Podcasts about Minyan

Rabbi Kwass - Rambam Chabura: What if Part of the Minyan Leaves Early? by Shapell's Rabbeim

​1)      Unusual Mesorah about the words כל עצמותי תאמרנה: [1]2)      In our community we have mostly Israeli students, and they are doing Krias haTorah according to the schedule of Eretz Yisroel. Could I have an Aliya in their Kriah?[2]3)      I need to refill our Mikva for use after Shabbos. If I set theheat to remain less than Yad Soledes Bo, may I run water on Shabbos?[3]4)      May my business employ an AI answering service to service clients contacting us over Shabbos?[4]5)      AI answering service charges per minute. May I provide such a service over Shabbos?[5]6)      My parents are aging and need substantial care. May I use my Maaser money to fund the support they require? [6] 7)      A woman comes to Shul on Shabbos and the Minyan is saying Musaf, but she hasn't davened Shacharis: should she join and daven Musaf or should she do Shacharis?[7]8)      I had to interrupt Shmone Esrei to use the bathroom. Upon return, do I start the Amidah from the beginning; 3 steps again? [8]9)      Revisit the package delivered on Shabbos in my front yard: [9]https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9764852268?omn=87263391522Index to previous Panorama Shiurim: PanoramaIndex 2 - Google Docs To sponsor a Shiur – to honour a special occasion -contact: dayan@lubavitchuk.com[1] תהלים לה, ח. ראה במנחתשי שתיבת 'כל' מוטעמת וגם מנוקדת בקמץ-רחב. בדפוס שקלאוו אין מקף; בתורה-אור ישמקף.[2] בס' יו"ט שני כהלכתו(פריד, פ"ט סט"ז) מתיר לעלות במצבים דומים.[3] בשוע"ר סי' תקגס"ג אוסר לחפש בס"ת מיו"ט לשבת הסמוכה לו. וראה גם פסקי תשובות סי'שב אות יז.[4] נראה לדמות למה שהתירבשו"ת מהרש"ג (ח"ב סי' קיז, הובא בשש"כ פכ"ט סכ"ח)להשאיר פתוח מכונת-מכירה אוטומטית לשבת, כי לא איכפת להמוכר מתי יקנו המוצרים.[משא"כ באתר של מוזיקה וכיו"ב, שזמן השימוש עיקרי הוא]. [5] לפי המדובר לפני שבועיים:שירות רחבה הכוללת שעות של שבת, גם נחשבת הבלעה, אע"פ שהתשלום של שבת ניכר,ה"ה כאן.[6] בס' צדקה ומשפט פ"גס"ח מתיר. והא דאיתא (קידושין לב,א) "תבא מארה למי שמפרנס או"א מןהמעשר", י"ל דהיינו מעשר עני ממש, משא"כ מעשר כספים.[7] בס' הליכות ביתה (סימן ו, ו) מביא מחלוקת האחרונים אם נשים חייבות בתפלת מוסף. לכן מסתבר שתידחה מוסף מפנישחרית.[8] ראה ג' שיטות בשוע"רסי' קד ס"ד. אכן בסדור אדה"ז סוף הלכות ברכות השחר הורה שכל שיוכללהעמיד עצמו עד סוף התפלה, אל יפסיק אפילו בפסוקי דזמרה.[9] לפי שוע"ר סי' שעבס"א אסור להכניס מהחצר לבית דבר שהובא מחוץ לעירוב.​

The Rebbe addresses concerns about praying in a consistent minyan with one's own nusach and whether to change locations for shofar blowing precision. He explains the spiritual importance of one's place and advises remaining, while also encouraging study of Rosh Hashanah discourses. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/007/011/2211

MichnaBeroura_055-06-09 Compter dans le minyan by Shiour Yomi

MichnaBeroura_055-02-03 Perte du minyan by Shiour Yomi

Parshat Shelach:  The Minyan  -  English only.  There is a tradition that Jewish men do not pray unless ten men are present. Where did this custom come from and how does it relate to Jewish followers of Yeshua the Messiah?  Recorded June 8, 2026. 

​ 1)      As a sideline I research topics and write up my conclusions, for which I am paid per hour. Is it okay for me to invoice for hours of research done on Shabbos?[1]2)      Does a disused doorway, blocked by furniture, still need to have a Mezuzah?[2]3)      In the verse "לא יכבה בלילה נרה", some Sidurim have BaLayloh, others have VaLayloh:[3]4)      How do I calculate Maaser for investments that keep onreinvesting their profits?[4]5)      How should Hashem's name be said when praying in English: some Sidurim have HaShem, other A-do-noy, L-rd. Which is preferable?[5]6)      This Friday is Rosh Chodesh. If we start the meal early, do we say Yaale veYovo as well as Retzei in Birkas haMozon?[6]7)      Is there a concern of Yichud for one travelling alone by bus intercity?[7]8)      Correction to story about Friday-night Minyan bizmanoh in Long Beach NY: [8]To sponsor a Shiur – to honour a special occasion -contact: dayan@lubavitchuk.com[1] ראה שמירת שבת כהלכתהפכ"ח סס"ד שכאשר העבודה הוא חלק מהתחייבות רחבה, זה נקרא 'הבלעה' ומותרלקבל תשלום לשעות השבת. וכן יש להבין בשוע"ר סי' שו ס"ט.[2] ביו"ד סי' רפוסי"ז מבואר שפתח שאין רגילים בו פטור ממזוזה. וראה פתחי שערים יו"ד סי'רפו סי"ז; שכל טוב יו"ד שם ס"ק רמד. ואע"פ שכלי המכיל מ' סאהנחשב כבנין, אבל לא שמענו שלהזיז כלי זה ייחשב כסתירה. בדיני ממונות, העובדא שלאפרץ את הפצימין מראה שעדיין במחשבתו לחזור ולפתוח הסתימה. וכן מצינו לענין התופרכנף הטלית, שלא נפטרה מן הציצית, מטעם הנ"ל.[3] בכמה ספרים היא דגושה,הגם שהיא סמוכה לה"א של "יכבה", בגלל הטיפחא שהוא טעם מפסיק. ברםבטעמי אמ"ת זו טרחא שהוא טעם מחבר. [4] נראה שבכל שנה כשרואה כמהרבית הרויח בשנה זו, יפריש 10% למעשר – ראה ס' צדקה ומשפט פ"ה ס"ו. [5] אחר הופעת סדור תהלת ה'בתרגום אנגלי (תשל"ח) הרעיש רש"פ בוגומילסקי שי' אודות השם 'לארד',שאינו תרגום מדוייק וגם חשש שיכוונו לאותו האיש. כשהראו לרשפ"ב שבחוברת'ברכות ותפלות' שי"ל ע"י המל"ח בתש"ג כתוב "ל-רד",כתב לכ"ק אדמו"ר זי"ע התנצלות על השגותיו, וזכה למענה מפורט (והארעינינו בתורתך, ע' רכד – מהערה"ת מאריסטאוו, שבט תש"מ).  בשנתתשמ"א פנה הרש"פ להרב יאללעס (שו"ת דברי אפרים אליעזר סי' יד) ואלהרב ליעבעס (שו"ת בית אבי ח"ד סי' א), וגם אל הגר"מ פיינשטיין (לפיעדות אחיו, דודי הר"מ בוגומילסקי נ"י בפתח ההגדה שלו - 'כי ישאלך בנך',ושם כתב שהגרמ"פ הסכים על ידו). דיון על שם 'ל-רד' כבר מופיע בשו"תתשובות והנהגות ח"א סי' קכח). כמה שנים אח"כ תירגם הר"ע שוחט אתההגדה וכתב Hashem.כ"ק אדמו"ר זי"ע מעיר כי יש מתפללים באנגלית. ועדיף לכתוב 'לארד'וכל שכן G-d.מענה זה מודפס בלקו"ש חכ"ד (תשמ"ה). משמע דלא חש לכל הנ"ל.בהגדת הרמ"ב הנ"ל מתרגם A-do-noy. הרעיון להכניס השם בלה"ק בתוך תרגוםלעז – כבר מופיע בשו"ת בית יצחק (או"ח סו"ס י). ולענ"ד זהצורם, כעין דין כתב מנומר (ראה שו"ע יו"ד סו"ס רעט). והרש"רהירש בסדורו תירגם הוי' ג-ט, וגם אלוקינו תירגם ג-ט, אלא שבשם הוי' כתב השםבאותיות איטליות. [6] ראה ספר השיחות תש"דע' 40. והוא דלא כדברי קצות השלחן סי' מז הע' כב. וראה בארוכה נתיבים בשדה השליחותח"ב סי' ג.[7] בספר דיני יחוד (מאתידידי הרנ"ד דובאוו נ"י) הערה 249 מביא מס' מנחת איש ליזהר מאיסור יחודבקבוצת בנות הנוסעות באוטובוס למקום שאין עוברים ושבים, שיש איסור יחוד עם הנהג.אך שם יש מצב של יחוד, שכולן קבועות במקום אחד. משא"כ ברכבת של רבים, היינוכפתח פתוח לרה"ר, כיון שיש עולים ויורדים תדיר. אך לפי זה יש לשאול, למה איןאיסור יחוד במטוס, כשכל שאר הנוסעים הם פרוצים? והרי מפורש ברמ"א (אה"עסי' כב ס"ה) לאסור בפרוצים אפילו הם עשרה. וצ"ע. [8] לדברי נין של הרבנעמצאוו, רעיון איחור קב"ש מאוחר הי' זה על דעת הסבא עצמו, לא שכ"קאדמו"ר זי"ע ביקש הדבר ממנו.​

This class explores how the requirement for a minyan of ten is derived from the episode of the spies in Parshas Shelach. It examines why such a foundational law comes from a negative event and offers a Chassidic perspective on the deeper motivations of the spies. https://www.torahrecordings.com/classes/by_parsha/004_bamidbar/004_shelach/007

Cours Halakha Time du Mercredi 6 Mai 2026 (durée : 4 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

Cours Halakha Time du Mercredi 6 Mai 2026 (durée : 4 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:20) instructs that one should "run like a deer" ("Ratz Ka'sevi") to fulfill Hashem's will. This refers to the requirement to perform Misvot energetically, with enthusiasm, and not lethargically, as though we would rather be doing something else. People often run to the synagogue when they are late for the Minyan – but the truth is that one should always "run like a deer" to shul, even when they have plenty of time. Walking fast to the synagogue shows one's enthusiasm and eagerness to serve Hashem, and so regardless of the time, even if one is early, he should walk briskly to shul. This also means that one should not procrastinate when it comes to Torah learning or Misva observance. If a person has an opportunity to learn or to perform a Misva, he should proceed to seize the opportunity immediately, without delay. Otherwise, he gives the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) a chance to interfere, to disrupt his plans by trying to convince him not to perform the Misva. Finally, this admonition requires us to strive to perform Misvot ourselves rather than delegate them to others. The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (41a) establishes, "Misva Bo Yoter Mi'bi'shluho" – it is preferable to perform a Misva oneself than to discharge one's obligation through an agent. Personally tending to a Misva demonstrates one's love for the Misva, and that he cherishes opportunities to serve his Creator. There are certain Misvot that may be performed through an agent, a rule known in Halacha by the expression "Sheluho Shel Adam Ke'moto" – "A person's messenger is like himself." However, Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim noted that the word "Kemoto" in this expression can be read to mean "like his death" – warning that accustoming oneself to delegate Misvot is a type of spiritual demise. We achieve spiritually and build our relationship with Hashem by pursuing Misva opportunities, by lovingly and excitedly involving ourselves in Misvot, without looking for other people to do them for us.

