Algeria, 1700-1759) as ruling that a person in this state cannot be counted toward a Minyan. Interestingly, the Ben Ish Hai adds that since people in such a condition do not necessarily appear drunk, it is important to ensure that the ten men who comprise a Minyan are in fact sober and worthy of being counted. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, noted that this is not, in fact, what the Bet Yehuda wrote. The Bet Yehuda wrote that a person cannot be counted toward a Minyan if he had reached the point of "Shichruto Shel Lot" – the level of intoxication reached by Lot, who was so inebriated that he had intimate relations with his daughters, as he did not recognize them. It is only if a person is drunk to this extent, that he is entirely unaware of what is happening and is not thinking straight at all, that he may not be counted toward a Minyan. Such a person is exempt from Misvot due to his temporary state of mental impairment, and so he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If, however, a person is merely tipsy, then although he should not pray, he may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan. Hacham Ovadia noted that even somebody who is asleep can be counted toward a Minyan, so certainly somebody who is drunk can be counted, as long as he has not reached the point of "Shichruto Shel Lot." Apparently, Hacham Ovadia writes, the Ben Ish Hai saw a faulty edition of the Bet Yehuda which mistakenly stated that even mild inebriation disqualifies a person from being counted. Hacham Ovadia noted that a number of other Poskim also cited the Bet Yehuda as disqualifying even a mildly inebriated person, as they, too, evidently used the faulty edition of this work. The Mishna Berura writes that if necessary, a mentally challenged individual may be counted toward a Minyan if he has enough understanding to pray properly and recognize that he prays to Hashem. If there is no other option, then such a person may be counted. Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that this would apply also to a mildly inebriated individual, who may be counted toward a Minyan when necessary. This situation often arises on Purim, when people drink and become inebriated. Summary: A person who is so drunk that he is entirely unaware of what he is doing may not be counted toward a Minyan. If a person is tipsy and cannot enunciate his words properly, then he should not pray, but he may be counted toward a Minyan, especially if he is needed for forming the Minyan.

An individual who, Heaven forbid, suffers from a physical impairment or disability may be counted toward a Minyan. The concept of a Minyan is rooted in the fact that the Shechina resides among an assembly of ten Jews, and this includes Jews with physical impairments. Therefore, if a person is unable to hear, or is unable to speak, he may be counted toward a Minyan. If, however, a person is both deaf and mute – unable to hear or speak – then he may not be counted toward a Minyan. The reason is that in the past, such a person could not be taught, and thus unfortunately would remain ignorant. He thus has the same status as a child or a mentally challenged adult, who cannot be counted toward a Minyan. The question arises whether this Halacha applies nowadays, when, Baruch Hashem, educational methods are available to teach people who can neither hear nor speak. (In fact, there is a yeshiva in Toronto for students who are both deaf and mute, and the Rosh Yeshiva is himself a deaf-mute.) Many Poskim maintain that if a deaf-mute has been taught and now has the ability to read, write and function like an ordinary person, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. Others, however, disagree. In light of this dispute, Rav Yisrael Bitan ruled that an educated deaf-mute can be counted toward a Minyan for all parts of the prayer service which do not include the recitation of Berachot. Thus, for example, if he is one of ten men, they may recite Kaddish and Barechu, but the Hazzan should not repeat the Amida, since the blessings of the Amida will be considered in vain according to the opinion that an educated deaf-mute cannot be counted. Rav Bitan writes that in such a case, the Hazzan should recite the Amida aloud while the congregation recites it silently, so they can recite Nakdishach. The Torah may be read in such a case, but the Berachot may not be recited. Another question arises regarding the status of a deaf-mute who is able to hear through cochlear implants. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that since this individual can hear, he is like a regular person and can certainly count toward a Minyan according to all opinions. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), however, disagreed. He argued that a person's status depends on his physical capabilities, and an artificial device allowing him to hear does not change his status. Therefore, even if a person can hear with the help of a cochlear implant, in Rav Moshe's view, he is still considered deaf. However, even according to Rav Moshe, if a deaf-mute receives a cochlear implant and then learns how to speak, he is no longer considered mute, and so he can be counted toward a Minyan. Summary: A person with a physical impairment, or who is deaf or mute, can be counted toward a Minyan. A deaf-mute, however, who can neither speak nor hear, cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If he is educated, then it is questionable whether he can be counted toward a Minyan, and so if he is the tenth man, Kaddish and Barechu may be recited, but not the repetition of the Amida, due to the possibility of the blessings being in vain. In such a case, the Hazzan should recite the Amida aloud while the congregation recites it silently, so they can recite Nakdishach. If the person can hear with cochlear implants, then according to one opinion he is not considered deaf, whereas others maintain that he is still a deaf-mute, unless he has learned to speak.

