Podcasts about tefila

People mistakenly believe that the concept of modest dress is relevant only to women, whereas men can dress in any way they like. This is incorrect. There are certain restrictions on dress that apply to men. The basic principle is that one must realize that he is constantly in the presence of G-d. Even when a person is in the privacy of his home, and even alone in his bedroom, he must be cognizant of the fact that Hashem fills the earth and accompanies him at all times. King Shaul was praised for his high standards of modesty, as he went into a dark cave to perform his bodily functions, and even inside the cave, he exposed himself only as needed, out of an awareness of G-d's presence. Accordingly, the Shulhan Aruch rules that a person must put something on before getting out of the bed in the morning. Long ago, people would sleep under their blankets unclothed, and the Shulhan Aruch writes that before a person steps out of bed, he should put his garment on under his blankets so he will not be exposed upon leaving his bed. This applies even if the room is dark, as Hashem can see even in the dark. The Poskim debate the question of whether the Shulhan Aruch intended this instruction as an actual Halachic requirement, or only as an admirable practice, a measure of piety that is recommended for the sake of demonstrating one's awareness of G-d's omnipresence. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) maintained that there is no strict halachic obligation for a man to avoid being exposed in private, and the Shulhan Aruch's ruling was written only as a recommended practice, a proper mode of behavior for a G-d-fearing individual. By contrast, the Mishneh Halachot (Rav Menashe Klein, 1923-2011) maintained that this law constitutes an outright Halachic obligation, as the straightforward reading of the Shulhan Aruch and other sources suggests. Likewise, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that according to some Rishonim, these laws are required on the level of Torah law, and so they should be strictly observed. Nowadays, of course, people generally wear pajamas or undergarments when sleeping, so the Shulhan Aruch's instructions would apply in our time to changing one's clothes under the blanket, so that his private parts are not exposed. Many people would naturally find this difficult. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, accepts Rav Moshe Feinstein's lenient position, that these guidelines were not presented as actual Halachic requirements, and so he rules that they may be suspended if they would cause considerable discomfort. Thus, if somebody finds it very difficult to get dressed under the blanket, this is not necessary. Hacham David writes that this was the position taken by his father, Hacham Ovadia Yosef. In fact, Rav Moshe himself ruled leniently if dressing under the blanket would take too much time, or if one cannot dress neatly in this fashion. Nevertheless, Rav Haim Kanievsky (1928-2022) taught that one who ensures not to expose his private parts while getting changed is worthy of special blessing. Rav Moshe adds that when walking about, a man must dress in a manner in which he would not feel ashamed appearing before ordinary people. When it comes to Tefila, one must dress in a way he would when greeting a prominent figure. At all other times, Rav Moshe writes, it suffices to dress in a manner that is not embarrassing. One's private parts, however, must of course always remain covered. Rav Haim Kanievsky took a more stringent position, writing that one must ensure not to expose his arms above the elbows, or his legs above his knees. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) wrote that since people in modern society do not walk about barefoot, one should refrain from doing so even in his home. In fact, the Mishna Berura writes that since the feet are normally covered, it is proper to put one's socks on before getting out of bed in order not to expose his feet. The Piskeh Teshubot concluded that one may walk about barefoot in his home under hot weather conditions, when covering the feet is uncomfortable. However, even the Mishna Berura conceded that in Mediterranean countries, where many people walk about barefoot, it is permissible to do so. It thus stands to reason that the guiding principle is the accepted practice in any given locale. In communities where it is not deemed acceptable to walk about with exposed feet, or in short sleeves or shorts, one should abide by the community's standards. In places where these modes of dress are acceptable, then they are allowed. Indeed, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one is allowed even to pray wearing very short sleeves or short pants if this mode of dress is accepted in his community (though he added that a person dressed this way should not serve as Hazan). Likewise, despite the Mishna Berura's aforementioned ruling that one should put on his socks before getting out of bed, numerous later Poskim – including the Hazon Ish, the Steipler Gaon, and Hacham Ovadia Yosef – ruled leniently in this regard. This is likely due to the fact that it has become more acceptable to walk about with sandals without socks, and thus exposing one's feet is no longer considered undignified. By the same token, a man may take off his shirt when swimming in a pool or at the beach, as this is the accepted mode of dress in these areas. However, some Poskim ruled that if one is not swimming at the beach, but is playing ball or walking, he should wear a shirt. A man who goes to the Mikveh should not walk about the Mikveh unclothed, and should instead cover himself with a towel or robe on his way to and from the water. Some Poskim allow one to be unclothed in a restroom that has a bath or shower, as such a room has the status of a Bet Ha'merhatz (bathhouse), where it is permissible to be unclothed. Others, however, rule that this is not allowed unless one is planning to bathe. Summary: Men, like women, must adhere to appropriate standards of modest dress. The basic rule is that one must dress in a manner that is deemed respectable and dignified in the place where he is. In some communities, it is inappropriate to walk about in shorts, whereas in others this is allowed. At the beach or swimming pool, a man may remove his shirt. Nowadays it is generally deemed acceptable in most communities to wear sandals without socks, so this is permitted. When one needs to expose himself – such as when dressing, when bathing, when using the restroom, or in a Mikveh – one should expose himself only to the extent necessary, remaining cognizant of G-d's presence.