​1)  In Tehillim 135 we have the phrase: נחלה לישראל עמו, whereas in #136 it saysנחלה לישראל עבדו. Why the difference?2)      A Kohen was married to a NJ woman. She died recently. Is he now eligible for Birkas Kohanim?[1]3)      On Sunday of Chol HaMoed we leined אם כסף תלוה את עמי instead of קדש לי כל בכור. What should we lein on Monday: the correct reading for the day (אם כסף תלוה את עמי) or the reading of yesterday (Kadeish)?[2]4)      Over Chol haMoed, after Krias haTorah we recite Ashrei+ uVo leTziyon. At what point is the Sefer Torah lifted to bereplaced in the Oron?[3]  5)      A Gabbai employed a bochur to do a serious clear-up in the Shul. In the process, the bochur discovered an expensive pen. May the bochur keep the pen for himself?[4]6)      Can one designate the Eruv Tavshilin in the evening of Erev Yomtov (Tuesday night)?[5]7)      We have a guest for the Seder who is not Shomer Shabbos, but doesn't violate Shabbos publicly. May we serve him/her non-mevushal wine? [6]8)      How much time need I spend in order to Daven Mincha with a Minyan? [7]9)      Where our Hagodo has חמץ או מצה, other Hagodos have חמץ ומצה. Please enlighten.[8] 10)  Feedback to צעקה and זעקה. Shoftim(10:17) has ויצעקו as a call to arms?[9] To sponsor a Shiur – to honour a special occasion -contact: dayan@lubavitchuk.com[1] מבואר בשו"עאו"ח סי' קכח ס"מ, ובשוע"ר שם סנ"ג, שאינו חוזר להכשרו עדשידור מנשים הפסולות לו.[2] בביאור הלכה (ר"סתצ) מביא שבפמ"ג (שם א"א ג) הביא מהפר"ח (שם ה – בשם ס' ערך לחם)שבימי חוה"מ ישלים מה שחיסר. בשוע"ר (שם ס"ט) הביא את הפר"ח,אף כי לא מפורש בדבריו שלמחר יקרא את של אתמול. [3] מפורש בסדור אדה"זלהחזירו אחרי "אשרי, ובא לציון". ושאני ר"ח שאז מפסיקים בלאו הכיבכדי להחליף התפילין וכו', לכן יש מחזירים בהקדם. וראה דברינו ב'סדור רבנו הזקן עםמקורות ציונים והערות' ח"ג ע' א'סג הע' 64. אכן כן נהגו ב-770, שכ"קאדמו"ר זי"ע המתין על הבימה עד אחרי הגבהה וגלילה, ואז החזירו הס"תלארוה"ק והרבי צועד מאחורי הס"ת. ואולי שאני התם, כי עד שהובא הס"תלהיכלו כבר הספיקו הקהל לגמור 'ובא לציון'. משא"כ בביכ"נ קטן. [4] במג"א סי' קנד סקכ"ג הביא מס' אגודהדהוי למוצאה, כי אין יד להקדש. וע"ע פתחי חושן הל' אבידה פ"ט הע' לה. [5] מסתבר שניתן לערוך עירוב תבשילין גם בלילערב יו"ט (תו"מ תשמ"ז ח"ד ע' 426, אבל בהסתייגות ברורה). וישפוסקים שהורו שאין לעשות כן (ס' עירוב תבשילין הערוך(ח"ב ע' ג) בשם שו"ת להורות נתן (מועדים ח"ג ע' רנ אות ד – כי מצותהכנה לחג מתחילה בהשכמה, ואז הוא הזמן לערוך העירוב). מענה בכי"ק – בקובץהעו"ב גליון א'עג. שם מקיל ליוצא לדרך. ואולי הכוונה במענה ק', שמכיון שהואעסוק כבר מבערב בהכנה ליו"ט, לכן גם ליל ערב יו"ט מיקרי ערב יו"ט.וע"ע פס"ת תקכז הע' 184.[6] ראה דברינו בנתיבים בשדההשליחות ח"ג ע' 48.[7] ראה פסחים מו, א;שוע"ר סי' צ סי"ז; משנ"ב שם ס"ק נב. תהל"ד שם מקשה מסי'קסג ס"א שמצריך ד' מילין.[8] כנוסח דידן הובא ב'שינויינוסחאות' בגליון המשניות וכן ב'הגדה שלמה' (כשר) ע' י. והוא הנוסח היותר מובן.[9] מלבי"ם תהלים קז:ד.בס' שופטים שם, וגם שם יב:א הוא בלשון הפעיל, וי"ל שלכן נבחר הביטוי החזק.​

Cours Halakha Time du Dimanche 19 Avril 2026 (durée : 4 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

Cours Halakha Time du Dimanche 19 Avril 2026 (durée : 4 minutes) donné par Rav Emmanuel BENSIMON.

If a person who had a daughter but no sons passed away, may the daughter recite Kaddish for her deceased parent? The Shebut Yaakob (Rav Yaakob Reischer, 1661-1733) ruled that a daughter may recite Kaddish for a parent if ten men assembled in her home, but not in the synagogue. Likewise, the Teshuba Me'ahaba (Rav Elazar Fleckeles, 1754-1826) writes that this was done in Amsterdam, with the approval of the local Rabbis. He adds that it was customary in Prague for elderly men and women to sit in the Ezrat Nashim (women's section) of the synagogue and recite Tehillim all morning, and if there was a girl whose parent had passed away without sons, the daughter would recite Kaddish after the Tehillim reading. This was done in the Ezrat Nashim, but not in the main section of the synagogue. The Teshuba Me'ahaba explained that women are no less obligated in the Misva of honoring parents than men, and so they should have the opportunity to benefit the soul of their departed parent through the recitation of Kaddish. Although this should not be done in the public setting of the synagogue, it is permissible if a private Minyan is formed. Hacham Ovadia Yosef concurred with this ruling. A solution in such a case is for the family to appoint a man to recite Kaddish for the deceased. Rav Yosef Kolon (France, 15 th century) ruled that one may recite Kaddish for somebody who was not a relative. He adds, based on an earlier source, that one may recite Kaddish for the souls of several different people, and so even if somebody is already reciting Kaddish for a parent, he may be asked to recite Kaddish also for a person who left the world without sons. Similarly, the Elya Rabba (Rav Eliyahu Spira, Prague, 1660-1712) writes that if somebody needs to travel during the year of mourning, and will be unable to recite Kaddish for a period of time, he should hire somebody to recite Kaddish on his behalf during that period. It should be noted that there was a custom that the Rabbi would recite the final Kaddish – the Kaddish before Alenu – for the benefit of all those who had passed away without sons. Although this is not our custom, it demonstrates that when there are no men to recite Kaddish, this can be assigned to somebody else, even a person who is not related to the deceased. Summary: If a person passed away without sons, and the daughter wishes to recite Kaddish for the parent, she may if a private Minyan is assembled in her home. The preferred solution, however, is for the family to appoint somebody – even someone who is not related to the deceased – to recite Kaddish for the deceased. This may be done even by someone who is already reciting Kaddish for his own parent.

The Or Zarua (Rav Yishak of Vienna, 13 th century) brings a Midrash that tells a remarkable story about Rabbi Akiba, who once saw a man running frantically while carrying a large stack of twigs. The man was unclothed, and his body was black like charcoal. Rabbi Akiba asked the man to stop, and offered to help. He assumed that this man was a slave working for a ruthless master, and he wanted to release him from his state of servitude so he would not have to continue suffering. The man explained to Rabbi Akiba that he actually was not from the world of the living. When he was alive, he worked as a tax collector, and he would heartlessly tax the needy into poverty while currying favor with the rich, among other grave misdeeds. His punishment was that he needed to collect firewood every day, to be then burned in the fire. The only chance to end this suffering, the man told Rabbi Akiba, was for his son to recite Kaddish or lead the recitation of Barechu in the synagogue. He had died when his wife was pregnant with their only child. Rabbi Akiba asked the man about his wife's name and place of residence, and he went to find this man's child. When he asked the townspeople about the widow and her child, they angrily cursed the deceased man who was so cruel and heartless, driving many people to destitution. Rabbi Akiba learned that the man had a son, but he was not even circumcised, and certainly never learned Torah such that he would be in a position to recite Kaddish. After finding the young man, Rabbi Akiba convinced him to have a berit mila . He tried teaching him Torah, but the young man had extreme difficulty learning. Rabbi Akiba fasted for forty days, beseeching G-d to help the boy learn. He was then able to teach him. Eventually, when the young man was ready, Rabbi Akiba brought him to the synagogue, and he recited Kaddish and Barechu. Rabbi Akiba continued teaching this young man Torah, until he emerged as a great scholar, known as Rabbi Nahum Ha'pakoli. The name "Ha'pakoli" alludes to the verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (28:7), "Paku Peliliya" – "He who extracts the guilty," which is precisely what Rabbi Nahum did, rescuing his sinful father from eternal suffering. The father appeared Rabbi Akiba in a dream and wished him that he be granted a distinguished place in Gan Eden. He explained that after his son recited Kaddish and Barechu, he was relieved of the suffering that had been decreed. When the son began learning Torah regularly, he was no longer subject to any punishment. And when the son was ordained as a Rabbi, he was brought to Gan Eden to join the Sadikim. This is an early source of the time-honored custom to recite Kaddish on behalf of one's deceased parent, which has the effect of sparing the parent from punishments in the afterlife. Another source is a passage in Tanna De'beh Eliyahu, brought by Rabbi Eliezer of Worms (Germany, d. 1238), which states that even a small child can save his father from the punishments of Gehinam through the recitation of Kaddish. Moreover, the Yad Eliyahu writes that by reciting Kaddish for a deceased parent, one fulfills the Misva of Kibbud Ab Va'em – honoring one's parent. In fact, the Yad Eliyahu adds, one has more of an opportunity to fulfill the Misva of Kibbud Ab Va'em after a parent's passing, since during the parent's lifetime, the parent can decline the child's offers to give honor. After the parent's passing, however, the parent cannot refuse the recitation of Kaddish – and even if the parent never requested that Kaddish be recited after his or her death, the child must assume that this was the parent's wish. As Kibbud Ab Va'em constitutes a Torah obligation, we follow the rule that one must act stringently in situations of uncertainty ("Safek De'Orayta Le'humra"), and thus a child must, under all circumstances, recite Kaddish for a deceased parent. Similarly, Rav Yosef Engel (1858-1919) writes that reciting Kaddish is the highest form of Kibbud Ab Va'em, as there is nothing greater that one can do for a parent than bring the parent to Gan Eden, which is what a child achieves by reciting Kaddish. Our community can be proud that this practice is meticulously observed, virtually without exception. Even when people travel, if they are in the first year after a parent's passing, Heaven forbid, they ensure to have a Minyan available so as not to miss even a single recitation of Kaddish. This is a testament to our community's awareness of the great importance of this cherished custom, and of our community's strong dedication to the precious Misva of Kibbud Ab Va'em. Importantly, however, Hacham Ovadia cites the Yosef Ometz as noting that the Kaddish recitation was instituted for those who are unable to benefit their parents' souls through the study of Torah. The benefit brought through Torah study is many times greater than the recitation of Kaddish, and if one arrives at a Hiddush (a novel Torah insight) while learning in his parent's memory, he brings immeasurable honor to the parent's soul in the afterlife. Therefore, as important as it of course is to recite Kaddish for a deceased parent, it is even more important to devote time to learn Torah in the parent's memory, as this is the greatest thing one can do for a deceased parent's soul. Many parents, understandably, are troubled by the exorbitant cost of Torah education. However, while the problem is real, and should be addressed, at the same time, we must maintain a proper perspective and realize that no matter how much money parents pay for their children to receive a Torah education, the dividends are infinitely greater. There is no price tag that one can place on eternal life in Gan Eden, and being spared the punishments of Gehinam. By providing their children with a proper religious education, parents ensure that their children will recite Kaddish and learn Torah in their memory, thereby guaranteeing their place in Gan Eden for all eternity – and we can all agree that there is no price too high for that.