A person who has lost an immediate family member, Heaven forbid, has the status of "Onen" from the time of the death until the burial, a status which exempts him from Misva obligation, including the requirement to pray. As such, an Onen cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If nine men wish to make a Minyan, and the only person they can find to complete the Minyan is an Onen, he cannot be counted. Importantly, however, this applies only until the point that the Hebra Kadisha has taken responsibility for the burial arrangements. Once the Hebra Kadisha assumes responsibility, the deceased family members may be counted toward a Minyan. Moreover, on Shabbat, when burial arrangements cannot be made, the family members do not have the status of Onen, and so they may be counted toward a Minyan. Years ago, people would be put into formal excommunication – "Nidui" – for certain transgressions. The Poskim write that the status of a Menudeh (person in excommunication) vis-à-vis Minyan depends on the circumstances of his Nidui. If he was excommunicated for a grave transgression that he had committed, then he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If, however, he was placed into Nidui for improperly handling a financial dispute, then he may be counted. Likewise, if he treated a Torah sage disrespectfully, and the sage placed him in Nidui, then he may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan. Even in situations where a Menudeh may not be counted toward a Minyan, the congregation may pray in his presence; they do not need to send him out of the synagogue. The status of Nidui requires people to keep a distance from the individual (approximately two meters), but they may pray even though he is in the room. However, if the Bet Din that declared the excommunication included in their declaration a provision barring the individual's participation in a Minyan, then the congregation may not pray in his presence. The Bet Yosef cites the Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) as addressing the case of a congregation that refused to pray because a Menudeh was present. The Ribash ruled that the congregants acted with unnecessary zealotry, as there is no prohibition against praying in the presence of a Menudeh unless this provision was included in the Nidui decree. The Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1892), cited by the Mishna Berura, raises the possibility that even a Menudeh who may not be counted toward a Minyan for prayer may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan for Megilla reading on Purim. The reading of the Megilla does not, strictly speaking, require a Minyan, but it is nevertheless a Misva to conduct the reading in a Minyan for the purpose of "Pirsumeh Nisa" – publicizing the miracle. Since the objective is Pirsum – publicity, it is likely that a person's status of Menudeh is irrelevant. When it comes to Tefila, the concept of a Minyan is that ten people assemble to form a group for prayer, and so a person who has been excommunicated cannot join together with other people for this purpose. For Megilla reading, however, it is necessary only for ten people to be present, not for them to join together and form a single unit. Therefore, it would stand to reason that even a Menudeh can be counted for this purpose.

Months in the Jewish calendar consist of either 29 or 30 days. When a month continues for 30 days, two days of Rosh Hodesh are observed – on the 30 th day of the month, and on the first day of the next month. Most months are consistent, having the same number of days each year. There are, however, a small number of months that fluctuate, as they sometimes have 29 days and sometimes 30. One such month is Heshvan. If a boy was born on the 30 th of Heshvan in a year when it had 30 days, and Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has only 29 days, then he becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day of Kislev. One might have thought that we define this boy's birthday as the day prior to the first of Kislev, such that he becomes a Bar-Misva on the 29 th of Heshvan. But this is not the case. We instead view him as having been born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev, and so he becomes Bar-Misva on the only day of Rosh Hodesh Kislev in the year of his Bar-Misva – namely, the first of Kislev. The Poskim dispute the Halacha in the reverse case, when a boy was born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev in a year when Heshvan had only 29 days, and there are two days of Rosh Hodesh Kislev in the year of his Bar-Misva. The Misha Berura and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) approvingly cite the view of the Bayit Hadash (Rav Yoel Sirkis, Poland, 1561-1640) that the boy in this case becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Heshvan, the first day of Rosh Hodesh. According to this opinion, we view the boy as having been born on the day after the 29 th of Heshvan, and thus in a year when Heshvan extends for 30 days, his birthday is the 30 th of Heshvan. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), however, disagreed. In his view, since the boy was born on the first of Kislev, this date is his birthday, and so he becomes Bar-Misva on this date irrespective of how many days the previous month had. Even if there are two days of Rosh Hodesh in the year of his Bar-Misva, he does not become a Bar-Misva until the date of his birth – the first of Kislev. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, ruled that the boy in this case should observe the stringencies of both opinions – meaning, he should ensure to observe all the Misvot already on the 30 th of Heshvan, but should not be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Kislev. Summary: If a boy was born on the 30 th of Heshvan in a year when Heshvan had 30 days, and Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has only 29 days, he becomes a Bar-Misva on the first of Kislev. If he was born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev in a year when Heshvan had only 29 days, and there was thus only one day of Rosh Hodesh, but Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has 30 days, it is unclear when he becomes a Bar-Misva. Therefore, he should ensure to observe all the Misvot already on the 30 th of Heshvan, but should not be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Kislev.