Tefila: Roka Haaretz Al Hamaim y Hamejin Mitzade Gaber

Clase del 18 de junio del 2026

The Gemara (Berachot 12) tells that some Sages considered instituting the daily recitation of the Aseret Ha'diberot (Ten Commandments), but this was not done because of the heretics. Rashi explains that there those who spread the heretical belief that only the Ten Commandments are binding, while the rest of the Torah does not need to be observed. Reciting the Aseret Ha'diberot each day would be misunderstood as reinforcing this belief, implying that only these are the obligatory laws. Therefore, the Sages decided against incorporating the Ten Commandments into the daily prayer service. Surprisingly, the Tur writes that one may recite the Aseret Ha'diberot each day if he so wishes. The Bet Yosef explains that although the Gemara concluded that this should not be done, the Gemara refers only to the congregational prayer service. If the Ten Commandments are read each day publicly as part of the congregational Tefila, this might embolden the heretics, but if someone wishes to recite this text each day privately, he may. In fact, the Bet Yosef adds, it is commendable to recite the Ten Commandments each day, to strengthen one's faith in the Revelation at Sinai. The Shulhan Aruch rules accordingly, and the Rama clarifies that this applies only to a private recitation by an individual. By contrast, the Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) wrote that it is permissible even to include the Ten Commandments as part of the congregational prayer, and that this was his community's practice. He explained that the Gemara discouraged reading the Aseret Ha'diberot together with Shema, but this section may be recited by the congregation at other points during the prayer service. The Maharshal said that his congregation recited it each day before Baruch She'amar. Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) writes that he had the custom of reciting the Aseret Ha'diberot each morning before Shaharit, until his mentor, the Arizal, instructed him to discontinue this practice. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) comments that the Arizal apparently felt that even private individuals should not recite the Aseret Ha'diberot each day. Elsewhere, the Hida speculates that the Arizal may have discouraged reciting this section before Shaharit, but did not oppose its recitation after the prayer service. Regardless, our practice is not to recite the Ten Commandments at all, even privately, perhaps because of the Arizal's instruction to his disciple. (However, some Siddurim list the Ten Commandments on the margins alongside the first paragraph of Shema, as these commands are alluded to in this paragraph.) Incidentally, the Rambam, in a famous responsum, strongly opposes the practice followed in some congregations to stand when the Ten Commandments are read from the Torah (on Shabbat Parashat Yitro, Shabbat Parashat Va'et'hanan, and Shabuot). Just as the Gemara forbade the incorporation of the Aseret Ha'diberot into the prayer service, fearing that this would embolden the heretics, the Rambam felt that giving special respect to this section by standing similarly could have this effect. Indeed, our custom is to remain seated for the reading of the Aseret Ha'diberot. If the Rabbi is called for the Aliya that includes the Ten Commandments, and thus the congregation stands out of respect for the Rabbi, they should sit after the Rabbi recites the blessings, before the reading begins. A number of Poskim similarly opposed the practice to display images of the Ten Commandments on the wall in the synagogue, giving them special prominence, as this, too, could embolden the heretics who claimed that only these commands are binding. This objection appears in several works, including Zecher Yehosef (Rav Yosef Zecharia Stern, 1831-1903), and Teshurat Shai ( Rav Shlomo Yehuda Tabak, 1832–1907). This is the ruling of Rav Betzalel Stern (1911-1989), in Be'sel Ha'hochma. Others justified the practice, suggesting that an image of the Ten Commandments serves as a reminder of the fact that the entire Torah was presented at Sinai. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan challenged this explanation, noting that this image could easily be misunderstood as indicating that only these ten laws were delivered at Mount Sinai. Regardless, Rav Moshe Sternbuch (contemporary), in Teshubot Ve'hanhagot, writes that common custom allows featuring such images in the synagogues. He explains that since the commandments are not written out fully, and only one or two words of each commandments appears, there is no concern of a misunderstanding. It should be noted that many synagogues feature the Ten Commandments on tablets which are rounded on top, which is incorrect. The tablets were rectangular, and not rounded.

EL HORARIO DE KRIAT SHEMA NO ES EL MISMO QUE EL HORARIO DE TEFILA by Rab Shlomo Benhamu

Tefila: Zokef Kefufim y Malbish Arumim

Clase del 10 de junio del 2026

What Can Our Tefila Accomplish?

Tefila: Elo-hay Neshama

After we recite in the morning the section of the Ketoret and the passage of "Abayeh Hava Mesader," we recite a very special prayer – Ana Be'cho'ah. This prayer was composed by one of the great Tanna'im – Rabbi Nehunya Ben Ha'kaneh, whom the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) describes as one of the earliest Kabbalists, preceding even Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai. The Ana Be'cho'ah prayer is so significant that the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and many others write that if a person arrives late to Shaharit, and needs to skip the introductory portions of the prayer service, he should not skip Ana Be'cho'ah. This prayer consists of seven lines, each of which with six letters, for a total of 42 letters, and these 42 letters spell the special 42-letter Name of Hashem. This Name is the "elevator," the Name associated with rising to the upper worlds. It is critically important to recite Ana Be'cho'ah as part of our introduction to Shaharit because it elevates us to the heavens so we can present our Tefilot to G-d. By the time we recite the Amida, we want to be standing before the Heavenly Throne, so we can speak directly to the Almighty. The recitation of Ana Be'cho'ah elevates us to the higher spheres so we can speak to Hashem while standing in front of His Throne. It is proper to recite this Tefila slowly and to take note of the first letters of the words. This Name is alluded to also in the first paragraph of Shema, which consists of 42 words (from "Ve'ahabta" through "U'bi'sh'arecha"), corresponding to the 42 letters of this Name. For this reason, some Siddurim feature the letters of this divine Name alongside the words of this paragraph of Shema. Another allusion to this Name is found in Kaddish – specifically, in the phrase "Ve'yishtabah Ve'yitpa'ar Ve'yitromam Ve'yitnaseh Ve'yit'hadar Ve'yit'aleh Ve'yit'halal," which consists of seven words that each contains six letters, for a total of 42. Some have the custom to recite Ana Be'cho'ah each night before going to sleep. The soul departs and rises to the heavens when one sleeps, and so it is appropriate to recite this prayer which, as mentioned, is associated with elevation and ascent. Likewise, it is customary to recite Ana Be'cho'ah at funerals, Heaven forbid, as the coffin is being taken for burial, and the soul is ready to rise to the heavens. In some communities, Ana Be'cho'ah is recited before Lecha Dodi on Friday night, as we elevate ourselves to the higher plane of Shabbat. Likewise, many recite this prayer after counting the Omer, as the Omer counting is intended to elevate us in preparation for Matan Torah on Shabuot. The custom to read Ana Be'cho'ah following the recitation of "Abayeh Hava Mesader" was taught by the Arizal, as brought in Sha'ar Ha'kavanot. This is cited by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). The Seder Ha'yom (Rav Moshe Ben Machir, Safed, 16 th century), by contrast, writes that it is better to recite Ana Be'cho'ah later, just before Baruch She'amar. He explains that the world was created with the power of this 42-letter Name, and so it is appropriate to allude to this Name just before reciting "Baruch She'amar Ve'haya Ha'olam," when we give praise to Hashem who created the world. However, we follow the Arizal's teaching, that Ana Be'cho'ah should be recited after the section of "Abayeh Hava Mesader." One possible explanation for the Arizal's custom is that the section of "Abayeh Hava Mesader," which lists the various Abodot (services) performed daily in the Bet Ha'mikdash, omits Birkat Kohaim (the priestly blessing), which was recited each day in the Bet Ha'mikdash. In the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Kohanim reciting Birkat Kohanim would use the Shem Ha'meforash – the divine Name that is normally forbidden to utter, and according to some, this was the 42-letter Name. Perhaps, then, we add Ana Be'cho'ah – which is associated with this Name – after the section of "Abayeh Hava Mesader" to allude to the daily recitation of Birkat Kohanim in the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Ana Be'cho'ah prayer concludes with the pronouncement of "Baruch Shem Kebod Malchuto Le'olam Va'ed," giving praise to the exalted Name of G-d, which this prayer expresses.