The Gemara posits the principle that "Yisrael Af Al Pi She'hata Yisrael Hu" – a Jew does not lose his status as a Jew even after he sins. As a general rule, then, a Jew who violates Torah law is nevertheless considered a full-fledged Jew in all respects. There are, however, a number of exceptions. One is a person who commits sins 'Le'ha'ch'is" – with the specific intention to anger G-d. If a person not only transgresses the Torah, but has decided to spitefully reject G-d, and he thus commits Torah transgressions out of anger and resentment – and not due to convenience, for money, or due a lack of self-discipline – then he forfeits his status as a Jew. Such a person, therefore, cannot be counted toward a Minyan. (A fascinating story is told of Rav Levi Yishak of Berditchev, who once saw a Jewish fellow whom he knew eating pork, and he wished him, "Bon Appetit," that he should enjoy it. He explained to his students that this individual suffered from a certain condition that resulted in pain in his stomach when he ate pork, but he nevertheless ate it out of hostility toward religion. Rav Levi Yishak extended to him the wish that he should eat it for the pleasure that it brings, and not out of resentment, so that he would at least retain his status as a Jew.) Another exception – which is far more common – is Shabbat desecration. Since Shabbat desecration is equated with idol-worship, a public Shabbat desecrator is, in certain respects, considered not Jewish. The Hafetz Haim explained this Halacha by way of an analogy to a person who walks by a store which is currently closed. If the sign is still up, then the person will likely assume that the store is still in business, and has closed only temporarily. Once, however, the sign has been taken down, the person will conclude that the store has closed permanently. The Torah refers to Shabbat as an "Ot," a "sign." As long as a person observes Shabbat, he demonstrates that he's "open for business," that he's still "in the game," as it were, even if in other ways he might falter. Therefore, a public Shabbat violator – in principle – is not considered a Jew with respect to certain Halachot, such as being counted toward a Minyan. This applies to public Shabbat violators regardless of the reason why they desecrate Shabbat – whether it's for ideological reasons, out of anger toward G-d, or because of convenience or an unwillingness to make the sacrifices that Shabbat observance requires. The Poskim dispute the question of how often one must publicly violate Shabbat to be disqualified from counting toward a Minyan. Some maintain that this disqualification applies only to habitual Shabbat violators, but others contend that even if a person publicly violated Shabbat just once, he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This is the view accepted by Hacham Ovadia Yosef. It goes without saying that once a person has performed Teshuba and committed to Shabbat observance, he regains his status as a full-fledged Jew and may be counted. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one becomes disqualified only by publicly committing an act that is forbidden on Shabbat by force of Torah law. This includes driving, cooking, writing, and carrying in a public domain. If, however, a person publicly commits acts which are forbidden on Shabbat only by force of Rabbinic enactment, he may be counted toward a Minyan. The act of Shabbat desecration must be committed publicly – meaning, in the presence of ten men, the violator included. The Mishna Berura ruled that the act does not need to have been committed publicly, as even if it becomes known to ten people, this qualifies as a "public" act. Hacham Ovadia, however, disagrees, and rules that a person is not considered a public Shabbat violator unless he committed a forbidden act that was seen by ten men at the same time. (Incidentally, these conditions apply also with regard to the prohibition against drinking wine handled by a public Shabbat violator (unless the wine has been previously boiled). This applies only to somebody who committed an act of Shabbat desecration in the presence of ten men.) Hacham Ovadia made a very significant exception to this Halacha, addressing the situation of generally G-d-fearing Jews who work on Shabbat. It was quite common in certain periods that Jews would come to the synagogue, recite Kiddush and eat a Shabbat meal, but then go to work, succumbing to the anxiety of otherwise being unable to support their families. Hacham Ovadia ruled that although such people act incorrectly, nevertheless, since in their eyes, they violate Shabbat under duress, they are not considered intentional Shabbat violators. Hence, they may be counted toward a Minyan (and wine which they handled remains permissible). Additionally, the Mishna Berura writes that if a person violates Shabbat in public, but is too embarrassed to do so in the presence of a Rabbi, then he is not considered a public Shabbat violator with respect to this Halacha. The fact that he still experiences shame shows that he recognizes the sanctity of Shabbat, and so he does not attain the status of a flagrant desecrator who may not be counted toward a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia clarified that this applies only if we are certain that this individual would not desecrate Shabbat in view of his Rabbi. Much has been written about whether and how these Halachot apply in our generation. In the case of a person who was raised without a religious education, there is a general consensus that we apply the rule of "Tinok She'nishba" (literally, "an infant who was taken captive"), which excuses from liability a sinner who was never taught about Halachic observance. If someone was not taught to observe Shabbat as Halacha requires, then he is not held accountable for his failure to do so. As such, he does not have the status of a flagrant Shabbat desecrator. Some extend this rule further, asserting that even if a person learned about Shabbat, he cannot be considered a Shabbat desecrator if he was not made aware of the severity of Shabbat. There are people who received some level of Jewish education but their training was not grounded in Halacha, and they were thus never taught about the various Shabbat prohibitions and how they constitute capital offenses. These people, too, might not be considered flagrant Shabbat desecrators. An even more drastic view was advanced by the Hazon Ish (Rav Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, 1878-1952). He contended that a person does not attain the status of a public Shabbat desecrator unless he was reprimanded for violating Shabbat and then ignored the rebuke he received. Effective criticism is a difficult art, a skill which the vast majority of people do not have in our time. As such, the Hazon Ish wrote, violators can be assumed to not have ever received proper rebuke for their acts of desecration, and they therefore do not have the status of public Shabbat desecrators. This novel ruling of the Hazon Ish should seemingly allow any Shabbat violator to be counted toward a Minyan nowadays, given the assumption that proper rebuke was never administered. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that one might question this conclusion, in light of the fact that technology has made knowledge about Torah law readily available to all, and, moreover, there are many Jews who were raised in Torah homes and received a proper religious education, and then decided to abandon halachic observance. It seems difficult to exclude such people from the category of intentional Shabbat desecrators. Rabbi Bitan therefore concludes that every community Rabbi must determine the policy for his congregation, given the different opinions that exist and different realities in each community. It must be emphasized that we speak here only of being counted toward the minimum quorum of ten men. By no means does Halacha disallow a Shabbat violator from entering a synagogue and participating in the Minyan. Personally, I went into the rabbinate specifically for such Jews, to help Jews grow in their observance, each on their level and in a way that suits them, irrespective of one's current level of commitment. Those who do not properly observe Shabbat should be at least as welcome in the synagogue as fully-observant Jews, if not more so. I am reminded of a story told by Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim of a person who once came to pray in Congregation Shaare Zion and was given an Aliya, and afterward, somebody else approached Hacham Baruch to object. He said that he knew for a fact that this individual who was given an Aliya regularly shaved with a razor – a strict Torah violation – and thus should not be given the honor of being called to the Torah. "Let me tell you a story," Hacham Baruch replied. "Many years ago, there was somebody who came to shul who was not at all serious about Halachic observance. We welcomed him very warmly, and gave him an Aliya. There were those who objected and were angry at me. But gradually, this fellow became more involved, attending prayers and classes, and building a relationship with me and other Rabbis. He ended up raising a fully observant home, and all his children are strictly observant. "As it so happens," the Hacham continued, "that man was your father. You would not be in the synagogue today if I had followed the policy you are advocating." This should be our attitude toward our fellow Jews who are not as observant as we would want. While there is some question about whether or not they may be counted toward the minimum required amount of ten men, and, as we saw, different opinions exist, there is no question about whether they should be warmly welcomed in our synagogues. Our institutions must be inviting for all Jews, regardless of their level of observance, so everyone can grow in a way and at a pace that is appropriate for them.

Ashkenazic custom requires standing during Kaddish, whereas Sephardic practice allows sitting during Kaddish (unless one had been standing before Kaddish began). Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) writes that if a Sepharadi is praying in an Ashkenazic Minyan, he must abide by the Ashkenazic custom and stand during Kaddish. If he remains seated, Hacham Bension writes, this would violate the prohibition of "Lo Titgodedu," which forbids following divergent religious practices in the same place. Hacham Bension makes an exception in a case where there are others in the Minyan sitting during Kaddish, such as elderly congregants who have difficulty standing and are thus permitted to sit during Kaddish even according to Ashkenazic practice. Since there are already some people sitting, a Sepharadi is permitted to sit, as well. Hacham Ovadia Yosef disagreed. He argued that the law of "Lo Titgodedu" does not apply when the divergent practices involve a Minhag (custom), as opposed to a strict Halachic obligation. It is thus not relevant to the issue of sitting or standing during Kaddish, and so a Sepharadi is allowed to sit during Kaddish in an Ashkenazic Minyan. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia added, if the Sepharadi has reason to suspect that sitting would cause tension and controversy – which we must always try to avoid – then he should certainly stand in the interest of maintaining peaceful relations among Jews. Summary: A Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazic Minyan is allowed to sit during Kaddish, despite the fact that Ashkenazic custom requires standing. If, however, he suspects that sitting would cause tension and strife, then he should follow the local custom and stand.