Months in the Jewish calendar consist of either 29 or 30 days. When a month continues for 30 days, two days of Rosh Hodesh are observed – on the 30 th day of the month, and on the first day of the next month. Most months are consistent, having the same number of days each year. There are, however, a small number of months that fluctuate, as they sometimes have 29 days and sometimes 30. One such month is Heshvan. If a boy was born on the 30 th of Heshvan in a year when it had 30 days, and Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has only 29 days, then he becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day of Kislev. One might have thought that we define this boy's birthday as the day prior to the first of Kislev, such that he becomes a Bar-Misva on the 29 th of Heshvan. But this is not the case. We instead view him as having been born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev, and so he becomes Bar-Misva on the only day of Rosh Hodesh Kislev in the year of his Bar-Misva – namely, the first of Kislev. The Poskim dispute the Halacha in the reverse case, when a boy was born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev in a year when Heshvan had only 29 days, and there are two days of Rosh Hodesh Kislev in the year of his Bar-Misva. The Misha Berura and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) approvingly cite the view of the Bayit Hadash (Rav Yoel Sirkis, Poland, 1561-1640) that the boy in this case becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Heshvan, the first day of Rosh Hodesh. According to this opinion, we view the boy as having been born on the day after the 29 th of Heshvan, and thus in a year when Heshvan extends for 30 days, his birthday is the 30 th of Heshvan. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), however, disagreed. In his view, since the boy was born on the first of Kislev, this date is his birthday, and so he becomes Bar-Misva on this date irrespective of how many days the previous month had. Even if there are two days of Rosh Hodesh in the year of his Bar-Misva, he does not become a Bar-Misva until the date of his birth – the first of Kislev. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, ruled that the boy in this case should observe the stringencies of both opinions – meaning, he should ensure to observe all the Misvot already on the 30 th of Heshvan, but should not be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Kislev. Summary: If a boy was born on the 30 th of Heshvan in a year when Heshvan had 30 days, and Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has only 29 days, he becomes a Bar-Misva on the first of Kislev. If he was born on Rosh Hodesh Kislev in a year when Heshvan had only 29 days, and there was thus only one day of Rosh Hodesh, but Heshvan in the year of his Bar-Misva has 30 days, it is unclear when he becomes a Bar-Misva. Therefore, he should ensure to observe all the Misvot already on the 30 th of Heshvan, but should not be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Kislev.

An interesting question arises in the case of a boy who was born during a leap year, on the 30 th day of Adar Rishon (the first Adar), and the year of his Bar-Misva is a regular, twelve-month year, when there is only one month of Adar. Since there is no 30 th day of Adar in a regular year, it is unclear which day is considered his birthday when he becomes a Bar-Misva. According to some Poskim, he becomes a Bar-Misva on the 30 th of Shevat. Since the boy was born on the day preceding the first of Adar Sheni – the second Adar, which is considered the real month of Adar during a leap year – he turns thirteen on the day preceding the first of Adar – namely, the 30 th of Shevat. This is the view of the Binyan Sion (Rav Yaakob Ettlinger, Germany, 1798-1871), the Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989), and Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that it cannot be determined conclusively whether this child becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Shevat or on the first of Nissan – the equivalent of 30 Adar, since Adar has only 29 days. Therefore, the boy must take into account both possibilities, meaning, he must strictly observe all Misvot already from 30 Shevat, but he cannot be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Nissan. A somewhat similar question arises in the case of a boy born on 30 Shevat in a regular year, and his Bar-Misva year is a leap year. The Binyan Sion ruled that since he was born on the day before the first of Adar, he becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Adar Rishon – the day before the first of the real month of Adar, Adar Sheni. Others, however, maintain that since he was born during the month of Shevat, his Bar-Misva date is not affected at all by the extra Adar added in the year of his Bar-Misva, and thus he becomes Bar-Misva on 30 Shevat. Here, too, Rav Shlomo Zalman ruled that the boy must follow the stringencies of both opinions. He must strictly observe all the Misvot already from 30 Shevat, but he may not be counted toward a Minyan until 30 Adar Rishon.

An interesting question arises in the case of a boy who was born during a leap year, on the 30 th day of Adar Rishon (the first Adar), and the year of his Bar-Misva is a regular, twelve-month year, when there is only one month of Adar. Since there is no 30 th day of Adar in a regular year, it is unclear which day is considered his birthday when he becomes a Bar-Misva. According to some Poskim, he becomes a Bar-Misva on the 30 th of Shevat. Since the boy was born on the day preceding the first of Adar Sheni – the second Adar, which is considered the real month of Adar during a leap year – he turns thirteen on the day preceding the first of Adar – namely, the 30 th of Shevat. This is the view of the Binyan Sion (Rav Yaakob Ettlinger, Germany, 1798-1871), the Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989), and Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that it cannot be determined conclusively whether this child becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Shevat or on the first of Nissan – the equivalent of 30 Adar, since Adar has only 29 days. Therefore, the boy must take into account both possibilities, meaning, he must strictly observe all Misvot already from 30 Shevat, but he cannot be counted toward a Minyan until the first of Nissan. A somewhat similar question arises in the case of a boy born on 30 Shevat in a regular year, and his Bar-Misva year is a leap year. The Binyan Sion ruled that since he was born on the day before the first of Adar, he becomes a Bar-Misva on 30 Adar Rishon – the day before the first of the real month of Adar, Adar Sheni. Others, however, maintain that since he was born during the month of Shevat, his Bar-Misva date is not affected at all by the extra Adar added in the year of his Bar-Misva, and thus he becomes Bar-Misva on 30 Shevat. Here, too, Rav Shlomo Zalman ruled that the boy must follow the stringencies of both opinions. He must strictly observe all the Misvot already from 30 Shevat, but he may not be counted toward a Minyan until 30 Adar Rishon.

