Podcasts about mishna berura

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

The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat (119) teaches that responding "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" to Kaddish "with all one's strength" has the power to annul harsh decrees. According to some versions of this passage, even if a decree of seventy years of suffering was issued against a person, he can have the decree repealed by answering "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" with all his "strength." The common understanding of this expression – "with all one's strength" – is that it refers to full Kavana (concentration). Answering to Kaddish with concentration, focusing on the meaning of the words, has the power to annul harsh decrees. People often look for effective "Segulot," especially when they are dealing with some kind of problem or crisis, or when they have an important court case or business deal. Unfortunately, they generally overlook what might be the most obvious and most well-documented "Segula" of all – responding to Kaddish with full concentration. No matter what harsh punishment has been decreed against a person, he has the opportunity to have it annulled by responding to Kaddish properly. People who talk during Kaddish need to remember that they can gain far more by concentrating during Kaddish than they do with any conversation they have with their fellow. The "return on investment" for properly concentrating during Kaddish is far greater than we could ever imagine. The Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination), knowing the great benefits of concentrating on Kaddish, lures a person to disregard Kaddish, and to engage in conversation instead of listening and responding properly. But speaking during Kaddish – even words of Torah! – is strictly forbidden by Halacha, and by doing so, one forfeits the immense rewards that this special prayer offers, and becomes liable to punishment, Heaven forbid. The Bet Yosef brings the story of Rabbi Hama who saw Eliyahu Ha'nabi leading thousands of camels loaded with "anger and wrath," and Eliyahu said that all this anger is for those who engage in conversation during the recitation of Kaddish. And the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) cites the Mateh Moshe as relating that a certain Torah scholar had a student who died young, and the student appeared to him in a dream, with an unseemly mark on his forehead. The student explained that this mark was his punishment for speaking during Kaddish. One should not fold his Tallit or Tefillin, or engage in other activity, during the recitation of Kaddish, so that he can fully concentrate on the words. This applies to all the Kaddish recitations – the Kaddishim recited during the prayer service, the Kaddish recited after Torah learning, the Kaddish recited at an Arayat, and so on. Rav Yisrael Bitan cites an opinion that this applies only when one responds, "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," though Rav Bitan disagrees, and maintains that this is forbidden even while listening to Kaddish. He adds, however, that this is forbidden only through "Da'amiran Be'alma," which is the essential Kaddish. During the remainder of Kaddish, which is a later addition to Kaddish, it is permissible to engage in other activities. If someone fell behind during the prayers, and needs to complete the previous prayer during Kaddish, he should do so only after "Da'amiran Be'alma." Until that point, he should remain silent and respond to the Kaddish. Rav Bitan cites this ruling from the Mishna Berura.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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

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

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 529: Seif 1-4  סימן תקכ"ט סעיף א-ד Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני שמחת יו"ט Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 23 - Siman 528: Seif 2  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף כג- סימן תקכ"ח סעיף ב Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 20-22  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף כ-כב Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

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

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

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

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 14-19  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף יד-יט Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

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

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

As discussed in previous installments, if a Minyan of precisely ten people is praying, and one of them leaves in the middle of a section that requires a Minyan, those who remain may complete that section despite not having a Minyan. As long as at least six men remain, they may complete the section that began in the presence of a Minyan. Thus, for example, if the Hazzan began the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), and the Minyan was lost in the middle of the repetition, he may continue and complete the Hazara. However, Halacha speaks very harshly of a person who breaks a Minyan by departing in the middle of the service, leaving behind fewer than ten men. The Sages applied to such a person the stern warning of the prophet Yeshayahu (1:28), "Ve'ozebeh Hashem Yichlu" – "Those who abandon G-d shall be annihilated," Heaven forbid. It must be emphasized that this applies only to someone whose departure results in the loss of a Minyan. If there are more than ten men present, then one who leaves the synagogue is not included in this harsh condemnation. Furthermore, the Mishna Berura writes that the Sages speak here only of a person who leaves during a part of the prayer service that requires a Minyan – such as the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), Kaddish and Torah reading. If a person needs to leave, he may do so if the congregation is not currently reciting a part of the prayer service requiring ten men. For example, if the Hazzan is reciting the Kaddish after Yishtabah, and the tenth man wishes to leave, he may wait until after Kaddish and then leave. This is allowed even though he prevents the remaining nine from reciting the later sections of the service that require a Minyan. Similarly, if a person needs to leave during the Hazara, he should do so after the completion of the Hazara. (According to Ashkenazic custom, which views Kaddish Titkabal as part of the Hazara, he must wait until after Kaddish Titkabal.) An exception to this rule is Nakdishach, during which one may never leave the synagogue. Importantly, this entire discussion applies to a person who already prayed. Irrespective of one's responsibility to the other nine men in the synagogue, he has a personal obligation to pray with a Minyan, and so he should not leave without a pressing need that justifies missing a Minyan.