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

When two or more people recite Kaddish together, they must make an effort to recite the words in unison, at the same pace. Otherwise, this causes a great deal of confusion for the congregants, who need to respond at various points during the Kaddish. If the people reciting Kaddish do not say the words in unison, and one reaches "Ve'imru Amen" (or "Berich Hu") before the other, to whom should the congregation respond? The Halachot Ketanot (Rav Yisrael Yaakob Hagiz, 1620-1674) writes that if the people reciting Kaddish reach "Ve'imru Amen" within one second of another, then the congregation may respond to whichever one they choose. This is based on the principle of "Toch Ke'deh Dibur," which allows us to ignore a period short enough to say the words "Shalom Alechem Rebbe," which is approximately one second. If two people say "Ve'imru Amen" within one second of one another, then they may be considered as having recited this together, simultaneously, and so one may respond to either. However, the Halachot Ketanot writes, if the two people say "Ve'imru Amen" more than a second apart, then the congregation answers "Amen" to them both. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) rules accordingly, except that in his view, if the two people recite "Ve'imru Amen" more than a second apart, then the congregation should answer "Amen" to the one who recites it first. This applies only if the two people are reciting Kaddish together in the same Minyan. If, however, a person hears Kaddish from a different Minyan while Kaddish is being recited in his Minyan, then he responds only to the Kaddish recited in his Minyan. This situation arises very often at the Kotel, where different Minyanim pray in a relatively small area, and one is thus likely to hear other Minyanim while he prays with his Minyan. If he hears Kaddish recited in a different Minyan at the same time as Kaddish is being recited in his Minyan, he responds only to the Kaddish in his Minyan. If a person hears somebody else complete a Beracha just when he must respond to Kaddish, then he should respond to both the Kaddish and the Beracha, even if the Beracha ends within one second of the recitation of "Ve'imru Amen" in Kaddish. Since these are two separate recitations, one must answer "Amen" to both. If he must respond at the same time, he should say, "Amen Ve'amen," instead of "Amen Amen." This is the ruling of the Hesed La'alafim (Rav Eliezer Papo, 1785-1828). It sometimes happens that somebody arrives late for Shaharit, and he puts on his Tallit or Tefillin during the Kaddish Al Yisrael recited after "Rabbi Yishmael Omer…" The people near him might then need to respond to his Beracha over the Tallit and Tefillin at the same time they respond to Kaddish. In such a case, they should respond, "Amen Ve'amen." Summary: When two or more people recite Kaddish together, they must make an effort to recite it in unison. If it happens that one person recites Kaddish slower than the other, then the congregation must respond to both of them separately, unless the two people reach "Ve'imru Amen" within one second of each other, in which case the congregation responds to the person who said "Ve'imru Amen" first. If one hears Kaddish from a different Minyan at the same time as Kaddish is recited in his Minyan, he responds only to the Kaddish in his Minyan. If a person hears someone complete a Beracha just as he must respond to Kaddish, then he answers "Amen" to each one separately, even if they end within one second of one another, in which case he responds, "Amen Ve'amen."

Discussion of the ways to create "pirsumei nissa" in order to say beracha on Megilla reading, distinctions between "zmana"/not, including women, etc.

Debate if need to seek minyan when reading Megilla in its time vs not

Our practice is to answer "Amen" five times to the Hasi Kaddish: after "Shemeh Rabba," after "Ve'yasmah Purkaneh Vi'ykareb Meshiheh," after "U'bi'zman Karib Ve'imru Amen," after "De'Kudsha Berich Hu," and after "Da'amiran Be'alma Ve'imru Amen." These responses follow the teaching of the Arizal, and of Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch) in Maggid Mesharim – the record of the lessons he was taught by the angel who came to learn Torah with him. When we answer "Amen," we are expressing our wish that the words in the Kaddish should be fulfilled, namely, that Hashem's Name should be glorified throughout the world. Interestingly, the Shulhan Aruch makes no mention of the first two "Amen" responses, after "Shemeh Rabba" and "Vi'ykareb Meshiheh." The Rambam mentions the first, but not the second. Both the Rambam and the Shulhan Aruch state that "Amen" should be recited after the word "Yitbarach." Regardless, the widespread practice follows the Arizal's teaching, to say "Amen" at the five points listed earlier. The custom among many Ashkenazic communities is to omit entirely from Kaddish the phrase "Ve'yasmah Purkaneh Vi'ykareb Meshiheh." Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) writes that if a Sepharadi is reciting Kaddish in an Ashkenazic congregation, he should recite the Sephardic version of Kaddish, unless this might create discord and make people upset. If he is concerned that the people might be displeased by his recitation of the Sephardic text of Kaddish, then in the interest of maintaining peace he should recite the Ashkenazic version of Kaddish. If he recites Kaddish together with Ashkenazic members of the congregation, then he should recite the Ashkenazic version of Kaddish, as he would otherwise cause confusion, given that the congregation is not accustomed to hearing "Ve'yasmah Purkaneh Vi'ykareb Meshiheh." If, however, it can be assumed that the congregation is familiar with the Sephardic text of Kaddish, then the Sepharadi should recite the Sephardic text. This is, indeed, the prevalent practice today in Israel, where most communities are familiar with both versions of Kaddish.

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

Numerous sources emphasize the great importance and value of answering to Kaddish. In Masechet Berachot (6b), the Gemara teaches that when Hashem comes into the synagogue and sees that there are fewer than ten men present, "Miyad Hu Ko'es" – He immediately becomes angry. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) raised the question of why the Gemara adds the word "Miyad" – "immediately." What is added by telling us that G-d's anger is aroused instantly? The Ben Ish Hai answers by suggesting that "Miyad Hu Ko'es" means that Hashem grows angry because of "Yad" – the letters Yod and Dalet. The letter Yod equals 10, alluding to the minimum of ten Kaddishim which one should hear and respond to each day, and Dalet equals 4 – referring to the four recitations of Nakdishach which a person should hear and respond to each day. When people do not come to the Minyan, Hashem becomes angry – even though the people can pray privately, because they cannot respond to Kaddish or Nakdishach. The Gemara in Masechet Sota (49a) states that although the world's condition has been worsening progressively since the Bet Ha'mikdash was destroyed, it is sustained in the merit of the "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response to Kaddish, and of the recitation of the Kidusha De'sidra (a section of the U'ba Le'sion prayer). Moreover, the Gemara in Masechet Shabbat (119b, according to one version of the text) teaches that if a person was deemed worthy of seventy years of suffering, he can have the decree rescinded in the merit of responding "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" with all his strength. The Gemara further states that the merit of this response can bring a person atonement even for the sin of idolatry. Another passage there in the Gemara teaches that if a person responds "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" with all his strength, the gates of Gan Eden are opened for him. Similarly, the Sefer Hasidim (Rabbenu Yehuda Ha'hasid, Germany, 1150-1217) writes that one who regularly responds "Amen" in this world earns the privilege of doing so also in the world to come. This is alluded to in the verse in Tehillim (89:53), "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" ("Blessed is G-d forever, Amen and Amen"). The phrase "Amen Ve'amen" alludes to the response of "Amen" both in this world and the next. Another important source is the Gemara's teaching in Masechet Berachot (3a) that when Jews gather in the synagogue and declare, "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," Hashem exclaims, "Fortunate is the king whose subjects praise him this way!" The Bet Yosef cites the Zohar as explaining that Kaddish is recited in Aramaic, instead of Hebrew, because it has the unique power to oppose the Kelipot ("shells," the harmful spiritual forces). We use the inferior language, Aramaic, so we can attack the Kelipot in their language, as it were, and this has the effect of eliminating the forces of evil from the world. Tosafot (Shabbat 119b) cite a story from the Midrash about Rabbi Yishmael Kohen Gadol, who was shown how the dreadful punishments that are decreed upon Beneh Yisrael are avoided in the merit of the response of "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." And the Zohar states that the sign of a great Torah scholar is if he fervently looks for opportunities to respond to Kaddish. If a person rushes out of the synagogue before the final Kaddish, then even if he is a scholar, he cannot be considered a true Talmid Hacham. The Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797) writes that those who answer "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" will be spared the suffering from the upheavals that will occur before the arrival of Mashiah. The Mishna Berura cites a passage from the Midrash describing Hashem's reaction when Jews assemble to learn Torah and then recite Kaddish – He turns to angels and exclaims, "See how My children praise me!" Importantly, however, Rav Moshe Zakuta (1625-1697) writes that one must respond "Amen" with Kavana (concentration). If a person answers mindlessly, without paying attention, then he is included, Heaven forbid, in G-d's warning, "U'bozai Yekalu" – that those who disgrace Him will be shamed (Shemuel I 2:30). It is told that Rav Mordechai Gifter (1915-2001), the esteemed Rosh Yeshiva of Telz in Cleveland, once traveled with eight students to Toronto for a wedding. They were altogether nine men, and thus could not form a Minyan, but they assumed that they would have time upon arriving in Toronto to join a Minyan for Minha. As it happened, however, the plane made an emergency landing in some small town between Cleveland and Toronto. The group needed to recite Minha there, despite not having a Minyan. To their astonishment, a worker in the airport approached them as they were starting to pray and informed them that he was Jewish and wished to join them. He could not even read Hebrew, but he told the group that he wanted to recite Kaddish, and he needed their help. They made a Minyan, and helped him recite Kaddish. Afterward, Rav Gifter spoke to him and asked why he, a Jew without any religious background, wished to pray and recite Kaddish. The man explained that his father passed away several days earlier. The night before he met this group in the airport, his father came to him in a dream and told him he needed him to recite Kaddish for him. The man asked his father how he could recite Kaddish, as he lived in a town without a Jewish community. "Don't' worry," his father said, "tomorrow I'll send you a Minyan so you can recite Kaddish." This story demonstrates how everything happens for a purpose, and that nothing is random – but additionally, it teaches us the importance of Kaddish, and the great benefit it brings to the soul of the deceased when the children recite Kaddish.

The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908) writes that the text of the Kaddish prayer was likely written by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola ("Men of the Great Assembly") during the first years of the Second Commonwealth. This prayer expresses the wish that G-d's Name should be glorified and become known throughout the world. The destruction of the first Bet Ha'mikdash marked a grave Hilul Hashem – desecration of G-d's Name – and so when Jews returned to their land and began rebuilding the Temple, the Rabbis composed this special prayer that the glory of G-d's Name should be restored. The Yalkut Yosef (Hebrew edition) notes that this theory might be supported by the Gemara's comment (Berachot 33a) that our prayers and blessings were written by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola. However, as noted by Rav Yisrael Bitan, the Gemara did not specifically mention Kaddish, and thus this proof is not conclusive. In any event, this is the opinion followed also by Rav Shlomo of Worms (Germany, d. 1096), in his Siddur. He explains that after seventy years in Babylonian exile, the Jews' primary language was Aramaic, instead of Hebrew, and for this reason the Kaddish text was written in Aramaic. A different view is presented by the Orhot Haim (Rav Aharon of Lunel, late 13 th -early 14 th century), who maintained that the Kaddish text was written several generations later, by the Tanna'im. The unique significance of the Kaddish prayer, and its precious value, is clearly expressed in several passages in the Gemara. In Masechet Berachot (3a), the Gemara tells that Rabbi Yossi was once traveling and stopped to pray in one of the ruins of Jerusalem. While he was there, he heard a voice weeping and lamenting, "Woe unto the children because of whose iniquities I destroyed My home, burned My sanctuary, and exiled them among the nations." Afterward, he was informed by Eliyahu the Prophet that this cry is sounded three times each day. However, Eliyahu added, when Jews assemble in synagogues and study halls and pronounce in Kaddish, "Yeheh Shemeh," the Almighty "nods His head," so-to-speak, and regrets having driven the Jewish People into exile. The Kaddish recitation thus arouses G-d's love and compassion, and brings the final redemption closer. Moreover, the Gemara teaches in Masechet Shabbat (119b) that if one answers "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" with all his might, harsh decrees that were issued against him are rescinded. And the Gemara states in Masechet Sota (49a) that since the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash, the world's condition has been increasingly worsening, yet the world survives in the merit of "Kiddusha De'sidra" and the Kaddish recited after Torah study. ("Kiddusha De'sidra" refers to the section known to us as "U'ba Le'sion," when we cite several verses followed by their Aramaic translation.) Rav Amram Gaon (9 th century) tells that Rabbi Yishmael was once shown by an angel the horrific tragedies that were decreed to befall the Jewish People. The angel explained that new decrees are issued against the Jews every day, but these decrees are left unfulfilled in the merit of the Jews' recitation of "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." There was once a member of our community who suffered a stroke, and the family, who heard of the great power of Kaddish to annul harsh decrees, brought a Minyan to the rehabilitation center. They prayed there with the patient, ensuring to have special Kavana (concentration) when responding "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." The patient quickly recovered, returned to work, and lived for many years – a clear demonstration of the special power of Kaddish.