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

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

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

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

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

It is customary for Kaddish to be recited after a group reads Tehillim or learns Torah. If only verses from Tanach were read, then Kaddish Yeheh Shelama Rabba is recited. If the learning included Torah She'be'al Peh, then Kaddish Al Yisrael – which includes a prayer for the Sages of Israel, who developed the Torah She'be'al Peh – is recited. Of course, the recitation of Kaddish requires the presence of a Minyan. Sometimes, when fewer than ten men were learning, and one wishes to recite Kaddish, they will bring in men to complete the Minyan to allow for the recitation of Kaddish. May Kaddish be recited immediately in such a case, or must another verse be read, or some more material learned, so that the newcomers read or learn something before Kaddish is recited? This issue is subject to a debate among the Poskim. The Taz (Rav David Segal, Poland, d. 1667) maintained that the newcomers do not need to participate in the learning, and so Kaddish may be recited immediately upon their arrival. The Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, Prague, d. 1612), by contrast, maintained that the men who are brought in must, in fact, learn something before Kaddish may be recited. He reached this conclusion on the basis of the ruling of the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) that at Minha, the congregation should not recite Ashreh without a Minyan. The Lebush understood that if a Minyan is not present for Ashreh, then even if the tenth man arrives immediately afterward, the half-Kaddish cannot then be recited, since there was no Minyan during the recitation of Ashreh. This indicates that a Minyan must be present not only for Kaddish, but for the learning or reading preceding the Kaddish. The Taz disagrees with this understanding of the Rama's ruling, and explains that Kaddish must be recited immediately after Ashreh, without any interruption, and so the congregation should not recite Ashreh without a Minyan, as they might then need to wait after Ashreh for a Minyan to arrive before saying Kaddish. The Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1633-1682) concurred with the ruling of the Lebush, explaining that Kaddish is recited after Torah learning because public Torah study, in the presence of ten men or more, creates a Kiddush Hashem (a glorification of Hashem's Name). After creating such a Kiddush Hashem, we declare, "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba" – that G-d's great name shall continue to be honored and glorified. As this is the reason for reciting Kaddish after learning, it follows that Kaddish is recited only if a Minyan was present during the learning. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) concludes that it is proper to abide by the stringent opinion, and thus if a tenth man arrives after the reading of Tehillim or Torah study, another chapter should be read, or another piece of Torah She'ba'al Peh should be learned, before the recitation of Kaddish. It is for this reason that the custom developed to recite the Mishna of "Rabbi Hananya Ben Akashya" before the recitation of Kaddish Al Yisrael following the study of Torah. In principle, this is not necessary, as the learning itself suffices to warrant the recitation of Kaddish. However, since sometimes the tenth man arrives only after the learning, it became customary to always add this brief Mishna just before Kaddish to ensure that a Minyan is present for the learning and not only for Kaddish. There is some discussion in the Poskim as to how many people must read a passage before Kaddish once the tenth man arrives. The general consensus seems to be that it suffices for just one person to read a passage, and this is, indeed, the common practice. Even someone who did not actually learn or read any verses may then recite Kaddish. Summary: If a group consisting of fewer than ten men read Tehillim or learned Torah, and then a Minyan arrived for Kaddish, someone must read another passage in the presence of the Minyan before the recitation of Kaddish. It is for this reason that the custom developed to recite the Mishna of "Rabbi Hananya Ben Akashya" before the recitation of Kaddish Al Yisrael after Torah study.

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.

When one counts a group of Jews to determine how many they are, he should do so indirectly. This Halacha is inferred from the Torah law of "Mahasit Ha'shekel," which requires that when a census of the nation is taken, this should be done by having every member donate a half-shekel, and this money is then counted to determine the number of people in Beneh Yisrael. The Torah warns, "Ve'lo Yiheyeh Bahem Negef Bi'fkod Otam" – counting directly could lead to a plague, Heaven forbid (Shemot 30:12). The commentaries explain that counting directly invites the "Ayin Ha'ra" ("evil eye"), and thus poses danger. This applies even when counting for the purpose of a Misva. Therefore, when one counts the men present in the synagogue to determine whether they comprise a Minyan, he should not count directly, saying, "One, two, three" and so on. Some people mistakenly think that it suffices to count people while saying, "Not one, "Not two," "Not three," and so on. This is incorrect, as saying "Not one" is no different from simply saying "one." The two commonly accepted methods for counting people are to either count silently in one's mind, without saying the numbers, or to use a verse consisting of ten words and count each person by saying a word from the verse. One such verse is "Hoshi'a Et Amecha U'barech Et Nahaletecha, U're'em Ve'nas'em Ad Ha'olam" (Tehillim 28:9). Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim would use the verse, "Masmi'ah Hasir La'behema Ve'eseb La'abodat Ha'adam, Le'hosi Lehem Min Ha'aretz" (Tehillim 104:14). Others use the blessing of Ha'mosi, which consists of ten words ("Baruch Ata Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam Ha'mosi Lehem Min Ha'aretz"). The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Mi'kabse'el (Parashat Vayehi), writes that the custom in Baghdad was to use a bead bracelet to count the people in the synagogue, separating one bead for each man in attendance.

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

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

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

When to pray mincha!? You should daven by urself instead of with a minyan!? You can't take in Shabbat early!?