Tefila: Asher Yatzar 2

Tefila: Asher Yatzar

SHELAJ- POR QUE MOSHE PIDIO TEFILA SOLO POR YEHOSHUA by Rab Shlomo Benhamu

LA TEFILA DE MOSHE PARA QUE SE CURE MIRIAM by Rab Shlomo Benhamu

Clase del 5 de junio del 2026

Tefila: Baruj Ata Hashem

Tefila: Netilat Yadaim

How Do I Daven?

What Does Tefila Accomplish?

Tefila: Mode Ani

Clase del 14 de mayo del 2026

The Arizal taught that one should begin the Shaharit service each morning with a declaration that he commits to fulfill the Misva of "Ve'ahabta Le're'acha Kamocha" ("Love your fellow as yourself" – Vayikra 19:18) by loving each and every Jew with all his heart and soul. The text of this declaration appears in many editions of the Siddur. The reason it is proper to introduce one's prayers with this declaration is that it helps ensures the acceptance of our prayers through their joining the prayers of the rest of Am Yisrael. When a person prays, he might individually be unworthy of being granted his requests. But when he prays as part of the congregation, and as part of the Jewish Nation as a whole, then his Tefilot rise to the heavens as part of the prayers of Am Yisrael, such that it comes before G-d with the collective merit of the Jewish People. In order to do this – to pray not as an isolated individual, but as part of Am Yisrael – one must emotionally bond with the rest of the nation, and this requires loving each of his fellow Jews. Thus, declaring one's love for his fellow Jews before the Tefila helps ensure the acceptance of his prayers. The question, though, arises as to how a person can make this declaration if there are people whom he does not like. Many people have been hurt by others, feel they have been wronged, or are embroiled in fights and conflicts. They cannot honestly say that they love each and every fellow Jew as they love themselves. Can a person recite this declaration before the morning prayers knowing that there are people whom he does not actually love? This question was brought to Hacham Ovadia Yosef, and the questioner asked if perhaps the text of the declaration should be altered to avoid making a dishonest proclamation. Hacham Ovadia replied that traditional prayer texts should not be tampered with, and so this declaration should not be altered. He felt that one should recite this declaration with the hope that this daily pronouncement will eventually impact him to the point where he genuinely loves each and every Jew. Even if at the present moment there are people whom he does not love, he may recite the declaration because with time, the words will penetrate his heart and inspire him to overcome his hard feelings toward those whom he dislikes, to the point where this declaration will be entirely genuine and truthful. Incidentally, this question also arises with regard to the declaration customarily made before one goes to sleep, announcing that he forgives anyone who had wronged him in any way. Sometimes, a person is still angry with somebody over something he did or said, and is as yet incapable or unwilling to forgive. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) ruled that in such a case, a person should not recite the nighttime forgiveness proclamation, as this would be dishonest. (Another example is the passage in the Selihot prayers when we ask Hashem to store our tears – "Sima Dim'ati Be'nodecha," even though most people do not shed tears while reciting Selihot. Hacham Ovadia writes that it is acceptable to recite this text during Selihot because it could refer to the tears that will be shed on Yom Kippur, as the vast majority of people who pray sincerely cry at some point during the Yom Kippur service.) It is worth noting in this context the fascinating interpretation of the verse "Ve'ahabta Le're'acha Kamocha" given by Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868). He explained this command based on a story that happened in his time, when three businessmen moved from his city, Izmir, to Eretz Yisrael. All three were the leading figures in the industries in which they worked, and so when they left, the smaller businessmen assumed that they now had an opportunity to grow their enterprises. After all, as these three men had the largest businesses, their customers would now be looking elsewhere for their merchandise. Rav Haim Palachi warned them, however, not be so confident. Sometimes, he said, an industry leader brings blessing to the entire industry, which affects even the smaller businesses. Although it might seem that the largest proprietor is limiting the profits of the smaller vendors, this is not necessarily the case, as he could be the conduit through which Hashem sends His blessing to the entire industry. Sure enough, all three industries declined after these businessmen left. Whereas the smaller businesses assumed that they would prosper, the exact opposite occurred. Rav Haim Palachi explained the command of "Ve'ahabta Le're'acha Kamocha" on this basis. It means that we must love our fellow who is "Kamocha" – like us, involved in the same line of work or in the same industry. We must love even our competitors – because they're not actually our competitors. Hashem is capable of providing everyone with sufficient sustenance, and, moreover, the person who appears to be our competitor might actually be the one bringing the blessing down to our industry. Thus, the command to love our fellow, which we recite each morning, refers to all people, even those whom we might feel justified in resenting, because we must believe that Hashem has enough goodness to bestow upon us all, and a competitor's success has no harmful effects on us whatsoever.