One of the verses in the "Az Yashir" song which our ancestors sang after the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf – and which we recite each morning toward the end of Pesukeh De'zimra – is "Mi Chamocha Ba'elim Hashem, Mi Kamocha Ne'edar Be'kodesh." Although both halves of this verse begin with the same two words ("Mi Chamocha"), the pronunciation is not identically the same in both halves. At the beginning of the verse, the correct pronunciation is "Mi Chamocha," whereas in the second half, these words should be pronounced "Mi Kamocha." The phrase "Mi Kamocha" in the second half of the verse marks an exception to a rule of Hebrew grammar. The basic rule is that a Bet, Gimmel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh or Tav at the beginning of a word receives a Dagesh (dot), in which case, in principle, the letter Kaf at the beginning of "Kamocha" should receive a Dagesh, and should thus be pronounced "Kamocha." However, when the previous word ends with a Heh, Vav or Yod – such as the word "Mi," which ends with the letter Yod – the Dagesh is not added. Hence, according to the rules of grammar, the phrase should be pronounced "Mi Chamocha." Nevertheless, the second half of this verse is exceptional, and the Dagesh is, in fact, added to the Kaf, resulting in the pronunciation of "Mi Kamocha." When one recites this verse, he must ensure not to say the words "Hashem Mi Kamocha" rapidly, such that it sounds like he says, "Hashem Micha" – as though declaring that Micha is G-d, Heaven forbid. Micha was the person responsible for creating the golden calf at Mount Sinai, and one must be careful not to imply that he is a deity. Sepharadim make a distinction in their pronunciation between a letter Gimal that has a Dagesh, and a letter Gimal that does not. In the phrase "Am Zu Ga'alta," the Gimal at the beginning of "Ga'alta" receives a Dagesh. According to the rule mentioned earlier, this letter should not receive a Dagesh, because the previous word ("Zu") ends with the letter Vav. The reason why this Gimal nevertheless receives a Dagesh is that without a Dagesh, the word would sound like "Ga'alta" spelled with an Ayin (as opposed to an Alef), which would mean that Hashem is repulsed by Beneh Yisrael, Heaven forbid. Pronouncing the Gimal with a Dagesh makes it clear that the word is "Ga'alta" with an Alef, which means that Hashem has redeemed Beneh Yisrael. A similar exception is made earlier in this verse, in the phrase "Yidemu Ka'aben." The Kaf at the beginning of "Ka'aben" should, in principle, not receive a Dagesh, because it follows a word that ends with the letter Vav. Nevertheless, the Dagesh is added to the Kaf, as otherwise this phrase might sound like "Yidemucha Aben" – "stone silences You," indicating that stone has some kind of power to defeat the Almighty, Heaven forbid. At one point in "Az Yashir," the Egyptians' drowning is described with the words "Salelu Ka'oferet Be'mayim Adirim" – the Egyptians plunged into the water like lead. There is some question as to the implication of the word "Adirim" – "mighty" – at the end of this verse. Several Poskim, including the Mishna Berura, Ben Ish Hai, and Kaf Ha'haim, explain that this word describes the Egyptian warriors who drowned. Accordingly, these Poskim maintain that when reading this verse, one must make a pause between the words "Mayim" and "Adirim," as otherwise it sounds as though one describes the water as being mighty. However, Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025) found a poem written by Rav Yehuda Ha'levi (Spain, 1075-1141) indicating that he understood the phrase "Mayim Adirim" to mean "mighty waters," referring to the turbulence of the waters as they descended onto the Egyptians and drowned them. According to this reading, this phrase should be read without a pause between "Mayim" and "Adirim." It is customary to repeat the final verse of "Az Yashir" – "Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed." One reason this is done is so that we end up mentioning the Name of "Havaya" in this song 18 times, which has special significance. Additionally, the verse is repeated to mark the conclusion of the song. We then recite the Aramaic translation of this final verse ("Hashem Malchuteh Ka'em…") and then the verse immediately following the song – "Ki Ba Sus Pharaoh…"