​1)      How to react when seeing an unfamiliar Jew smoking on Shabbos ר"ל:2)      One who said Retzei in bentshing after Melave Malka,does he have to repeat?[1] 3)      A person observed a specific chumrah, believing that it was standard practise in his community. He the learned that it isn't so. Does he need Hatoras Nedorim?[2]4)      On Shabbos someone broke apart chopsticks, used for eating Sushi. Was that permissible?[3] 5)      I'm moving home. The incoming tenant is Jewish and is ready to pay for simple mezuzos that I will leave behind. There are mezuzos that were placed just lechumreh. The incoming says that I can take them with me. May I do so? [4]6)      May instant-soup-powder be added to hot water in a kli sheni on Shabbos?[5]7)      A worker removed a Mezuzah, in error. Do I say a brocho when reaffixing promptly?[6] 8)      When a Bris was held in the morning, the Baalei Bris omit Tachanun at Mincha too. Should they still join the Minyan when the 13 Midos hoRachamim are recited?[7]9)      Feedback on the spelling of the word שמונים in a Kesuba:[8][1] קצות השלחן סי' מזסי"ג כתב שאין צריך לחזור. וע"ע ס' שגיאות מי יבין ח"א פכ"הסי"ט.[2] ראהס' כל נדרי פע"ב ס"י ובהערה כ"ה.[3] ראה שוע"ר סי' תקידסי"ח. בס' שבת כהלכה ח"ד פל"א הערה רי חולק על היתר הגרשז"אלהפריד הכוסות של לבן זמ"ז.[4] האיסור להסיר מזוזה – ביו"ד סי' רצאס"א. החשש בנדו"ד – בס' שכל טוב, שם אות ל.[5] בס' שבת כהלכה פ"גסוף אות ח מזהיר בזה.  וכן בפסקי תשובות סי' שיח סוף אות לב.[6] בס'שכל טוב סי' רפט סק"ל מביא שיש לברך. והדע"ק מדמה לנפלה טליתו ממנו והואעודו לבוש ט"ק. ברם שם מיירי שהוריד טליתו שלא ע"מ להחזירה. שי"לשנפלה גרע, ראה סדור רבנו הזקן ח"ג ע' א'תעב.[7] בשו"ת אגרות משהאו"ח ח"ג סי' פט מחייב לומר בכדי שלא לשנות. אך לפי זה, מאי שנא שארתחנון - שאינו אומר?   [8] הערת הגר"י ברוין שליט"א: בכתובה(דאירכסא?) של כ"ק אדמו"ר זי"ע כתוב "שמונים". וכןבריבוי כתובת מדורות עברו.​

What if holiness isn't a place we visit, but a home we build? In Parshat Vayishlach, Chazal offer a powerful progression: Avraham called the sacred site a mountain, Yitzchak a field, and Yaakov a house. This isn't just poetry; it's a blueprint for spiritual growth. A mountain can be a chance ascent, a field requires cultivation, but a house is where you live. Yaakov's journey invites us to turn fleeting moments of inspiration into a durable, lived-in relationship with God—a spiritual home that can withstand the distractions of modern life.We explore how Yaakov's secret lies in the idea of keva: fixed times, fixed places, and fixed commitments. By setting boundaries for Shabbat before it was commanded, he demonstrated how structure protects sanctity. This principle appears in the halachic concept of chazaka (an established pattern) and the practical wisdom of having a makom kavua (a set place) for tefillah. Repetition, when infused with love, solidifies identity. The modern "minyan factory" mindset, with its endless menu of options, erodes this resolve. When there's always another minyan in fifteen minutes, prayer risks becoming a spiritual drive-through. We offer a counter-vision: elevate one primary minyan to be non-negotiable. Arrive a few minutes early. Let silence settle your heart before the words begin.This is a call to trade quantity for depth. Choose five to ten minutes of slow, focused learning over scattered moments. Find a chavrusa that can weather your calendar. Commit to a cycle of study that repeats until it sings from within, like those who restart the same masechta until it becomes their native tongue. Small, steady choices anchor a life of meaning: Torah as daily bread, not a passing snack; tefillah as a table you return to, not a slot you chase. The Torah says, Titain emes l'Yaakov—"Give truth to Jacob." If truth is what endures, then keva is how we make it endure.If this resonates, take one small step today. Choose a set minyan and a set learning time, and guard them. Subscribe for more thoughtful episodes, share this with a friend seeking a steadier path, and leave a review to tell us the first boundary you'll draw.Support the showJoin The Motivation Congregation WhatsApp community for daily motivational Torah content!------------------Check out our other Torah Podcasts and content! SUBSCRIBE to The Motivation Congregation Podcast for daily motivational Mussar! Listen on Spotify or 24six! Find all Torah talks and listen to featured episodes on our website, themotivationcongregation.org Questions or Comments? Please email me @ michaelbrooke97@gmail.com

Chaya Leah is back from Vegas, and boy does she have some stories to tell (not the kind you think, though. They are much, much worse). Also, are orthodox Jews allowed to celebrate Thanksgiving? Was Yael disappointed when she met hostages in real life? And what did Chaya Leah say to make an Uber driver pull over because he was laughing so hard? If you love our show, please consider becoming a subscriber on askajew.substack.com. It's free! For now...EMBARRASSING - I confuse Chaim Herzog and Chaim Weizmann I guess, so ignore everything I said about him. Ireland still sucks though, that part has been fact-checked.We cover:* Slot machines are life.* Looking for a Minyan at The Venetian,* Chaya Leah loved the Michael Jackson Cirque du Soleil show, especially the part about Israel.* Two very special guests for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.* These hostages have some dark humor, and we're here for it.* The antisemites are sometimes right.* Netanyahu is asking for a pardon. We have nothing to add.* Ireland still sucks, but our listeners from there are the best.* I gets Chaim Herzog and Chaim Weizmann confused, SORRY.* The truth about the Hannibal Directive is that you're all idiots.* The IDF killed everyone on October 7th and also it was a good thing.* What's the most normal country?* The Australian World War 1 memorial in Israel.* Normalize Normalization.* Who is worse, Peter Beinart or Mandy Patinkin?* How do we fix Israel's image? By doing nothing.* Mamdani's transition team is just as bad as you think it is.Questions? Concerns? Want to tell Chaya Leah she is “lanky”? Email us at askajewpod@gmail.com This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit askajew.substack.com/subscribe