Clase del 9 de mayo del 2026

Clase del 23 de abril del 2026

The Shulhan Aruch, the authoritative code of Halacha, begins with the following instruction: "Yitgaber Ka'ari La'amod Ba'boker La'abodat Bor'o" – "One shall strengthen himself like a lion to arise in the morning for the service of his Creator." The fact that this Halacha opens the Shulhan Aruch shows us that waking early in the morning is a fundamental part of our religious responsibilities. In fact, this quality is what impressed Bilam when he attempted to place a curse upon Beneh Yisrael, compelling him to bless them, instead, as he exclaimed, "Hen Am Ke'labi Yakum" – "Behold, a nation that rises like a lion" (Bamidbar 23:24). Rashi explains this as a reference to the way Beneh Yisrael rise in the morning and immediately "pounce" to perform Misvot, putting on Tallit and Tefillin, and praying. Indeed, Rashi (Shemot 19:3) brings from the Midrash that each time Moshe Rabbenu climbed to the top of Mount Sinai, he did so early in the morning – "Kol Aliyotav Be'hashkama Hayu." Some explain this to mean that every spiritual "ascent" requires "Hashkama" – rising early. The path to spiritual greatness begins with waking up early in the morning. Abraham Abinu is likewise described on several occasions as rising early in the morning, because this is how he became great – by beginning his day early. Rav Eliyahu Lopian (1876-1970) was known for rising early every morning. When he was asked about this practice, he said that when he leaves this world, and will stand before the Heavenly Tribunal, he will be judged regarding his compliance with the Shulhan Aruch. He wanted to at least "pass" the first question – whether he complied with the Shulhan Aruch's very first ruling, that one should make an effort to get up early in the morning. If a businessman scheduled an early morning meeting with a prospective customer, and the potential deal was worth a million dollars, there is no question that he would be up at the crack of dawn and arrive early so he could be fully prepared with his sales pitch. The money at stake motivates the businessman to arise early. If we knew that the Misvot we perform each morning are worth many times more than any amount of money, bringing us eternal rewards, we would never think to sleep late. We would eagerly get out of bed and rush to perform the Misvot energetically and enthusiastically, as early as we could. People want to stay in bed and sleep late only if they don't have anything to wake up for. Once we acknowledge the inestimable value and worth of each and every Misva, we realize how much we have to do, and we then excitedly get out of bed early in the morning to get started. Rising early is also a crucial component of our ongoing struggle against the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination). The Sha'reh Tefila comments that just as when an army goes out to war, the first battle is the most important one because it sets the tempo and momentum for the rest of the war, our first battle with the Yeser Ha'ra each day similarly sets the tone for the rest of the daily "war" against it. The Yeser Ha'ra tries to convince us to remain in bed, and if we win this struggle and get up early, then we are in a better position to emerge victorious in our subsequent struggles with the Yeser Ha'ra throughout the day. Waking up early, then, helps us overcome all spiritual challenges that we encounter. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) cites his grandfather, the Hesed Le'Abraham (Rav Abraham Azulai, Hebron, d. 1643), as finding an allusion to this concept in the Gemara's famous teaching, "Ha'ba Le'horgecha, Hashkem Le'horgo" – "He who comes to kill you, arise to kill him." On the simple level, this means that one is allowed to kill a person who seeks to kill him. On a deeper level, however, "He who comes to kill you" refers to the Yeser Ha'ra, which seeks to spiritually kill us by leading us to sin. The Gemara teaches us, "Hashkem Le'horgo" – that we should arise early in the morning in order to defeat the Yeser Ha'ra. The way we eliminate our evil inclination is by waking early. This is alluded to also in G-d's pronouncement to the snake after it lured Adam and Hava to sin in Gan Eden: "Hu Yeshufcha Rosh, Ve'ata Teshufenu Akeb" (Bereshit 3:15). Literally, this means that human beings will kill the snake by stomping on its head, whereas the snake can strike the human being only by biting its foot. Additionally, however, "Hu Yeshufcha Rosh" means that the way we defeat the Yeser Ha'ra – which is symbolized by the snake – is through "Rosh," by waking up at the "head," or beginning, of the day. Conversely, the snake can defeat a person through "Akeb," the "heel," by convincing him to oversleep and get a late start to the day. The Torah says that when Abraham Abinu set out to fulfill the command of Akedat Yishak, he arose early in the morning and saddled his donkey ("Va'yashkem Abraham Ba'boker Va'yahavosh Et Hamoro" – Bereshit 22:3). The word "Hamor" ("donkey") is often interpreted as an allusion to "Homriyut," physicality, the animalistic tendencies within every person. Abraham succeeded in "saddling" and restraining his physical qualities by rising early in the morning. The Midrash comments that this donkey was the same donkey on which Moshe Rabbenu rode when he journeyed from Midyan to Egypt, and Mashiah will ride this same donkey when it arrives to redeem the Jewish People. The deeper meaning of the Midrash is that all great Sadikim – like Moshe Rabbenu and Mashiah – succeed in overcoming their physical tendencies by rising early in the morning, like Abraham Abinu did. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Vayishlah, writes that the first half of the night – from nightfall to midnight – is called "Layil," whereas the period from midnight until sunrise is called "Layla" – the word "Layil" with the letter Heh added. This letter Heh signifies a higher level, indicating that this is a time of great spiritual potential. Accordingly, the Ben Ish Hai writes, the great Sadikim would go to sleep right at nightfall and then rise at Hasot to learn Torah until the early morning. The Ben Ish Hai notes that the letters of the word "Layla" (Lamed, Yod, Lamed, Heh) are the first letters of the words "Ha'ba Le'horgecha Yashkim Le'horgo" – alluding to the aforementioned teaching that the way we defeat and eliminate the Yeser Ha'ra is by rising early, and being awake during the "Layla," the second part of the night. Although nowadays we are not able to keep to this schedule, nevertheless, this demonstrates for us the importance of rising early in the morning. The Sages teach, "Kol Hat'halot Kashot" – "All beginnings are difficult," which means simply that any new undertaking is difficult at the outset, when a person gets started. However, Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) explained that this refers to the morning, the beginning of the day. Getting out of bed in the morning is difficult, but this is a challenge we must all work to overcome. Another reason to start the day early is that whenever we begin something new, it is critically important to start strong, as this builds a sturdy foundation for the rest of the undertaking. If the foundation of a structure is done improperly, the rest of the building will not be safe. Likewise, the beginning of any new project must be strong and sturdy for it to succeed. The Jewish Nation has succeeded because we are built on the strong foundation of our Abot (patriarchs) and Imahot (matriarchs), righteous men and women who laid the spiritual groundwork for Am Yisrael. This is true also of a new day – the stronger we start our day, the more likely we are to have an accomplished and successful day. We find numerous examples of this concept in our sources. Elisha Ben Abuya was an outstanding scholar, a Tanna, and the mentor of the great Rabbi Meir, but he ultimately lost his way and became a heretic, committing grievous sins such as desecrating Shabbat and even Yom Kippur. Different stories are told to explain how and why Elisha Ben Abuya abandoned the path of Torah observance. One story, told in the Talmud Yerushalmi, is that when he was a young child, his father showed him the great Sages of Israel, how their Torah study brought the fire of the Shechina into the home, and he said, "If you learn Torah, you can do amazing things like these Rabbis!" Since as a youngster Elisha was taught the message that he should learn Torah for self-serving motives, and not out of a sincere desire to serve Hashem, his educational foundations were shaky, and this allowed him to be led astray as an adult. Likewise, the Midrash comments that Noah was sharply reprimanded for planting a vineyard right after exiting the ark following the flood. As he set out to rebuild the earth, he should have begun with something more significant and meaningful than producing wine. The process was started on the wrong foot, as it were, on faulty foundations, and so Noah was criticized. This idea has also been developed in the context of the Hanukah story. As we know, the Gemara tells that the Hashmonaim, after driving the Greeks from Jerusalem, found only a small jug of pure oil with which to kindle the Menorah in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and this small quantity of oil miraculously sufficed for eight nights. The Peneh Yehoshua (Rav Yaakob Yehoshua Falk, Germany, 1680-1756) raises the question of why the Hashmonaim did not rely on the Halacha which permits performing the service in the Mikdash in a state of impurity if the entire nation is in such a state ("Tum'a Hutra Be'sibur"). After the Greeks had defiled the Bet Ha'mikdash, this leniency was certainly relevant and applicable, seemingly obviating the need to use specifically pure oil. The Peneh Yehoshua answered that the Hashmonaim did not wish to rely on Halachic leniencies as they inaugurated the Bet Ha'mikdash anew. They were now beginning a new chapter, restoring the service in the Bet Ha'mikdash after many years during which it could not be performed, and so they found it necessary to perform the service at the very highest standards, in order to set the tone for the years to come. They therefore refused to rely on the leniency of kindling the Menorah with impure oil. King Shlomo teaches in Kohelet (2:14), "He'hacham Enav Be'rosho" – "The wise man, his eyes are upon his head." The plain meaning of this verse is that a wise person looks at the potential outcome of his actions, and assesses potential risks before acting. Additionally, however, this verse has been understood to mean that a wise person focuses on the "head," on the beginning of his day, to ensure to start the day the right way, as this impacts the rest of the day. It is told that when Rav Shmuel Salant (1816-1909), the renowned Rabbi of Jerusalem, grew old, he decided to bring a Rabbi from Europe to assume his position, and the Rabbi chosen was the Aderet (Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, 1843-1905). Immediately upon the Aderet's arrival, Rav Salant brought him to officiate at a wedding to show the community their new leader. The Aderet was weary from the long, grueling trip, and so when the time came to recite the Beracha over the wine under the Huppa, he mistakenly recited "She'ha'kol" instead of "Ha'gefen." He immediately corrected himself, and recited "Ha'gefen." Afterward, people spoke about the Aderet with disdain, charging that he was ignorant of Halacha. It is well-known that although the proper blessing over wine is, of course, "Ha'gefen," one who mistakenly recited "She'ha'kol" over wine has fulfilled his obligation and does not then recite "Ha'gefen." There were those who claimed that the Aderet was unfit to serve as a Rabbinic leader, as he was unfamiliar with this simple Halacha. The Aderet explained that he certainly knew this Halacha, but he nevertheless recited "Ha'gefen" because he was reciting the blessing over the wine not only for himself, but also on behalf of the Hatan (groom), who was standing under the Huppa with his bride, prepared to begin their new life together. This new beginning, the Aderet explained, could not be built on a shaky foundation, using Halachic leniencies. It was important for the proper Beracha to be recited, even if the wrong Beracha would normally suffice after the fact, so that the marriage would begin on a strong foundation. While as a practical matter, one could question this line of reasoning, the basic concept is an important one – whenever we start something new, we must strive to begin as strongly as possible. We must therefore try hard to begin each day the right way, by waking early in the morning with energy and enthusiasm, ready to serve our Creator.