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

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

If a person happens to be in the vicinity of a prayer service, and he hears Kaddish, Barechu or Nakdishach, is he required to answer? The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) seems to indicate that one who hears these parts of the service is required to respond, even if he is in a different room and not part of the Minyan. By contrast, several other Poskim, including Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998), maintained that although one is permitted to respond in such a case, this is not obligatory. Rav Shmuel Wosner (1913-2015), in Shebet Ha'levi, writes that if a person is learning Torah near a Minyan, and responding to Kaddish and the other prayers would disrupt his study, then he does not need to respond. Thus, although it is certainly worthwhile to respond to Kaddish, Barechu and Nakdishach, as each response fulfills a Misva and is very significant, this is not obligatory, and one does not need to interrupt his Torah learning for this purpose.

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

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

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

If nine men are assembled in a room, and a tenth men is outside by the window, can this tenth men be counted so a Minyan can be formed? It is clear that the fellow outside cannot be counted if the window is closed. Even if the window is open but there are security bars running across the area of the window, the man cannot count toward the Minyan. Regarding the case of an open window, different views exist among the Poskim. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Yeruham (1290-1350) as ruling that the fellow outside does not count toward the Minyan, unless he brings his head and the main part of the body through the window. This is the view accepted by the Hayeh Adam (Rav Abraham Danzig, Vilna, 1748-1820). The Bet Yosef then cites the more lenient ruling of Rav Yishak Abuhab (Spain, 14 th century) that it suffices for the person to put his head inside through the window for him to be counted toward the Minyan. Thirdly, the Bet Yosef cites the position of Rav Hai Gaon (Babylonia, 939-1038), brought by the Orhot Haim, that if the man outside "shows them his face" then he may be counted toward the Minyan. The Bet Yosef posits that these final two views actually are the same opinion, expressed in different words, though he is uncertain what this opinion is. It is possible, he writes, that Rav Hai Gaon agreed that the fellow outside must bring his head into the room through the window, but his position was not made clear in the citation in the Orhot Haim. Conversely, it is possible that Rav Yishak Abuhab agreed that it suffices for the person to merely show his face to the people inside, and does not actually have to bring his head through the window. A number of other Rishonim (the Radbaz and Rav Moshe Ibn Habib) ruled clearly that the individual must bring his head inside the room through the window in order to count toward the Minyan, perhaps giving us reason to assume that this was the view also of Rav Yishak Abuhab and Rav Hai Gaon. This question is debated by later Poskim. The Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) and the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) ruled leniently, that nine men in a room can form a Minyan with a tenth man outside a window if he faces them through the window. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in Mahazik Beracha, cites those who require the person to bring his head through the window, and then brings those who rule leniently, that it suffices for the tenth men outside to face the nine men inside. As for the final Halacha, although the Mishna Berura follows the lenient view, the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakov Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) ruled stringently, that the person outside must bring his head inside the room to be counted. This is the position followed by Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, and this is the Halacha according to Sephardic practice. Summary: If nine men are in a room, and a tenth man is outside a window that is completely open, they can form a Minyan if the man outside brings his head inside through the window.

Ten men combine to form a Minyan only if they are together in the same room. The Rishonim debate the question of whether a person can count toward a Minyan if he is standing in the doorway. If nine men are inside the room, and the tenth is in the doorway, do they form a Minyan, or must the tenth man come out of the doorway inside the room? The Bet Yosef brings the view of Rashi, that the area underneath the lintel is considered part of the room, such that a person standing there counts toward the Minyan formed inside the room. By contrast, Rabbenu Yeruham (1290-1350) maintained that the area of the doorway is considered outside the room. The Bet Yosef shows that the Rambam follows Rabbenu Yeruham's view, noting the Rambam's ruling that if someone brought the meat of the Pesach sacrifice to the doorway of the home on the night of Pesach, he transgresses the Torah prohibition against bringing the meat of the sacrifice outside the home. The Rambam clearly considered the area of the doorway outside the home, and this would, presumably, apply also to the formation of a Minyan. The Shulhan Aruch accepts this view, and writes that the area of the doorway is not considered part of the room, and thus a person who stands there cannot be counted toward the Minyan. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) cites the work Tanya Rabbati as ruling leniently, that a person in the doorway may, in fact, be counted. This is the view also of the Mishna Berura, citing the Eben Ha'ozer. In light of these different opinions, several Poskim, including the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), maintained that we must be stringent in both directions. This means that a person standing in the doorway of a room cannot combine with nine men in the room to form a Minyan, and also cannot combine with nine men assembled outside in the hallway, as it is uncertain whether he is considered inside the room or in the hallway. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), in Ish Masliah, writes that although it is proper to be stringent in both directions, the Halacha follows the Shulhan Aruch's ruling, and so, strictly speaking, a person standing in the doorway may combine with nine men in the hallway to form a Minyan. Within the Shulhan Aruch's view, there is a difference of opinion regarding the status of a person standing in the area of the doorway closer to the room, such that he would be inside if the door closed. The Mishna Berura writes that according to some understandings of the Shulhan Aruch, even a person standing in this spot is considered outside, and cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This was the position also of the Kaf Ha'haim. Rav Mazuz, however, disagreed, and maintained that the person may be counted in such a case. The Mishna Berura, too, concluded that one may be lenient in this situation, even according to the Shulhan Aruch, given that many Poskim do not accept Rabbenu Yeruham's stringent view to begin with. Rav David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, likewise rules leniently, and this is the Halacha. The Poskim debate the status of a doorway that has no door. Some argue that the only reason why the doorway would not be considered part of the room is that part of the doorway is left outside when the door is closed; therefore, if there is no door, the area of the doorway is viewed as part of the room. Others contend that to the contrary, the possibility of viewing the doorway as part of the room is based on the fact that part of the doorway is inside when the door closes. In practice, then, if there is no door, we must be stringent, and a person standing in the doorway cannot combine with people inside the room or outside the room, regardless of where in the doorway he stands. Summary: If a person is standing in the doorway of a room, then he cannot combine with nine men inside the room to form a Minyan. Strictly speaking, he can join with nine men in the hallway outside the room to form a Minyan, though he should preferably move outside the doorway into the hallway. If he stands in the inner portion of the doorway, such that he would be inside the room if the door would close, then he can combine with nine men standing inside the room, unless there is no door, in which case he cannot combine with either those inside the room or those outside in the hall.

Ten men combine to form a Minyan only if they are together in the same room. The Rishonim debate the question of whether a person can count toward a Minyan if he is standing in the doorway. If nine men are inside the room, and the tenth is in the doorway, do they form a Minyan, or must the tenth man come out of the doorway inside the room? The Bet Yosef brings the view of Rashi, that the area underneath the lintel is considered part of the room, such that a person standing there counts toward the Minyan formed inside the room. By contrast, Rabbenu Yeruham (1290-1350) maintained that the area of the doorway is considered outside the room. The Bet Yosef shows that the Rambam follows Rabbenu Yeruham's view, noting the Rambam's ruling that if someone brought the meat of the Pesach sacrifice to the doorway of the home on the night of Pesach, he transgresses the Torah prohibition against bringing the meat of the sacrifice outside the home. The Rambam clearly considered the area of the doorway outside the home, and this would, presumably, apply also to the formation of a Minyan. The Shulhan Aruch accepts this view, and writes that the area of the doorway is not considered part of the room, and thus a person who stands there cannot be counted toward the Minyan. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) cites the work Tanya Rabbati as ruling leniently, that a person in the doorway may, in fact, be counted. This is the view also of the Mishna Berura, citing the Eben Ha'ozer. In light of these different opinions, several Poskim, including the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), maintained that we must be stringent in both directions. This means that a person standing in the doorway of a room cannot combine with nine men in the room to form a Minyan, and also cannot combine with nine men assembled outside in the hallway, as it is uncertain whether he is considered inside the room or in the hallway. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), in Ish Masliah, writes that although it is proper to be stringent in both directions, the Halacha follows the Shulhan Aruch's ruling, and so, strictly speaking, a person standing in the doorway may combine with nine men in the hallway to form a Minyan. Within the Shulhan Aruch's view, there is a difference of opinion regarding the status of a person standing in the area of the doorway closer to the room, such that he would be inside if the door closed. The Mishna Berura writes that according to some understandings of the Shulhan Aruch, even a person standing in this spot is considered outside, and cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This was the position also of the Kaf Ha'haim. Rav Mazuz, however, disagreed, and maintained that the person may be counted in such a case. The Mishna Berura, too, concluded that one may be lenient in this situation, even according to the Shulhan Aruch, given that many Poskim do not accept Rabbenu Yeruham's stringent view to begin with. Rav David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, likewise rules leniently, and this is the Halacha. The Poskim debate the status of a doorway that has no door. Some argue that the only reason why the doorway would not be considered part of the room is that part of the doorway is left outside when the door is closed; therefore, if there is no door, the area of the doorway is viewed as part of the room. Others contend that to the contrary, the possibility of viewing the doorway as part of the room is based on the fact that part of the doorway is inside when the door closes. In practice, then, if there is no door, we must be stringent, and a person standing in the doorway cannot combine with people inside the room or outside the room, regardless of where in the doorway he stands. Summary: If a person is standing in the doorway of a room, then he cannot combine with nine men inside the room to form a Minyan. Strictly speaking, he can join with nine men in the hallway outside the room to form a Minyan, though he should preferably move outside the doorway into the hallway. If he stands in the inner portion of the doorway, such that he would be inside the room if the door would close, then he can combine with nine men standing inside the room, unless there is no door, in which case he cannot combine with either those inside the room or those outside in the hall.