This week I have two stories for you. The first is about Rabbi Shalom Dovber Lipskar looking to make a minyan for his shul and the second, an Rabbi Moshe Pardo travels halfway across the world for a crucial meeting with a wealthy donor, only to fall ill the night before. 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-three-dollar-minyan 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

38 [11.22] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi 20:8-21:2 [Chazaras Hashatz. Kedushah W/ Minyan. Tashlumin: Drunk, Business]

Source material: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jbd-FHmUA15D7J2bxAHetd7PTAdbRy1B/view?usp=drive_link This week's shiur is dedicated in honor of the wedding of Shlomo Leib ben Rachel (and Yonah Binyomin) and Rena Miriam bas Irene (and Shimon Moshe) Bookstein.

Today on Whats My Frame I'm joined by acclaimed playwright and screenwriter Daniel Pearle. Daniel joins us to chat about his newest project THE BEAST IN ME where he served as writer and executive producer. We take a deep dive into creative process, research and understanding your character's voice. Daniel's plays have been produced and developed at Lincoln Center Theater, London's Old Vic, The Vineyard, Ars Nova, and at regional theaters around the country. His play A Kid Like Jake premiered in a sold-out run at LCT3/Lincoln Center Theater (NY Times Critic's Pick). Other plays include Freefall (finalist, 2017 O'Neill Playwrights Conference), Remote Viewing (semi-finalist, 2015 O'Neill Playwrights Conference), and The Prodigies (semi-finalist, 2013 O'Neill Playwrights Conference).Daniel's feature film adaptation of A Kid Like Jake premiered at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival. The film is directed by Silas Howard and stars Claire Danes, Jim Parsons, and Octavia Spencer. Other film credits include: Minyan (2020) and Oliver Sipple (currently in development with Mad Chance Productions).Daniel served as co-showrunner and executive producer on season 2 of Fox's Accused and is currently a writer and executive producer on Netflix's upcoming The Beast in Me. Other TV credits include Impeachment: American Crime Story (FX) and One of Us is Lying (Peacock). Daniel was awarded the 2018 Humanitas New Voices Grant for emerging writers in television. He is an alum of Ars Nova's Play Group and a MacDowell Fellow. He earned his BA from Harvard University and his MFA from The New School for Drama.Official site@danielpearle

In Jewish legend, the mythical In Jewish tradition, the Golem is a creature formed from inanimate matter, and brought to life through mystical means, often involving Hebrew letters and divine names. The concept of the Golem is rooted in  Kabbalistic mysticism. This podcast will examine how seriously the Rabbis believed or did not believe in such creatures and why, and what are the practical implications such as would a Golem be counted for a Minyan-quorum in a synagogue. It will also analyze the underlying uniqueness of human beings.

In Jewish legend, the mythical In Jewish tradition, the Golem is a creature formed from inanimate matter, and brought to life through mystical means, often involving Hebrew letters and divine names. The concept of the Golem is rooted in  Kabbalistic mysticism. This podcast will examine how seriously the Rabbis believed or did not believe in such creatures and why, and what are the practical implications such as would a Golem be counted for a Minyan-quorum in a synagogue. It will also analyze the underlying uniqueness of human beings.

31 [11.15] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi 17:8-18:2 [Shemonah Esrai Intent Timing Interuptions Minyan]

26 [11.11] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi 15:1-6 [Kaddish after Yishtabeich. Dif. Rooms Creating a Minyan. Amein]

27 [11.12] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi 15:7-end [Minyan Disappears, Say Kaddish? How Many For Chazaras HaShatz]

22 [11.7] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi 12:5-10 [Washing Hands for Tefillah. Minyan Requirements. Daven in Shul Always]