Learn the Amidah and Kaddish with simple and straightforward recordings of Ashkenazi tradition. how to say kaddish how to daven learn amidah amidah prayer guide kaddish tutorial jewish prayer for beginners tefillah guide daily prayer jewish how to pray jewish learn jewish prayers kaddish pronunciation amidah step by step guided tefillah orthodox prayer guide

Do I Daven?

Do I Daven Separately?

The pasuk says in this week's parasha Vayikra , אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה' מן הבהמה מן הבקר ומן הצאן" תקריבו את קרבנכם– when a man brings a korban from amongst you to Hashem, it should come from animals, either cattle or flock." The mefarshim are bothered by the placement of the word מכם – from you. Seemingly, it should have said "אדם מכם כי יקריב קרבן – a person from amongst you who brings a korban ." One explanation given is that Hashem is telling us, when we give a korban, He doesn't just want an animal, rather אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן – He wants us to sacrifice of ourselves as well. How so? מן הבהמה – we need to go against our animalistic natures. מן הבקר – refers to the animals who are bold, we need to go against our bold nature when it comes to avodat Hashem. And מן הצאן refers to animals who are bashful, we need to go against our bashful nature when it comes to avodat Hashem. For example, if someone has the opportunity to help the masses but he feels, "Who am I? It's not my place." That is when he needs to go against his bashful nature and say, "I'm doing the will of Hashem and this is what it calls for me to do." And if someone was wronged or shamed, and he could easily get back at that person who inflicted the harm, that is when he needs to sacrifice his brazen nature and instead act humbly, like Hashem wants, and keep quiet. Although we are not able to physically bring korbanot today in the Beit HaMikdash, we could offer korbanot of ourselves all the time by overcoming our nature to do the will of Hashem. If someone has been praying for something for a long time, and instead of his situation improving, it only got worse, his inclination will tell him, "Why bother? Prayer is not helping anyway." At that moment, he has an opportunity to offer a korban to Hashem and say to himself, " Tefila is what Hashem wants from me. Although I don't feel like doing it, I'm going to go against my inclination and I'm going to continue praying with all of my heart." If someone has been trying to get married for years without success, his inclination will tell him, "There's no point in continuing to try, nothing's working anyway." At that moment, he can offer a korban to Hashem and say, "It's the will of Hashem for me to get married, and therefore I'm never going to stop trying. If someone was having trouble conceiving and then, after a long difficult process, when she was about to give birth to a child, lo alenu , she lost it. Her inclination might tell her, "How can I ever go through that again? I have a few children already and Hashem is making it so hard for me to have more. I might as well just stop. Why do I need all this extra pain for nothing?" At that moment, she can go against her inclination and offer a korban to Hashem and say, "I was trying to do Hashem's will by bringing more children into the world. I know Hashem will reward me for every bit of pain that I went through in trying to do His will. Results are not in my control, but efforts are. Hashem always determines what's best for me. And therefore, I'm going to continue trying to do His will, no matter how difficult it is." Each person, in his or her own circumstances, can offer the greatest korbanot to Hashem all of the time. Shabbat Shalom.