According to Sephardic custom, one who remained awake throughout the night must recite Birkot Ha'Torah after the point of Alot Ha'shahar (daybreak), and should not learn Torah once this point arrives before reciting the blessings. (Different customs exist among Ashkenazim regarding the recitation of Birkot Ha'shahar in the morning after remaining awake throughout the night, as some do not recite the blessings, whereas others do. The Mishna Berura advises one to try to listen to the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah by somebody who had slept during the night. Sepharadim, however, recite the blessings in this case.) The Shulhan Aruch maintained that the point of Alot Ha'shahar is 72 halachic minutes before sunrise. The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797), however, disagreed, and held that this occurs already 90 halachic minutes before sunrise. Due to this difference of opinion, Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) ruled that if somebody learns throughout the night – as is customary on the night of Shabuot, for example – he must stop learning 90 halachic minutes before sunrise, and refrain from learning until the point of Alot Ha'shahar according to the Shulhan Aruch's opinion. He should then recite Birkot Ha'Torah and resume his learning. Since learning Torah is not allowed before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah once Alot Ha'shahar arrives, and one should not recite Birkot Ha'Torah before Alot Ha'shahar, one should desist from learning during the period when it is uncertain whether the point of Alot Ha'shahar had arrived. One cannot yet recite Birkot Ha'Torah, out of concern for the position of the Shulhan Aruch, but one cannot yet learn Torah, due to the ruling of the Vilna Gaon. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagrees, and maintains that a person who remains awake throughout the night may follow the view of the Shulhan Aruch and continue learning Torah until 72 minutes before Alot Ha'shahar. He should then recite Birkot Ha'Torah and resume his learning. Moreover, Hacham Ovadia ruled that if one does not know when Alot Ha'shahar occurs, he may continue learning until he knows for certain that Alot Ha'shahar has arrived, and then recite Birkot Ha'Torah at that point. Hacham Ovadia added that one specifically should not find somebody who had slept during the night and listen to his recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah, because it is preferable to perform a Misva oneself than to discharge one's obligation by listening to another person's recitation ("Misva Bo Yoter Mi'bi'shluho"). Summary: According to Sephardic practice, one who remained awake throughout the night must recite Birkot Ha'Torah at the point of Alot Ha'shahar (daybreak), and he may not learn Torah from that point until he recites Birkot Ha'Torah. We follow the view of the Shulhan Aruch, that Alot Ha'shahar occurs 72 halachic minutes before sunrise. One who does not know when Alot Ha'shahar may continue learning until he knows for certain that Alot Ha'shahar has arrived and then recite Birkot Ha'Torah at that point.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (1:6) famously instructs, "Aseh Lecha Rav U'kneh Lecha Haber" – literally, "Make for yourself a Rabbi, and 'purchase' for yourself a friend." This is commonly understood to mean that that as important as it is to have a Rabbi, it is even more important to have a friend, and one should therefore go so far as to "purchase" a friend if necessary. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), however, added a different interpretation, explaining "U'kneh Lecha Haber" to mean that the quill – "Kaneh" – should be one's "friend." One should make sure to learn from a knowledgeable Rabbi – and he should also grow accustomed to writing the Torah he learns as much as possible. There is immense value in writing the Torah that one studies, as this helps him retain the material and also preserves it. The question arises as to whether one who wishes to write words of Torah in the morning must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. Halacha requires reciting Birkot Ha'Torah before learning Torah in the morning, but (as we saw in a previous installment) a distinction exists between silently thinking about Torah and speaking words of Torah. Birkot Ha'Torah is required in the morning before verbally speaking words of Torah, but not – according to the consensus opinion – before silently thinking words of Torah. At first glance, we would assume that silently writing Torah material is no different from silently thinking about Torah, and thus this may be done before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. Interestingly, however, the Shulhan Aruch distinguishes between thinking about Torah in one's mind and writing Torah. When it comes to thinking about Torah, the Shulhan Aruch follows the view of the Agur (Rav Yaakob Landau, 1410-1493) that silent