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

The proclamation "Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach, Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed," which we make each morning before Baruch She'amar, should be made while standing. On weekdays, "Hashem Melech" is recited just before Baruch She'amar, and so one remains standing until after Baruch She'amar. On Shabbat and holidays, however, when other chapters of Tehillim are recited in between "Hashem Melech" and Baruch She'amar, one must remain standing until he completes the verse recited right after "Hashem Melech" – "Ve'haya Hashem La'Melech…U'Shmo Ehad." The next paragraph – "Hoshi'enu" – may be recited sitting. If one has already prayed Shaharit, and, while learning Torah in the synagogue, he hears the congregation recite "Hashem Melech," then he must stand. Preferably, he should also join them in the recitation. If, however, one hears an individual reciting "Hashem Melech," not with a Minyan, he has no obligation to stand. If a person is praying with a Minyan, and he is still reciting Hodu when the congregation reaches "Hashem Melech," then he should stand but not join the congregation in reciting "Hashem Melech." The Arizal taught that the sequence of the prayer service is vitally important, and so following the proper order takes precedence over the value of joining the congregation in reciting "Hashem Melech." Disrupting the sequence of the Tefila could adversely affect its impact, and so one should not recite "Hashem Melech" early, while he has yet to complete Hodu or the earlier parts of the service. This is the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). This is in contrast to the view of the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698), who felt that since we do not pray with all the deep intentions of the Arizal, the sequence of the prayers is not as critical, and thus one should interrupt an earlier part of the service for the sake of joining the recitation of "Hashem Melech." The Ben Ish Hai countered that we should follow the Arizal's practices despite not having all his deep Kavanot (intentions), and so the sequence must be maintained. It is worth noting that if Halacha discourages disrupting the Tefila with the recitation of a different part of the service, then certainly, and many times more so, it forbids interruptions such as reading text messages, checking notifications, and doing other things with one's device. Throughout the entire prayer service, we should try to remain as singularly focused on our Tefila as possible, and make a point of avoiding all distractions. "Hashem Melech" is recited also during the Selihot prayers, and the Ben Ish Hai writes that the aforementioned Halachot apply also when one hears the congregation recite "Hashem Melech" during Selihot, and he is required to stand. Standing during "Hashem Melech" is the accepted custom, but not a strict Halachic requirement. Therefore, an elderly or infirm individual, who finds it difficult to stand, may remain seated for the recitation of "Hashem Melech." The Ben Ish Hai writes that standing is not required during the traditional recitation of "Hashem Melech" during the Hakafot on Simhat Torah. This custom is a relatively new development, and may thus be treated more leniently, such that standing is not required. Hacham Ovadia Yosef raises the question of how the Ben Ish Hai could write this, as standing is strictly required during Hakafot for an entirely different reason – because the Torah scrolls are being carried. Irrespective of the recitation of "Hashem Melech," standing is required in the synagogue when the Sefer Torah is being carried, which is of course happening during Hakafot. Some answer this question by suggesting that the Ben Ish Hai accepted the novel ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) permitting one to sit during Hakafot. Rav Shlomo Zalman asserted that during Hakafot, the Torah scrolls are considered to be in their place, as they are meant to be danced with at this time. Standing for the Sefer Torah is required only when it is removed from its place, and therefore one may sit during Hakafot, when the Torah scrolls are, in a sense, in their place. For this reason, perhaps, the Ben Ish Hai permitted sitting while reciting "Hashem Melech" during the Hakafot. It is unlikely, however, that the Ben Ish Hai followed this novel position, and in fact, it is not accepted as Halacha. The story is told of Hacham Ezra Attieh (1885-1970), Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Porat Yosef, who, as an older man, felt weary during Hakafot on Simhat Torah, and so he left the room to sit down somewhere else. This is the generally accepted Halacha – that even those who feel weak or weary during Hakafot should leave the synagogue to sit. (It should be noted, however, that Hacham Ovadia permitted sitting when the Torah scrolls are stationary in the few moments between Hakafot.) It is more likely, then, that the Ben Ish Hai referred to the practice observed in many congregations to place the Torah scrolls on the Teba after dancing and recite the hymns, including "Hashem Melech," and he therefore wrote that sitting is permissible during that time. Summary: One must stand for the recitation of "Hashem Melech" during Shaharit. If one had already prayed, and, while learning in the synagogue, he hears the congregation recite "Hashem Melech," he should stand and join their recitation. If one is reciting a different part of the prayer service, such as Hodu, then he should rise but not interrupt to recite "Hashem Melech." This applies also to the recitation of "Hashem Melech" during Selihot. Standing is not required, however, for the recitation of "Hashem Melech" during Hakafot if the Torah scrolls are on the Teba and not being carried at that time. The elderly, infirm and others who find it difficult to stand may remain seated for the recitation of "Hashem Melech," even during Shaharit and Selihot.

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

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

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

The Gemara (Yoma 87a) tells that the great sage Rav was once insulted by the local butcher. Over the next several months, Rav waited for the butcher to apologize, but he never did. Finally, on Erev Yom Kippur, Rav decided to go and stand right outside the butcher shop so the butcher would see him. He hoped that if he would stand there, and make it very easy and convenient for the butcher to request forgiveness, he would. The butcher saw Rav standing outside his shop, and he shouted angrily, "I have nothing to say to you!" Not only did he refuse to ask forgiveness, he doubled down, insisting that he had nothing to apologize for. At that moment, a bone from the animal the butcherwas carving darted from the counter into his neck, killing him. The Rabbis of Mussar explain that although the butcher had offended Rav many months earlier, he was punished only now because he squandered the opportunity to apologize and make amends. All people make mistakes, and it is not easy to admit we were wrong and initiate a process of reconciliation. But what's inexcusable is avoiding reconciliation when the opportunity comes right to our doorstep. The butcher was wrong to offend Rav, and he was wrong for not going to request forgiveness – but what sealed his fate was failing to approach Rav when Rav made himself available. This story sheds light on a pronouncement by the prophet Yeshayahu about the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba – the ten-day period from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur. Yeshayahu (55:6) turns to the people and exclaims, "Dirshu Hashem Be'himase'o, Kera'uhu Bi'hyoto Karob" – "Seek out G-d when He is accessible, call upon Him when He is near." Of course, G-d is always "accessible," and He is always "near." In all seasons, at all times of year, and at any time of day, in any circumstance, we can turn to Hashem for help, we can ask Him for forgiveness, and we can ask for whatever it is we need. However, the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 18a) explains, during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba, Hashem is especially close, and is especially receptive to our sincere prayers. During this period, the prayers recited by an individual have the same power as prayers recited together with a Minyan during the rest of the year. We can only imagine how powerful congregational prayer is during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba! Indeed, Rav Chaim Brim of Jerusalem (1922-2002) would say that spiritual achievements which normally take weeks to attain can be reached in just a few moments during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba. This is a special time, when our prayers and our efforts to repent and improve are particularly effective, many times more than at other times of the year. At first glance, it seems that Yeshayahu is encouraging us and advising us by calling upon us to turn to Hashem during this period of Aseret Yemeh Teshuba. As Hashem is close, it is recommended that we seize this opportunity for prayer and repentance. But in light of the Gemara's story about Rav and the butcher, we might conclude that Yeshayahu isn't just giving advice – he's issuing a stern warning. If Hashem is close, then we must initiate a process of "reconciliation," a process of Teshuba. It's not just a good idea – it's an obligation. We are flawed human beings, and so it is understandable that we will make mistakes. We are not expected to be perfect. And, it is understandable that we will find it difficult to acknowledge our mistakes, to admit wrongdoing, to confess that we've acted improperly and have made bad choices. This is embarrassing and uncomfortable. And, change is always challenging. But even if we could be excused the rest of the year for not making an effort to improve and ask Hashem for forgiveness, we have no excuse during this week, when Hashem specifically comes to us and invites us back. During the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba, Hashem is right here next to us with His arms open. He is ready to forgive us as long as we take the first step by admitting we were wrong and committing to try harder. If we don't seize this opportunity, this period when Teshuba is especially accessible, then we have no more excuses. Let's ensure not to make the butcher's mistake. Let's take full advantage of this special opportunity, and sincerely turn to Hashem in heartfelt prayer and with a firm resolve to improve, to correct our mistakes, and to enhance our relationship with our Father in heaven.