How Powerful Is My Tefila?

The Hazzan recites a special Kaddish after the Amida (or the repetition of the Amida) known as Kaddish Titkabal. Following the basic Kaddish text (which ends with "Da'amiran Be'alma"), the Hazzan adds a request that the congregation's prayers should be accepted along with those of the entire Jewish Nation: "Titkabal Selotana U'ba'utana Im Selot'hon U'ba'ut'hon De'chol Bet Yisrael…" The Hazzan mentions the prayers of the entire nation in fulfillment of the Gemara's teaching in Masechet Berachot (30a) that when a person prays, he should pray not as a lone individual, but rather as part of the entire nation. A person himself may not be worthy of having his prayers accepted, but when he joins with all Am Yisrael, he accesses the collective merit of the nation, including the merits of the great Sadikim, and this helps ensure the acceptance of his prayers. We therefore ask not only that G-d accept our prayers, but also that He accept the prayers of the entire Jewish Nation. We can perhaps gain further insight into the expression "Selotana U'ba'utana" – literally, "our prayers and our requests" – from the Targum Onkelos translation to a verse in Parashat Vayehi (Bereshit 48:22). Yaakob Abinu recalls how he seized the city of Shechem from his enemies "Be'harbi U'b'kashti" – "with my sword and with my bow." Targum Onkelos, interestingly enough, translates these words as "Bi'sloti U'b'ba'uti" – "with my prayer and with my request." It was clear to Yaakob that although he waged war, his success in vanquishing the enemy resulted not from his weapons, but rather from his prayers to G-d. It is also significant that Yaakob viewed Tefila as his "ammunition," as the weapons with which he defeated those who threatened him. Exploring Oneklos' translation more closely, the "sword" and the "bow" are used here as metaphors for two kinds of prayer – "Seloti" and "Ba'uti." The commentators explain that whereas a sword is used in close combat, when the enemy is right in front of the soldier, the bow is used to target enemies stationed at a distance. Correspondingly, then, "Selotana" and "Ba'utana refer to two different kinds of Tefila. Sometimes we pray like a sword – to address an immediate need, such in the case of an illness. Other times, however, we pray in the form of a bow – beseeching G-d to protect us from distant threat, from future dangers. When the Hazzan recites, "Titkabal Selotana U'ba'utana," he asks that all our prayers should be mercifully accepted – our prayers for our immediate needs, as well as our prayers for the future.

When Can I Daven?

Do I Daven?

What Enhances My Tefila?

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

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.

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.

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.

How Should I Daven?

Generally speaking, one should not leave the synagogue until the end of the Tefila. There is a tradition that if a person routinely leaves in the middle of the service, then in the future, after Mashiah comes, he will be told to leave the Bet Ha'mikdash before the end of the prayers. It is especially grievous for a person to leave if he is the tenth man. As we've seen in previous installments, a person who exits during a part of the service that requires a Minyan, leaving behind less than ten men, is subject to the harsh warning of the prophet Yeshayahu, "Ve'ozebeh Hashem Yichlu" – "Those who abandon G-d shall be annihilated" (Yeshayahu 1: 28). Sometimes, however, a person has a pressing need to leave. It goes without saying that in the case of a dire emergency, a person may leave the synagogue during any part of the service even if this results in breaking the Minyan. Thus, for example, it is obvious that if a Hatzalah member gets a call during the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), he should immediately leave and tend to the emergency. However, there are even matters of lesser urgency that allow leaving during the Hazara (or other parts of the service that require a Minyan) even if one is the tenth man. If a person needs to use the restroom, for example, and he cannot restrain himself, then it is permissible for him to leave, even though fewer than ten men will be remaining in the synagogue. If a significant financial loss is at stake – such as if a person must leave early for a vitally important business meeting, or might otherwise lose his job – then according to Rav Shmuel Wosner (1913-1915), one may be lenient and leave to avoid the financial loss. Others disagree. In practice, Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that one may rely on the lenient position if he wishes, but he should preferably remain in the synagogue and trust that "Kol Ha'shome'a Li Eno Mafsid" – one ultimately gains, and does not lose, by obeying Hashem and doing the right thing, and any money lost as a result of remaining in the synagogue will be repaid. There is some discussion among the Poskim regarding a Kohen's hand-washing in preparation for Birkat Kohanim in a situation where only ten men are present in the synagogue. In most synagogues, the Kohanim must exit the sanctuary to access the sink. Should the Kohen do so if only ten men are present, and he would thus leave behind fewer than ten men for a few moments during the Hazara? Some suggested that in such a situation, it is preferable for the Kohen to wash his hands before the Amida in order to avoid the problem. Others, however, disapprove of this solution, as a Kohen ought to wash his hands as close to Birkat Kohanim as possible. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) writes that in such a case, the Hazzan should pause for those few moments when the Kohen is outside the synagogue and only nine men remain. As for the final Halacha, Rav Yisrael Bitan ruled that preferably, water should be brought to the Kohen inside the sanctuary in this situation so he does not need to leave. If this is not feasible, then the Kohen should leave to wash his hands, and the Hazzan should pause, in accordance with Rav Haim Palachi's ruling. If the sink is visible from inside the sanctuary, then the Kohen may leave to wash his hands and rely on the opinion that he counts toward the Minyan since he can still be seen. Whenever one exits the synagogue, it is proper to do slowly, as leaving hurriedly gives the impression that he is eager to finish the prayers and leave.