If ten men wish to make a Minyan in a room with a curtain that separates the room into two sections, must they all be together on one side of the curtain, or are they considered a Minyan even if some are on one side and some on the other? The Halacha in this case depends on the purpose of the curtain. If the curtain was hung for privacy purposes, so that people on one side would not see the people on the other, then we can disregard the curtain with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Such a curtain does not constitute a Halachic separation, and thus the men on the two different sides combine to form a Minyan. If, however, the curtain was hung for a halachic purpose, to separate the room into two distinct halachic areas, then these areas are treated as separate rooms with regard to the formation of a Minyan. An example would be a room with a Sefer Torah, where a curtain was hung to allow on the other side of the curtain activities which are not allowed in the presence of a Sefer Torah. Since the curtain was placed for the purpose of making a halachic partition, then the room is considered halachically divided, and thus ten men who wish to form a Minyan must assemble on one side of the curtain. (However, once ten men assemble on one side, those standing on the other side are considered participants in the Minyan.) Importantly, this Halacha applies only if the curtain reaches the ceiling. If it ends more than three Tefahim (handbreadths) from the ceiling, then it does not qualify as a separation, even if it was hung for halachic purposes. Additionally, this discussion pertains only to a cloth partition. If the partition is a solid wall, made from wood or some other firm material, then it constitutes a halachic partition regardless of the purpose for which it was placed, and therefore the ten men must assemble on one side of the partition. Summary: A curtain that reaches the ceiling is considered a halachic partition that divides a room into two separate rooms if it was hung for a halachic purpose, such as to make a separation from a Sefer Torah, allowing on the other side of the curtain activities which are forbidden in front of a Sefer Torah. In such a case, ten men who wish to form a Minyan in the room must gather on one side of the curtain. If the curtain does not extend to within three Tefahim (handbreadths) of the ceiling, or if it was hung for some other purpose, then men on both sides of the curtain can combine to form a Minyan. A solid partition divides the room regardless of its purpose, and thus the ten men must assemble on the same side of the partition.

If ten men wish to make a Minyan in a room with a curtain that separates the room into two sections, must they all be together on one side of the curtain, or are they considered a Minyan even if some are on one side and some on the other? The Halacha in this case depends on the purpose of the curtain. If the curtain was hung for privacy purposes, so that people on one side would not see the people on the other, then we can disregard the curtain with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Such a curtain does not constitute a Halachic separation, and thus the men on the two different sides combine to form a Minyan. If, however, the curtain was hung for a halachic purpose, to separate the room into two distinct halachic areas, then these areas are treated as separate rooms with regard to the formation of a Minyan. An example would be a room with a Sefer Torah, where a curtain was hung to allow on the other side of the curtain activities which are not allowed in the presence of a Sefer Torah. Since the curtain was placed for the purpose of making a halachic partition, then the room is considered halachically divided, and thus ten men who wish to form a Minyan must assemble on one side of the curtain. (However, once ten men assemble on one side, those standing on the other side are considered participants in the Minyan.) Importantly, this Halacha applies only if the curtain reaches the ceiling. If it ends more than three Tefahim (handbreadths) from the ceiling, then it does not qualify as a separation, even if it was hung for halachic purposes. Additionally, this discussion pertains only to a cloth partition. If the partition is a solid wall, made from wood or some other firm material, then it constitutes a halachic partition regardless of the purpose for which it was placed, and therefore the ten men must assemble on one side of the partition. Summary: A curtain that reaches the ceiling is considered a halachic partition that divides a room into two separate rooms if it was hung for a halachic purpose, such as to make a separation from a Sefer Torah, allowing on the other side of the curtain activities which are forbidden in front of a Sefer Torah. In such a case, ten men who wish to form a Minyan in the room must gather on one side of the curtain. If the curtain does not extend to within three Tefahim (handbreadths) of the ceiling, or if it was hung for some other purpose, then men on both sides of the curtain can combine to form a Minyan. A solid partition divides the room regardless of its purpose, and thus the ten men must assemble on the same side of the partition.

If a Minyan consists of precisely ten men, and one of them falls asleep, is the group still considered to comprise a Minyan, allowing them to recite Kaddish, Nakdishah, the Hazan's repetition of the Amida, and so on? The Shulhan Aruch writes that the sleeping individual may be counted as part of the Minyan. In the Bet Yosef, he explains that this is based on a ruling of the Maharam Me'Rutenberg (Germany, d. 1293). The Tureh Zahab (Rav David Segal, Poland, d. 1667), however, disagreed. He maintained that since sleep constitutes a kind of partial death, a sleeping individual is not fully "alive," and thus he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This view was taken also by the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, d. 1695), and, later, by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). The Mishna Berura writes that in light of the different opinions, it is best to try waking the fellow. If this is not possible, the Mishna Berura rules, then he may be counted for the recitation of Kaddish, but not for the repetition of the Amida. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, refutes the argument advanced by the Taz, and thus rules that a person who is asleep can be counted even for the repetition of the Amida. While it is certainly preferable to try waking the fellow up, he may be counted for the Minyan. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) cites the Bet David as asserting that this entire discussion relates specifically to the case of one person who is asleep. If, however, more than one person is sleeping, then they cannot all be counted toward the Minyan. The Mishna Berura follows this position, as well. In an earlier installment, we discussed the situation of a Minyan of ten people, some of whom are still praying the Amida. Rav Yisrael Bitan concluded that at Arbit, if at least six men (including the Hazzan) have completed the Amida, then the Hazzan may proceed to Kaddish. During the other prayers, however, when the Hazzan repeats the Amida, he should not begin the repetition unless nine men (including him) have finished the Amida, except in situations of great need, such as if someone in the Minyan has some urgent matter to attend to and cannot wait. Applying this conclusion to our discussion, it emerges that Kaddish may be recited even if several men are sleeping, as long as at least six (including the Hazzan) are awake. The repetition of the Amida, however, should not be recited if more than one person is asleep, except in situations of great need. Summary: If a Minyan consists of precisely ten men, and one of them falls asleep, he should preferably be woken up, but if not, he may nevertheless be counted as part of the Minyan. If several men fall asleep, then Kaddish may be recited as long as at least six men (including the Hazzan) are awake, but the repetition of the Amida should not be recited if fewer than nine men are awake, except in situations of great need.

If a Minyan consists of precisely ten men, and one of them falls asleep, is the group still considered to comprise a Minyan, allowing them to recite Kaddish, Nakdishah, the Hazan's repetition of the Amida, and so on? The Shulhan Aruch writes that the sleeping individual may be counted as part of the Minyan. In the Bet Yosef, he explains that this is based on a ruling of the Maharam Me'Rutenberg (Germany, d. 1293). The Tureh Zahab (Rav David Segal, Poland, d. 1667), however, disagreed. He maintained that since sleep constitutes a kind of partial death, a sleeping individual is not fully "alive," and thus he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This view was taken also by the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, d. 1695), and, later, by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). The Mishna Berura writes that in light of the different opinions, it is best to try waking the fellow. If this is not possible, the Mishna Berura rules, then he may be counted for the recitation of Kaddish, but not for the repetition of the Amida. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, refutes the argument advanced by the Taz, and thus rules that a person who is asleep can be counted even for the repetition of the Amida. While it is certainly preferable to try waking the fellow up, he may be counted for the Minyan. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) cites the Bet David as asserting that this entire discussion relates specifically to the case of one person who is asleep. If, however, more than one person is sleeping, then they cannot all be counted toward the Minyan. The Mishna Berura follows this position, as well. In an earlier installment, we discussed the situation of a Minyan of ten people, some of whom are still praying the Amida. Rav Yisrael Bitan concluded that at Arbit, if at least six men (including the Hazzan) have completed the Amida, then the Hazzan may proceed to Kaddish. During the other prayers, however, when the Hazzan repeats the Amida, he should not begin the repetition unless nine men (including him) have finished the Amida, except in situations of great need, such as if someone in the Minyan has some urgent matter to attend to and cannot wait. Applying this conclusion to our discussion, it emerges that Kaddish may be recited even if several men are sleeping, as long as at least six (including the Hazzan) are awake. The repetition of the Amida, however, should not be recited if more than one person is asleep, except in situations of great need. Summary: If a Minyan consists of precisely ten men, and one of them falls asleep, he should preferably be woken up, but if not, he may nevertheless be counted as part of the Minyan. If several men fall asleep, then Kaddish may be recited as long as at least six men (including the Hazzan) are awake, but the repetition of the Amida should not be recited if fewer than nine men are awake, except in situations of great need.

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 55:13), based on the ruling of numerous Rishonim, writes that ten men cannot combine to form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. For ten men to comprise a Minyan, they must be in one room. If ten or more people are together in the same room, then men in an adjoining room, or outside in the hallway, can pray with them and thereby be considered as praying with a Minyan. A number of Rishonim maintained that people in different rooms can combine to form a Minyan if they can see each other. Thus, according to this opinion, if five men are in one room and five other men are in an adjoining room with an open door, or with just an arch without a door, they can form a Minyan since they can all see one another. This is the view taken by the Abi Ezri (Rav Eliezer Ben Yoel Ha'levi, Germany, 12 th century) and the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310). These Rishonim compare the laws regarding a Minyan to those that apply to a Zimun for Birkat Ha'mazon. Just as people seated in different room can nevertheless combine to form a Zimun if they can see each other, the same is true of ten men who wish to form a Minyan. By contrast, the Or Zarua (Rav Yishak of Vienna, 13 th century), based on the ruling of the Rashbash (Rav Shlomo Duran, Algiers, 1400-1467), maintained that visibility does not affect the status of men situated in different rooms. Even if they can see each other, they cannot form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) understood the Bet Yosef as siding with this stringent view, and, indeed, this is the opinion accepted as Halacha. Therefore, ten men in two separate rooms cannot form a Minyan even if they can see each other. This Halacha becomes very relevant at Shiba homes, Heaven forbid. Sometimes, if the living room is small, some of the men stand in other rooms, such as the kitchen, or in the hallway. Minyanim held in offices, too, often lack space, and the participants thus do not always stand in the same room. It must be assured that at least ten men are situated in the same room, and then the others can spread out into the hall or into other rooms. If ten men are in the same room, then they form a Minyan even if they do not all see each other. If there are pillars or pieces of furniture that obstruct their view, they still form a Minyan, since they are all situated in the same room. The Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989) addresses the case of a synagogue that expanded its sanctuary by removing a wall, combining it with the room next to it, but support pillars needed to be left in place, and they form what resembles a doorway. He ruled that since the pillars were not intended to form a separation, the resulting large room may be considered a single room with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Hence, a Minyan can be formed by ten men in the large room even if they are interspersed throughout the area that appears as two separate rooms. The Minhat Yishak also addressed the common situation of a synagogue that was planned from the outset to have a portable divider that is sometimes put in place to separate the sanctuary into two separate areas. Since the initial plan was for the area to be occasionally separated, the Minhat Yishak writes, the two sections are treated as separate rooms. Therefore, when a Minyan is formed there, at least ten men must gather in one section, and then the others can position themselves in the other section. Summary: For a Minyan to be formed, ten men must be situated together in the same room. If they are in separate rooms, they do not form a Minyan even if they can see each other. Once ten men are together in one room, others who are in the hallway or in a different room can join them and thus be considered as praying in a Minyan.