Torah thoughts do not require Birkot Ha'Torah. However, the Shulhan Aruch rules that writing Torah indeed requires the recitation of the Birkot Ha'Torah. This is based on the position of the Abudarham (Rav David Abudarham, Spain, 14 th century) which Rav Yosef Karo – author of the Shulhan Aruch – brings in his Bet Yosef. Importantly, however, Rav Yosef Karo wrote a collection of notes to the Bet Yosef called Bedek Ha'bayit, in which he corrects or amends certain passages in the Bet Yosef. And in the Bedek Ha'bayit, commenting on his citation of the Abudarham's ruling concerning one who writes Torah, Rav Yosef Karo remarks: "See the words of the Agur" – a clear reference to the aforementioned ruling of the Agur that Birkot Ha'Torah is not required before thinking about Torah. It thus appears that the Bet Yosef retracted his opinion, and concluded that one does not, in fact, need to recite Birkot Ha'Torah before writing Torah. The question then becomes, what was Rav Yosef Karo's final ruling? In the Bet Yosef, he seems to have concluded that writing Torah does not require Birkot Ha'Torah, but in the Shulhan Aruch, he wrote that it does. The Poskim dispute the question of whether the Rav Yosef Karo wrote the Shulhan Aruch before or after he wrote his emendations to the Bet Yosef. Therefore, it is unclear which ruling reflects his final position – his ruling in Bedek Ha'bayit, or his ruling in the Shulhan Aruch. If we follow the Shulhan Aruch's ruling, which distinguishes between thinking about Torah and writing Torah, what's the rationale behind this distinction? Why would thinking about Torah not require Birkot Ha'Torah, but writing Torah would? Later commentators offered several explanations. One approach is that the obligation of Torah study is inherently linked to the obligation to teach Torah. Therefore, Birkot Ha'Torah – the blessing over the Misva to learn Torah – is recited only upon a kind of learning which could also facilitate the teaching of Torah. As Torah can be taught through speech and through the written word, these two forms of Torah learning require Birkot Ha'Torah, whereas silently thinking about Torah, which of course is not a way in which Torah can be disseminated, does not. Others explain that one must learn Torah with the goal of remembering the material. Therefore, the Beracha is recited only when one speaks or writes Torah, as one is more likely to remember material which he verbalizes or writes than material which he simply thinks in his mind. The Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, 1530-1612) answers, very simply, that writing, as opposed to thinking, is an action, and a Beracha is recited only before a Misva act. Finally, the Hayeh Adam (Rav Abraham Danzig, Vilna, 1748-1820) explains that people often tend to say the words as they write, and therefore Halacha requires reciting Birkot Ha'Torah before writing, given the likelihood that he will end up speaking words of Torah. As for the final Halacha, the Mishna Berura cites several Poskim who rule that due to the uncertainty surrounding this question, one who wishes to write Torah must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah and then recite verses from the Torah before proceeding to write. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef, as well. Verbally reading verses before writing satisfies all opinions and thus avoids this Halachic uncertainty. (Rabbi Yisrael Bitan notes that in one work, Hacham Ovadia is cited as ruling that a person in this situation must recite Birkot Ha'Torah and should then "preferably" recite verses before writing – indicating that this is a preference, but not a requirement. However, Rabbi Bitan shows that this is an inaccurate representation of Hacham Ovadia's position, as in truth he maintained that one must first verbally read verses in order to satisfy all opinions.) This Halacha applies also to a Sofer who wishes to do some work – writing a Sefer Torah, Tefillin or Mezuza – in the morning. Some Poskim maintained that since a Sofer merely copies the Torah text, and is not actually learning Torah, Birkot Ha'Torah is not required before such work. However, due to the different opinions that exist, a Sofer should ensure to recite Birkot Ha'Torah and then verbally read verses before writing. This applies also to somebody who is typing Torah material from a handwritten text, without any intention to learn as he types. Although one could argue that this does not qualify as Torah learning, nevertheless, given the uncertainty, the typist should first recite Birkot Ha'Torah, verbally read some verses, and then proceed to the typing. Summary: One who wishes to write Torah insights, commentaries, etc. in the morning should first recite Birkot Ha'Torah and then verbally read some Torah text before writing, in order to satisfy all opinions. This applies also to a Sofer – he should recite Birkot Ha'Torah and then verbally read some verses before writing in the morning.