Generally speaking, one should not leave the synagogue until the end of the Tefila. There is a tradition that if a person routinely leaves in the middle of the service, then in the future, after Mashiah comes, he will be told to leave the Bet Ha'mikdash before the end of the prayers. It is especially grievous for a person to leave if he is the tenth man. As we've seen in previous installments, a person who exits during a part of the service that requires a Minyan, leaving behind less than ten men, is subject to the harsh warning of the prophet Yeshayahu, "Ve'ozebeh Hashem Yichlu" – "Those who abandon G-d shall be annihilated" (Yeshayahu 1: 28). Sometimes, however, a person has a pressing need to leave. It goes without saying that in the case of a dire emergency, a person may leave the synagogue during any part of the service even if this results in breaking the Minyan. Thus, for example, it is obvious that if a Hatzalah member gets a call during the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), he should immediately leave and tend to the emergency. However, there are even matters of lesser urgency that allow leaving during the Hazara (or other parts of the service that require a Minyan) even if one is the tenth man. If a person needs to use the restroom, for example, and he cannot restrain himself, then it is permissible for him to leave, even though fewer than ten men will be remaining in the synagogue. If a significant financial loss is at stake – such as if a person must leave early for a vitally important business meeting, or might otherwise lose his job – then according to Rav Shmuel Wosner (1913-1915), one may be lenient and leave to avoid the financial loss. Others disagree. In practice, Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that one may rely on the lenient position if he wishes, but he should preferably remain in the synagogue and trust that "Kol Ha'shome'a Li Eno Mafsid" – one ultimately gains, and does not lose, by obeying Hashem and doing the right thing, and any money lost as a result of remaining in the synagogue will be repaid. There is some discussion among the Poskim regarding a Kohen's hand-washing in preparation for Birkat Kohanim in a situation where only ten men are present in the synagogue. In most synagogues, the Kohanim must exit the sanctuary to access the sink. Should the Kohen do so if only ten men are present, and he would thus leave behind fewer than ten men for a few moments during the Hazara? Some suggested that in such a situation, it is preferable for the Kohen to wash his hands before the Amida in order to avoid the problem. Others, however, disapprove of this solution, as a Kohen ought to wash his hands as close to Birkat Kohanim as possible. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) writes that in such a case, the Hazzan should pause for those few moments when the Kohen is outside the synagogue and only nine men remain. As for the final Halacha, Rav Yisrael Bitan ruled that preferably, water should be brought to the Kohen inside the sanctuary in this situation so he does not need to leave. If this is not feasible, then the Kohen should leave to wash his hands, and the Hazzan should pause, in accordance with Rav Haim Palachi's ruling. If the sink is visible from inside the sanctuary, then the Kohen may leave to wash his hands and rely on the opinion that he counts toward the Minyan since he can still be seen. Whenever one exits the synagogue, it is proper to do slowly, as leaving hurriedly gives the impression that he is eager to finish the prayers and leave.

Generally speaking, one should not leave the synagogue until the end of the Tefila. There is a tradition that if a person routinely leaves in the middle of the service, then in the future, after Mashiah comes, he will be told to leave the Bet Ha'mikdash before the end of the prayers. It is especially grievous for a person to leave if he is the tenth man. As we've seen in previous installments, a person who exits during a part of the service that requires a Minyan, leaving behind less than ten men, is subject to the harsh warning of the prophet Yeshayahu, "Ve'ozebeh Hashem Yichlu" – "Those who abandon G-d shall be annihilated" (Yeshayahu 1: 28). Sometimes, however, a person has a pressing need to leave. It goes without saying that in the case of a dire emergency, a person may leave the synagogue during any part of the service even if this results in breaking the Minyan. Thus, for example, it is obvious that if a Hatzalah member gets a call during the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), he should immediately leave and tend to the emergency. However, there are even matters of lesser urgency that allow leaving during the Hazara (or other parts of the service that require a Minyan) even if one is the tenth man. If a person needs to use the restroom, for example, and he cannot restrain himself, then it is permissible for him to leave, even though fewer than ten men will be remaining in the synagogue. If a significant financial loss is at stake – such as if a person must leave early for a vitally important business meeting, or might otherwise lose his job – then according to Rav Shmuel Wosner (1913-1915), one may be lenient and leave to avoid the financial loss. Others disagree. In practice, Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that one may rely on the lenient position if he wishes, but he should preferably remain in the synagogue and trust that "Kol Ha'shome'a Li Eno Mafsid" – one ultimately gains, and does not lose, by obeying Hashem and doing the right thing, and any money lost as a result of remaining in the synagogue will be repaid. There is some discussion among the Poskim regarding a Kohen's hand-washing in preparation for Birkat Kohanim in a situation where only ten men are present in the synagogue. In most synagogues, the Kohanim must exit the sanctuary to access the sink. Should the Kohen do so if only ten men are present, and he would thus leave behind fewer than ten men for a few moments during the Hazara? Some suggested that in such a situation, it is preferable for the Kohen to wash his hands before the Amida in order to avoid the problem. Others, however, disapprove of this solution, as a Kohen ought to wash his hands as close to Birkat Kohanim as possible. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) writes that in such a case, the Hazzan should pause for those few moments when the Kohen is outside the synagogue and only nine men remain. As for the final Halacha, Rav Yisrael Bitan ruled that preferably, water should be brought to the Kohen inside the sanctuary in this situation so he does not need to leave. If this is not feasible, then the Kohen should leave to wash his hands, and the Hazzan should pause, in accordance with Rav Haim Palachi's ruling. If the sink is visible from inside the sanctuary, then the Kohen may leave to wash his hands and rely on the opinion that he counts toward the Minyan since he can still be seen. Whenever one exits the synagogue, it is proper to do slowly, as leaving hurriedly gives the impression that he is eager to finish the prayers and leave.

What Is My Goal?