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 55:13), based on the ruling of numerous Rishonim, writes that ten men cannot combine to form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. For ten men to comprise a Minyan, they must be in one room. If ten or more people are together in the same room, then men in an adjoining room, or outside in the hallway, can pray with them and thereby be considered as praying with a Minyan. A number of Rishonim maintained that people in different rooms can combine to form a Minyan if they can see each other. Thus, according to this opinion, if five men are in one room and five other men are in an adjoining room with an open door, or with just an arch without a door, they can form a Minyan since they can all see one another. This is the view taken by the Abi Ezri (Rav Eliezer Ben Yoel Ha'levi, Germany, 12 th century) and the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310). These Rishonim compare the laws regarding a Minyan to those that apply to a Zimun for Birkat Ha'mazon. Just as people seated in different room can nevertheless combine to form a Zimun if they can see each other, the same is true of ten men who wish to form a Minyan. By contrast, the Or Zarua (Rav Yishak of Vienna, 13 th century), based on the ruling of the Rashbash (Rav Shlomo Duran, Algiers, 1400-1467), maintained that visibility does not affect the status of men situated in different rooms. Even if they can see each other, they cannot form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) understood the Bet Yosef as siding with this stringent view, and, indeed, this is the opinion accepted as Halacha. Therefore, ten men in two separate rooms cannot form a Minyan even if they can see each other. This Halacha becomes very relevant at Shiba homes, Heaven forbid. Sometimes, if the living room is small, some of the men stand in other rooms, such as the kitchen, or in the hallway. Minyanim held in offices, too, often lack space, and the participants thus do not always stand in the same room. It must be assured that at least ten men are situated in the same room, and then the others can spread out into the hall or into other rooms. If ten men are in the same room, then they form a Minyan even if they do not all see each other. If there are pillars or pieces of furniture that obstruct their view, they still form a Minyan, since they are all situated in the same room. The Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989) addresses the case of a synagogue that expanded its sanctuary by removing a wall, combining it with the room next to it, but support pillars needed to be left in place, and they form what resembles a doorway. He ruled that since the pillars were not intended to form a separation, the resulting large room may be considered a single room with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Hence, a Minyan can be formed by ten men in the large room even if they are interspersed throughout the area that appears as two separate rooms. The Minhat Yishak also addressed the common situation of a synagogue that was planned from the outset to have a portable divider that is sometimes put in place to separate the sanctuary into two separate areas. Since the initial plan was for the area to be occasionally separated, the Minhat Yishak writes, the two sections are treated as separate rooms. Therefore, when a Minyan is formed there, at least ten men must gather in one section, and then the others can position themselves in the other section. Summary: For a Minyan to be formed, ten men must be situated together in the same room. If they are in separate rooms, they do not form a Minyan even if they can see each other. Once ten men are together in one room, others who are in the hallway or in a different room can join them and thus be considered as praying in a Minyan.

As we've seen in previous installments, the Hazzan at Arbit may proceed to Kaddish after the Amida as long as at least six men (including him) have completed the Amida. During the other prayers, when the Amida is repeated, the Hazzan should wait for at least nine people (including him) to complete silent Amida before beginning the repetition (unless there is an urgent time constraint). Ideally, the Hazzan should wait for everyone in the synagogue to complete the Amida, in order to give them all the opportunity to fulfill the Misva of responding to Kaddish or to the repetition. Although the Hazzan is technically permitted to begin as long as the minimum required number of men are responding, nevertheless, he should, ideally, wait for everyone in attendance to finish. In practice, though, the interest in giving everyone the opportunity to respond must be weighed against the concern of "Torah Sibur" – causing undue inconvenience to the congregation. Halacha accords significant weight to this consideration, to ensuring that the prayer service does not become too difficult an imposition. Waiting for everyone to finish the silent Amida – especially in a large congregation – can often cause an unreasonable delay. Moreover, an individual who chooses to recite the Amida very slowly should not be given the power to delay the entire congregation by making the Hazzan wait for him to finish. Thus, common sense is needed to carefully balance these two conflicting interests – the interest in giving everyone the opportunity to respond to Kaddish or the Hazzan's repetition of the Amida, and the interest in not inconveniencing those who have admirably taken time from their busy schedules to pray with a Minyan. The Hazzan should try to wait for as many people to finish as reasonably possible, without causing a delay that turns the prayer service into a burden.

As we've seen in previous installments, the Hazzan at Arbit may proceed to Kaddish after the Amida as long as at least six men (including him) have completed the Amida. During the other prayers, when the Amida is repeated, the Hazzan should wait for at least nine people (including him) to complete silent Amida before beginning the repetition (unless there is an urgent time constraint). Ideally, the Hazzan should wait for everyone in the synagogue to complete the Amida, in order to give them all the opportunity to fulfill the Misva of responding to Kaddish or to the repetition. Although the Hazzan is technically permitted to begin as long as the minimum required number of men are responding, nevertheless, he should, ideally, wait for everyone in attendance to finish. In practice, though, the interest in giving everyone the opportunity to respond must be weighed against the concern of "Torah Sibur" – causing undue inconvenience to the congregation. Halacha accords significant weight to this consideration, to ensuring that the prayer service does not become too difficult an imposition. Waiting for everyone to finish the silent Amida – especially in a large congregation – can often cause an unreasonable delay. Moreover, an individual who chooses to recite the Amida very slowly should not be given the power to delay the entire congregation by making the Hazzan wait for him to finish. Thus, common sense is needed to carefully balance these two conflicting interests – the interest in giving everyone the opportunity to respond to Kaddish or the Hazzan's repetition of the Amida, and the interest in not inconveniencing those who have admirably taken time from their busy schedules to pray with a Minyan. The Hazzan should try to wait for as many people to finish as reasonably possible, without causing a delay that turns the prayer service into a burden.

Often, when a small Minyan is praying, one or several of the men in attendance take longer than the others to complete the Amida. The question then arises as to whether or not the Hazzan must wait for ten men to finish before proceeding to Kaddish – in the case of Arbit – or to the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), in the case of Shaharit, Minha or Musaf. And, if the Hazzan does not need to wait for ten men, what is the minimum number of men that must have completed the Amida before the Hazan may begin? The Poskim discuss this question at length, in light of seemingly contradictory rulings of the Shulhan Aruch. In one context (Orah Haim 55:6), the Shulhan Aruch writes that a person who is still reciting the Amida, or even sleeping, may be counted toward the Minyan. Elsewhere (Orah Haim 124:4), however, the Shulhan Aruch warns that at least nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida and answering Amen, and if not, the Hazan's blessings might be considered Berachot Le'batala (blessings recited in vain). Rav Zalman of Liadi (founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812) reconciles these rulings by drawing a distinction between Arbit and the other prayers. During Arbit, the Hazan does not repeat the Amida, and the issue is thus only the recitation of Kaddish. The Shulhan Aruch allows reciting Kaddish if ten men are present even if one of them is still reciting the Amida, and so at Arbit, the Hazzan may proceed to Kaddish once eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. During the other prayers, however, the Hazzan repeats the Amida, and this requires at least nine men who are listening and responding "Amen" to the blessings. Therefore, during Shaharit, Musaf and Minha, the Hazzan may not begin the Hazara until nine other men have completed the silent Amida and are able to answer "Amen." This approach is taken also by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed. From the comments of Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch) in the Bet Yosef, Hacham Ovadia noted, it emerges that in his view, a person who is reciting the Amida may be included in the Minyan even for the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. As for the Shulhan Aruch's remark that nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazara, Hacham Ovadia cited the Derisha as clarifying that the Shulhan Aruch does not actually require nine men to be listening and responding to the Hazara. Indeed, the Shulhan Aruch wrote not that the Hazan's blessings are in vain if nine men are not listening and responding, but rather that they are "close to being recited in vain." The Derisha draws further proof from the Halacha allowing the Hazan to continue the repetition of the Amida if some of the ten men left the synagogue. As long as nine other men were present when he began the Hazara, he may continue and complete the Hazara after the Minyan was lost (as long as at least six remain). This compellingly proves that it is not necessary for nine men to be listening to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. Hacham Ovadia likewise cited Hacham Yishak Attia (Aleppo, Syria, 1755-1830) as explaining that the Shulhan Aruch warned that people who do not listen and respond to the Hazan's repetition are denigrating the blessings he recites, as though they recite blessings in vain. He did not mean that the Hazan cannot recite the Hazara with fewer than nine people listening and responding. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia concluded that even during Shaharit, Minha or Musaf, the Hazzan does not need to wait for nine men (besides him) to complete the Amida before beginning the repetition. Even if only eight have completed the Amida, the Hazan may proceed to the Hazara. Of course, it is preferable to wait for everyone to finish – both in the interest of satisfying the stringent opinion, and to give everyone the opportunity to recite Nakdishach. But if the ninth man is taking a long time to finish the Amida, the Hazzan is not required to wait for him. Interestingly enough, although – as we saw – the Ben Ish Hai rules stringently with regard to the repetition of the Amida, he seems to have changed his mind in a later work – Mi'kabse'el. There he writes that in a situation of necessity, where the tenth man recites an excessively long Amida, and the others cannot wait, there is room to allow the Hazzan to begin the Hazara with only eight men listening and responding. This resembles Hacham Ovadia's ruling, though Hacham Ovadia allowed the Hazzan to begin with only eight men listening even when this is not a dire necessity. By contrast, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azula, 1724-1806) maintained that the Shulhan Aruch cites two different opinions, which are disagreement with one another. The Hida concluded that we may follow the lenient position, and allow the Hazzan to begin even if one of the ten men is still praying the Amida, both at Arbit and when the Amida is repeated. In the opposite direction, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) asserted that the Shulhan Aruch changed his view on the matter, and he followed the stringent view. According to Hacham Bension, then, the Hazzan must wait for nine other men to finish the Amida not only during Shaharit, Minha and Musaf, but even during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida. Since Halacha follows the view that a person reciting the Amida does not count toward a Minyan at all, the Hazzan may not even recite Kaddish if one of the ten men in the synagogue has yet to complete the Amida. Another issue addressed by the Poskim is the minimum required number of men who have completed the Amida. Assuming that a person who is still reciting the Amida may be counted (whether it's only in Arbit, or in any prayer, depending on the different views cited above), does this apply only if the ninth man (besides the Hazzan) is still reciting the Amida? Or can we allow the Hazzan to begin even if several men are still reciting the Amida? Rav Levi Ibn Habib (Jerusalem, c. 1480-c. 1545) maintained that Halacha draws no distinction between a situation where one person has yet to complete the Amida, and a case of several people who are still reciting the Amida. As long as at least five men in addition to the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may proceed. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) was of the opinion that this discussion pertains only to the case where eight men, not including the Hazzan, have completed the Amida, but the tenth man has not. According to the Magen Abraham, this Halacha cannot be extended to a case where fewer than eight men (besides the Hazzan) have completed the Amida. Hacham Ovadia's view on this matter is not entirely clear. With regard to Arbit, he writes that as long as five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin Kaddish, since a majority of a Minyan – six men – have finished. In discussing the case of the other prayers, however, he speaks only of a situation where eight men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, but the tenth has yet to finish. The implication of his wording is that when it comes to the repetition of the Amida, Hacham Ovadia did not go so far as to allow the Hazzan to begin when fewer than eight other men have completed the Amida. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, asserted that in Hacham Ovadia's view, there is no distinction between Kaddish and the Hazara in this regard, and therefore, even if only five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin the Hazara, just as with regard to Kaddish at Arbit. Rav Yisrael Bitan cites the work Netivot Ha'haim as claiming that he heard Hacham Ovadia issue this ruling verbally. In conclusion, Rav Bitan concludes that there is certainly room to permit the Hazan to begin the Hazara if only five men besides him have finished the Amida. (We might add that often, those who have yet to complete the Amida have already reached the end, where additional personal prayers are recited, at which point they may respond to Nakdishach. This gives us an additional basis for leniency.) However, Rav Bitan added, this leniency should be relied upon only when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the Hazan should not begin the repetition until at least eight other men have completed the Amida. Summary: If there are only ten men in a Minyan for Arbit, the Hazzan may begin the Kaddish after the silent Amida as long as at least five other men – besides him – have completed the Amida. At all other prayers, when the Hazzan repeats the Amida, he should not begin the repetition until at least eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. In situations of great need, he may begin the repetition even if at least five men – besides him – have completed the Amida. Of course, it always preferable to wait to allow the others to respond to Kaddish or to the repetition.