Many people have the custom each morning to read "Hok Le'Yisrael" – a collection of texts that includes passages from the Tanach, Mishna, Halachic works, Zohar, and other sources. "Hok Le'Yisrael" follows a regimented schedule, with different pieces of texts being recited each day. Often, the people who read "Hok Le'Yisrael" do not understand the material they read. The question arises whether a person may read "Hok Le'Yisrael" in the morning before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah. Halacha requires reciting Birkot Ha'Torah before learning Torah for the first time in the morning, but does this apply even if one reads Torah literature without understanding the text? Does this qualify as "learning" with respect to the obligation of Birkot Ha'Torah? Rav Schneur Zalman of Liadi (first Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812), in his Shulhan Aruch Ha'Rav, distinguishes in this regard between the Tanach and other texts. When one reads verses from the Torah, Nebi'im or Ketubim, this constitutes Torah learning regardless of whether or not he understands what he reads. When it comes to all other texts, however, reading them qualifies as Torah study only if one understands the material he reads. Similarly, the Mishna Berura cites the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1683) as stating that if one reads "Ezehu Mekoman" – the chapter of Mishna which is customarily read during the "Korbanot" section each morning – without understanding the text, this is not considered Torah study. This is true also of "Rabbi Yishmael Omer," the paragraph which is customarily read in the morning, listing the thirteen methods by which the Sages extracted Halachot from the Biblical text. If a person does not understand this passage, reading it does not qualify as Torah learning. This rule has ramifications with regard to Ereb Pesach, when it is customary for firstborns to participate in a Siyum celebration in order to be absolved from the "fast of the firstborn" (Ta'anit Bechorot) on this day. Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that a Siyum is effective in absolving the firstborns of their obligation only if the person making the Siyum truly understood all the material in the Masechet (tractate of Talmud) which he completes. Simply reading the words does not suffice. The exception to this rule is the Zohar, the reading of which qualifies as Torah learning even if one does not understand what he reads – and even if he does not read the words correctly. This is the ruling of the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) and of Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868). The words of the Zohar have such power and potency that reading them has the effect of absorbing the content into one's being even if he does not understand what he reads. It is told that the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria, 1534-1572) once advised somebody to read five pages of Zohar each day as a Tikkun (rectification) for his soul. And many have the custom to read from the Zohar Hadash each day during the month of Elul, until Yom Kippur, because the reading itself brings great spiritual benefits, even if one does not understand the text. Therefore, one who reads Zohar in the morning must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. This exception is unique to the Zohar. Other Kabbalistic works – such as Sha'ar Ha'kavanot and the teachings of the Rashash (Rav Shalom Sharabi, 1720-1777) – elucidate and expound upon the teachings of the Zohar, and thus simply reading them without understanding what they say does not qualify as Torah learning. Returning the case of those who read "Hok Le'Yisrael," since this reading includes passages from the Tanach, one must recite Birkot Ha'Torah before reading this text in the morning, even if he does not understand anything he reads. This applies also to somebody who wishes to read Tehillim in the morning – he must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah, even though he does not understand the verses he recites, because Tehillim is part of the Tanach. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that although reading Tanach and Zohar without understanding the text qualifies as Torah study, we should always aspire to understand to the best of our ability. The sin of "Bittul Torah" (neglecting Torah) is normally defined as wasting time which could have been used for Torah, but it includes also wasting one's capabilities which could have been used to understand Torah. G-d gave us intellectual skills, the ability to comprehend, and we must utilize these powers to understand as much Torah as we can to the greatest extent possible. Today, when virtually every Torah text is available with translations and commentaries, there is really no excuse for reading any part of Torah literature without understanding the material. Summary: If one wishes to read verses from the Torah – such as Tehillim – in the morning, he must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah, even if he will not understand the text he will be reciting. This applies also to someone who wishes to read passages from the Zohar which he does not understand. Reading any other Torah text, however, does not qualify as Torah study unless one understands what he reads, and thus one who reads in the morning other Torah texts without understanding does not need to first recite Birkot Ha'Torah.