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

The section of Ashreh, which we recite three times each day, contains the famous verse, "Pote'ah Et Yadecha U'masbi'a Le'chol Hai Rason" – "You open Your hands and willfully satiate every living creature" (Tehillim 145:16). This verse is especially significant, and, in fact, it is one of the reasons why we are to recite this chapter of Tehillim three times each day (Berachot 4b). It must therefore be recited with concentration, and it behooves us to properly understand its meaning. While the verse's meaning is generally straightforward, the final word – "Rason" – requires explanation. This word means "will," that which a person wishes for. What exactly did King David mean when he said that Hashem satiates all living beings "Rason"? One explanation is that Hashem does not just give us a livelihood – but He does so willfully, lovingly. Just as a parent loves giving to his or her children, and wants to give them as much as possible, Hashem similarly loves us and wants very much to give us a livelihood. It is his pleasure, so-to-speak, to sustain us. Others explain "Rason" as referring to our will, the will of the beneficiaries of Hashem's kindness. He fills our needs and grants us what we wish for. There is also another possible interpretation of the word "Rason" in this verse. Very often, financial success results from a person's likeability, his finding favor in other people's eyes. He earns other people's respect and fondness, and it is because of this that they buy his product or solicit his services. It is not always the product itself which attracts buyers; sometimes it's the seller's character and demeanor. The phrase "U'masbi'a Le'chol Hai Rason" thus might refer to G-d's providing a livelihood by granting a person "Rason" – a certain charm and likeability. Hashem often helps a person succeed by giving him this quality whereby he attracts customers and his products or services are eagerly sought after. The scholars of Kabbalah have unearthed numerous additional layers of interpretations underlying this verse. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that the vast majority of people should not try to have deep kabbalistic intentions while praying, and should instead ensure to concentrate on the plain, straightforward meaning of the words. Seeking to pray with these deep intentions could lead one to overlook the plain meaning, and the Kaf Ha'haim warns that this could be harmful to the person's Tefila. Nevertheless, there are two relatively straightforward kabbalistic allusions in this verse which are worthwhile for even us to learn and have in mind while reciting it. The first letters of the words "Pote'ah Et Yadecha" – Peh, Alef, Yod – spell a Name of Hashem that is associated with His providing us with Parnasa. Another Name is formed by the final letters of these words – Het, Tav, Chaf. It is recommended, when possible, to have these Names in mind while reciting this verse in the Tefila. If one recites this verse in Ashreh and then realizes that he recited it without Kavana (concentration), then he must repeat it. This is the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). If the person realized his mistake before he completed Ashreh, then he simply returns to the verse of "Pote'ah Et Yadecha" and continues from there. If he did not realize his mistake until he began the next chapter of Tehillim ("Hallelu-ya Haleli Nafshi"), then he should complete that chapter and then recite "Pote'ah Et Yadecha…" before beginning the following chapter ("Hallelu-ya Ki Tob Zamra"). Meaning, the verse should be inserted in between the subsequent chapters, and not in the middle of a chapter. If a person realized his mistake only later, after Pesukeh De'zimra, then he should ensure to have Kavana when reciting this verse in Ashreh before U'ba Le'sion. And if he failed to have Kavana also at that point, then he should try again while reciting Ashreh at Minha. Some Poskim maintained that one who did not recite this verse with Kavana and realized his mistake only later should repeat it after the Amida, but Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that it suffices to ensure to recite it with Kavana in Ashreh before U'ba Le'sion. The Ben Ish Hai and the Hesed La'alafim (Rav Eliezer Papo, 1785-1828) write that when one needs to repeat this verse, he should begin two verses earlier, from "Somech Hashem Le'chol Ha'nofelim." From the Shulhan Aruch and other Poskim, however, it appears that it suffices to recite just "Pote'ah Et Yadecha…" This is the view of Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Yalkut Yosef. Nevertheless, if time allows, it is recommended to begin from "Somech Hashem Le'chol Ha'nofelim." Some noted the distinction drawn by Halacha between one who recites "Pote'ah Et Yadecha" without Kavana, and one who recites the first blessing of the Amida without Kavana. While one of course must endeavor to concentrate throughout the entire Amida, one must minimally have Kavana while reciting the first Beracha. Nevertheless, the Halacha is that if one did not have Kavana during the first blessing, he does not repeat the Amida, because of the likelihood that he will not concentrate the second time, either. When it comes to "Pote'ah Et Yadecha," however, as we have discussed, one who recited this verse without Kavana is required to repeat it. Two explanations are given for this distinction. First, quite simply, it is far easier to concentrate while reciting a single verse, and so there is little reason to think that one who did not have Kavana while reciting this verse during Ashreh will not have Kavana when he repeats it. Additionally, Halacha is always more careful when it comes to the recitation of Berachot, given the prohibition against reciting a Beracha in vain. Therefore, a person who did not have Kavana during the first Beracha of the Amida is told not to repeat the Amida due to the concern that he will not concentrate the second time, and the blessings of the Amida will then have been recited in vain. When reciting a verse from Tehillim, however, there is no such concern, and thus the person should repeat the verse despite the possibility that he will not concentrate. It is customary to open one's hands when reciting this verse, which speaks of Hashem opening His hands to give us our livelihood. This is done to symbolize our preparedness to receive the blessing that G-d bestows. Of course, we do not need to actually open our hands to receive the Beracha, but we nevertheless perform this action as a visual expression of our desire to receive Hashem's blessings. The Ben Ish Hai writes that one should open his hands horizontally, side to side, without lifting them up in the air. Some stand for the recitation of "Pote'ah Et Yadecha," but this is not our practice. Summary: One must have Kavana (concentration) when reciting the verse "Pote'ah Et Yadecha…" in Ashreh during the prayer service. If one realized during Ashreh that he had recited this verse without Kavana, then he must go back to recite it with Kavana, and then proceed from there. If he remembers after Ashreh, then he should add this verse in between chapters of Pesukeh De'zimra. According to some opinions, if the person did not realize his mistake until after Pesukeh De'zimra, then he should repeat the verse after the Amida. Others maintain that he should just ensure to have Kavana during Ashreh before U'ba Le'sion. If one needs to repeat this verse, it is preferable to begin two verses earlier, from "Somech Hashem Le'chol Ha'nofelim." It is customary to open one's hands while reciting "Pote'ah Et Yadecha." They should be opened only horizontally, side to side, and not lifted in the air.

When Should I Daven?

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