Should One Learn Torah While Wearing Tefillin Before or After Tefilla—and Is It Better with Rashi or Rabenu Tam? Tefillin are more than just a morning ritual—they are a tool to elevate both prayer and Torah learning. The Halacha and Kabbala emphasize that their purpose is to bring holiness to the mind and heart, especially when used in the service of Torah. What Makes Learning Torah in Tefillin So Special? The Gemara teaches that the words of the Torah should be *"al lebecha"—*on your heart. The Mekubalim explain that Tefillin open a spiritual channel from the upper worlds, helping the mind focus and the soul absorb holiness during study. Learning Torah while wearing Tefillin connects the holiness of action (Tefillin) with the holiness of speech and thought (Torah). Rav Hida writes that even a short amount of Torah study with Tefillin brings great spiritual reward. After Tefilla: Don't Rush to Remove Them Ideally, one should remain in Tefillin for a few minutes after prayers and learn Torah. Even just five or ten minutes of Mishnayot, Halacha, or Tehillim makes a difference. The Ben Ish Hai says this is the deeper purpose of Tefillin—not just to wear them, but to use them while actively connecting with Torah. Before Tefilla: Can One Learn While Wearing Tefillin? Yes—if one arrives early to synagogue, it is praiseworthy to: Put on Tefillin Learn before Tefilla begins (especially before Baruch She'amar) However, learning should not delay the Minyan or disrupt the proper flow of Tefilla. If there's enough time before communal prayer begins, learning in Tefillin beforehand is a beautiful practice. What About Rabenu Tam Tefillin? Many Sepharadim have the custom to wear both Rashi and Rabenu Tam Tefillin . According to the Mekubalim, each pair connects to different spiritual channels. If one wears Rabenu Tam Tefillin after Shaharit, he should: Avoid removing them immediately Learn a bit of Torah—this connects them to their true purpose Even reading one chapter of Tehillim or reviewing a few Halachot counts Summary: Learning Torah while wearing Tefillin is the ideal fulfillment of the Misva. Do so after Tefilla if possible—even for a few minutes. Learning with both Rashi and Rabenu Tam Tefillin is highly recommended if one wears both. Before Tefilla, Torah learning in Tefillin is also encouraged if time allows.

Is it prohibited to go to Minyan when the “Home Front Command” and Chief Rabbis say not to go? Can you carry a phone on Shabbos to hear the warnings of incoming missiles? Can you leave on the news (radio, TV, Internet) on Shabbos to hear what's going on? Should we say Hamapil before sleep, since we may need to immediately head to the bomb shelter? Do you need to wash Netilas Yadayim before heading to a bomb shelter in the middle of the night? Does the IDF need to be concerned that the bombing of nuclear reactors could cause “collateral damage” to millions of Iranian citizens? What's life like right now living in Israel with regular Iranian missile attacks? Host: Ari Wasserman, author of the newly published, revised and expanded book Making it Work, on workplace challenges and Halachic Q & A on the Job You can order "Halachic Q & A on the Job” at https://mosaicapress.com/product/halachic-q-a-on-the-job/ with Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Breitowitz – posek, Rav and Senior Lecturer at Yeshivas Ohr Somayach – 18:42 with Rabbi Dovid Ostroff – posek and teacher at many seminaries in Yerushalayim – 45:06 with Mrs. Sivan Rahav-Meir - media personality, prolific author and lecturer – 1:02:58 with Rabbi Dr. Shlomo Brody – Executive Director of Ematai, author of “Ethics of Our Fighters” – 1:16:04 Conclusions and takeaways – 1:37:00 מראי מקומות