Often, when a small Minyan is praying, one or several of the men in attendance take longer than the others to complete the Amida. The question then arises as to whether or not the Hazzan must wait for ten men to finish before proceeding to Kaddish – in the case of Arbit – or to the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), in the case of Shaharit, Minha or Musaf. And, if the Hazzan does not need to wait for ten men, what is the minimum number of men that must have completed the Amida before the Hazan may begin? The Poskim discuss this question at length, in light of seemingly contradictory rulings of the Shulhan Aruch. In one context (Orah Haim 55:6), the Shulhan Aruch writes that a person who is still reciting the Amida, or even sleeping, may be counted toward the Minyan. Elsewhere (Orah Haim 124:4), however, the Shulhan Aruch warns that at least nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida and answering Amen, and if not, the Hazan's blessings might be considered Berachot Le'batala (blessings recited in vain). Rav Zalman of Liadi (founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812) reconciles these rulings by drawing a distinction between Arbit and the other prayers. During Arbit, the Hazan does not repeat the Amida, and the issue is thus only the recitation of Kaddish. The Shulhan Aruch allows reciting Kaddish if ten men are present even if one of them is still reciting the Amida, and so at Arbit, the Hazzan may proceed to Kaddish once eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. During the other prayers, however, the Hazzan repeats the Amida, and this requires at least nine men who are listening and responding "Amen" to the blessings. Therefore, during Shaharit, Musaf and Minha, the Hazzan may not begin the Hazara until nine other men have completed the silent Amida and are able to answer "Amen." This approach is taken also by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed. From the comments of Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch) in the Bet Yosef, Hacham Ovadia noted, it emerges that in his view, a person who is reciting the Amida may be included in the Minyan even for the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. As for the Shulhan Aruch's remark that nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazara, Hacham Ovadia cited the Derisha as clarifying that the Shulhan Aruch does not actually require nine men to be listening and responding to the Hazara. Indeed, the Shulhan Aruch wrote not that the Hazan's blessings are in vain if nine men are not listening and responding, but rather that they are "close to being recited in vain." The Derisha draws further proof from the Halacha allowing the Hazan to continue the repetition of the Amida if some of the ten men left the synagogue. As long as nine other men were present when he began the Hazara, he may continue and complete the Hazara after the Minyan was lost (as long as at least six remain). This compellingly proves that it is not necessary for nine men to be listening to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. Hacham Ovadia likewise cited Hacham Yishak Attia (Aleppo, Syria, 1755-1830) as explaining that the Shulhan Aruch warned that people who do not listen and respond to the Hazan's repetition are denigrating the blessings he recites, as though they recite blessings in vain. He did not mean that the Hazan cannot recite the Hazara with fewer than nine people listening and responding. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia concluded that even during Shaharit, Minha or Musaf, the Hazzan does not need to wait for nine men (besides him) to complete the Amida before beginning the repetition. Even if only eight have completed the Amida, the Hazan may proceed to the Hazara. Of course, it is preferable to wait for everyone to finish – both in the interest of satisfying the stringent opinion, and to give everyone the opportunity to recite Nakdishach. But if the ninth man is taking a long time to finish the Amida, the Hazzan is not required to wait for him. Interestingly enough, although – as we saw – the Ben Ish Hai rules stringently with regard to the repetition of the Amida, he seems to have changed his mind in a later work – Mi'kabse'el. There he writes that in a situation of necessity, where the tenth man recites an excessively long Amida, and the others cannot wait, there is room to allow the Hazzan to begin the Hazara with only eight men listening and responding. This resembles Hacham Ovadia's ruling, though Hacham Ovadia allowed the Hazzan to begin with only eight men listening even when this is not a dire necessity. By contrast, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azula, 1724-1806) maintained that the Shulhan Aruch cites two different opinions, which are disagreement with one another. The Hida concluded that we may follow the lenient position, and allow the Hazzan to begin even if one of the ten men is still praying the Amida, both at Arbit and when the Amida is repeated. In the opposite direction, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) asserted that the Shulhan Aruch changed his view on the matter, and he followed the stringent view. According to Hacham Bension, then, the Hazzan must wait for nine other men to finish the Amida not only during Shaharit, Minha and Musaf, but even during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida. Since Halacha follows the view that a person reciting the Amida does not count toward a Minyan at all, the Hazzan may not even recite Kaddish if one of the ten men in the synagogue has yet to complete the Amida. Another issue addressed by the Poskim is the minimum required number of men who have completed the Amida. Assuming that a person who is still reciting the Amida may be counted (whether it's only in Arbit, or in any prayer, depending on the different views cited above), does this apply only if the ninth man (besides the Hazzan) is still reciting the Amida? Or can we allow the Hazzan to begin even if several men are still reciting the Amida? Rav Levi Ibn Habib (Jerusalem, c. 1480-c. 1545) maintained that Halacha draws no distinction between a situation where one person has yet to complete the Amida, and a case of several people who are still reciting the Amida. As long as at least five men in addition to the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may proceed. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) was of the opinion that this discussion pertains only to the case where eight men, not including the Hazzan, have completed the Amida, but the tenth man has not. According to the Magen Abraham, this Halacha cannot be extended to a case where fewer than eight men (besides the Hazzan) have completed the Amida. Hacham Ovadia's view on this matter is not entirely clear. With regard to Arbit, he writes that as long as five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin Kaddish, since a majority of a Minyan – six men – have finished. In discussing the case of the other prayers, however, he speaks only of a situation where eight men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, but the tenth has yet to finish. The implication of his wording is that when it comes to the repetition of the Amida, Hacham Ovadia did not go so far as to allow the Hazzan to begin when fewer than eight other men have completed the Amida. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, asserted that in Hacham Ovadia's view, there is no distinction between Kaddish and the Hazara in this regard, and therefore, even if only five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin the Hazara, just as with regard to Kaddish at Arbit. Rav Yisrael Bitan cites the work Netivot Ha'haim as claiming that he heard Hacham Ovadia issue this ruling verbally. In conclusion, Rav Bitan concludes that there is certainly room to permit the Hazan to begin the Hazara if only five men besides him have finished the Amida. (We might add that often, those who have yet to complete the Amida have already reached the end, where additional personal prayers are recited, at which point they may respond to Nakdishach. This gives us an additional basis for leniency.) However, Rav Bitan added, this leniency should be relied upon only when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the Hazan should not begin the repetition until at least eight other men have completed the Amida. Summary: If there are only ten men in a Minyan for Arbit, the Hazzan may begin the Kaddish after the silent Amida as long as at least five other men – besides him – have completed the Amida. At all other prayers, when the Hazzan repeats the Amida, he should not begin the repetition until at least eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. In situations of great need, he may begin the repetition even if at least five men – besides him – have completed the Amida. Of course, it always preferable to wait to allow the others to respond to Kaddish or to the repetition.

A person who does not observe Yom Tob, but observes Shabbat, can be counted toward a Minyan. One who violates Yom Kippur, however, is akin to a Shabbat violator. As discussed in a previous installment, the status of a public Shabbat violator vis-à-vis being counted for a Minyan is subject to considerable debate and discussion. A member of the Karaite sect cannot be counted for a Minyan. This sect acknowledges the written text of the Torah as divine law but rejects the authority of the Torah She'be'al Peh – the oral tradition interpreting the Torah. Thus, for example, the Karaites wear Tefillin between their eyes, because they follow the literal meaning of the requirement to wear Tefillin "Ben Enecha" ("between your eyes"), rejecting the Sages' understanding that this refers to the spot on the top of the head parallel to the area between the eyes. Likewise, they follow the literal meaning of the Torah's command not to kindle a flame on Shabbat (Shemot 35:3), and so they keep the lights and heating off on Shabbat, sitting in the dark and cold and eating cold food. We, who accept the Rabbis' interpretation of this verse, as forbidding only the act of kindling on Shabbat, but not having a preexisting flame, specifically make a point of lighting candles before Shabbat to illuminate the home, and of eating hot dishes on Shabbat. Since Karaites heretically deny the authority of our oral tradition, they are considered gentiles with respect to a Minyan, and cannot be counted. Needless to say, if a Karaite or any other kind of heretic or sinner performs Teshuba, they are treated as full-fledged observant Jews and certainly count for a Minyan. An observant Jew who does not read Hebrew, and thus cannot pray, may be counted toward a Minyan, as long as he understands the concept of Tefilla. If, for example, a Jew who did not receive a religious education becomes a Ba'al Teshuba and begins observing the Misvot, then he may be counted as one of the ten men for a Minyan even though he did not yet learn Hebrew and is thus still unable to recite the prayers.

A person who does not observe Yom Tob, but observes Shabbat, can be counted toward a Minyan. One who violates Yom Kippur, however, is akin to a Shabbat violator. As discussed in a previous installment, the status of a public Shabbat violator vis-à-vis being counted for a Minyan is subject to considerable debate and discussion. A member of the Karaite sect cannot be counted for a Minyan. This sect acknowledges the written text of the Torah as divine law but rejects the authority of the Torah She'be'al Peh – the oral tradition interpreting the Torah. Thus, for example, the Karaites wear Tefillin between their eyes, because they follow the literal meaning of the requirement to wear Tefillin "Ben Enecha" ("between your eyes"), rejecting the Sages' understanding that this refers to the spot on the top of the head parallel to the area between the eyes. Likewise, they follow the literal meaning of the Torah's command not to kindle a flame on Shabbat (Shemot 35:3), and so they keep the lights and heating off on Shabbat, sitting in the dark and cold and eating cold food. We, who accept the Rabbis' interpretation of this verse, as forbidding only the act of kindling on Shabbat, but not having a preexisting flame, specifically make a point of lighting candles before Shabbat to illuminate the home, and of eating hot dishes on Shabbat. Since Karaites heretically deny the authority of our oral tradition, they are considered gentiles with respect to a Minyan, and cannot be counted. Needless to say, if a Karaite or any other kind of heretic or sinner performs Teshuba, they are treated as full-fledged observant Jews and certainly count for a Minyan. An observant Jew who does not read Hebrew, and thus cannot pray, may be counted toward a Minyan, as long as he understands the concept of Tefilla. If, for example, a Jew who did not receive a religious education becomes a Ba'al Teshuba and begins observing the Misvot, then he may be counted as one of the ten men for a Minyan even though he did not yet learn Hebrew and is thus still unable to recite the prayers.

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.

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.