The Questions (and Answers) of BDJ

View a printable version of this Q & A here.

Q: If one is in the middle of their personal Amidah and the repetition gets to Kedusha, what should they do? What if they are in the middle of a different prayer such as Shema?

A: (RYK) This comes up all the time, right? So, let’s break the question down. 

Of all of the “call-and-respond” moments during Tefilla, the Kedushah is among the most significant. Even if we have personally already davened and just happen to walk into a room where Kedusha is being recited we need to stop right where we are and join in. But how does this play out when we are personally smack in the middle of another section of davening? 

If we’re still in our personal Amidah: There is universal agreement that one should not vocally interrupt the Amidah to participate in Kedusha, as the Amidah is the most inviolate moment of spiritual communion with God that we have in our liturgy. (See Shulchan Aruch 104:7) Yet, the question of exactly what to do in this situation has been a source of disagreement ever since the 12th century, as Rashi took one position and his most famous grandson Rabbenu Tam took another. Their debate paralyzed generations, including Rabbenu Yonah of the 13th century who wrote that, “a matter that is suspended between the great two pillars of the world, we have no authority to resolve, and everyone should just do what they do”. What was this debate between grandfather and grandson? It revolved around the Talmudic principle of שׁוֹמֵעַ כְּעוֹנֶה, i.e.  that “one who hears is as one who speaks”. And the question was, what does “as” mean? Rabbenu Tam believed that “as” (or the letter “כ” in the Hebrew phrase) is to be understood literally, that hearing = speaking. Thus, if the person who is still in her own Amidah were to pause and listen to kedusha, she would be violating the integrity of her Amidah in no less a way than if she had actually engaged in conversation.  Thus one should NOT pause to listen. 

Rashi on the other hand, held that “as” is not to be taken literally, rather halachikly, and the meaning of this Talmudic principle is that that through listening one can participate as if they are speaking, without literally doing so. According to Rashi, to pause and listen to the Kedusha would be ideal and in fact required. This is what became the irresolvable dispute. For his part though, R. Yosef Karo in his Shulchan Aruch simply made a decision. He sides with Rashi, and rules that one should pause and listen to Kedusha if he is in the middle of his own Amidah.

Q: [And we insert here a related question]: When does the silent waiting-and-listening begin?  Does it begin as soon as the congregation begins its silent Kedushah, or not until we can hear the chazan sing the opening words?

A: (RYK) Among the most curious developments in Jewish liturgical practice is the congregation’s recitation of the opening line of Kedushah. The great weight of halachic opinion is that this line was composed as “an invitation to Kedushah”, voiced by the ba’al tefilla alone, directed to the congregation. (Compare “nikadesh”, let us sanctify”, to the “nivarech”, “let us bless” that is recited by the person leading a zimmun.) Somewhere along the line the entire congregation began “inviting itself” (as the Aruch HaShulchan 125:2 describes it), and a new custom - however unintended by the liturgist - was born. Needless to say, this line is not formally part of the Kedusha, and the “waiting-and-listening” only begins with “kadosh, kadosh….”

Now moving on to encountering Kedusha if you’re personally in the middle of a different part of your personal davening:

1. The section of “Shema and its surrounding blessings” doesn’t have quite the same status of the Amidah. Here the rule is that we should interrupt ourselves in order to respond to Kedusha (66:3). But this rule requires us to drill down on what exactly we mean by “responding to Kedusha”. The only responses that are regarded as the core responses, i.e. the ones that constituted the initial iteration of Kedusha, are the lines “Kadosh, kadosh…” and Baruch k’vod…”. These are the two lines through which we fulfill the invitation that the Ba’al Tefilla had extended when he proclaimed, “Let us sanctify the Name as it is sanctified by the angels above [as we understand this from Isaiah and Ezekiel] . All of the rest of the liturgy what we commonly refer to as” kedushah” - including the opening line and the “yimloch” line at the end are not “core” and are not to be recited if you are yourself still in the Shema section of davening. (See Mishna Brurah 17 re: the “Yimloch” line.)
2. If you are reciting Pesukei D’zimra when the congregation is reciting Kedushah, it is obvious that you respond fully. 

Pages 1031-1033, way in the back of the Artscroll Siddur provide a lot of further, more granular detail on the above.

Q: Why do people say the end of the first bracha of birkat hamazon out loud (to await an amen response) but we don’t do so for the other 3 brachot?

A: (RYK) Great question. Outside the context of a zimmun, there is no reason to do such a thing at all. Within the context of a zimmun, there is a discussion about this to be had. 

It is clear that in the Talmud’s original vision for the zimmun, the zimmun leader would be the only person actually bentching at all, with the rest of the assemblage listening closely to each of the zimmun leader’s word and responding amen at the end of each bracha. This collective united bentching, in the Talmud’s understanding, delivered the greatest amount of glory to God. By the time of the Shulchan Aruch (183:7) it is clear that nobody was actually able to listen that carefully for that long (this, well before Sesame Street), and the practice was modified to each member of the assemblage bentching silently word-by-word along with the zimmun leader, who would be bentching out loud. But by a few centuries later (see Mishna Brurah 27 and 28), even this arrangement was deemed too tough to maintain, and everyone just started bentching on their own and at their own pace as soon as the zimmun itself was completed, i.e. just as soon as the person leading the zimmun repeated בָּרוּךְ [אֱלֹקֵינוּ] שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וּבְטוּבוֹ חָיִינוּ. 

This latter - and very familiar - practice actually squares up OK according to the Shulchan Aruch’s (200:2) understanding (expressed in a slightly different halachic context) that the zimmun does actually end as soon as the person leading the zimmun repeats בָּרוּךְ [אֱלֹקֵינוּ] שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וּבְטוּבוֹ חָיִינוּ.  However, Rama there cites an opinion, which he then goes on to identify as being consistent with “our custom”, that while the first paragraph (...הַזָּן אֶת הָעוֹלָם ) is not technically part of zimmun, it is certainly what the word “נברך” refers to, and as such should be treated as part of the zimmun itself (See Mishna Brurah 8 there.) Accordingly, the Mishna Brurah in our context argues that even nowadays the proper practice is that the person leading the zimmun should recite the entire first paragraph out loud, and then delay reciting the “chatimah”, ( בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' הַזָּן אֶת הַכֹּל) allowing the assemblage to first say it on their own and to them respond amen to his or her “chatimah”. This is what makes the first bracha potentially different than the others with regard to everyone needing / wanting to respond amen to the chatimah. 

There’s no doubt, by the way, that for Ashkenazik (i.e. Rama-following) Jews, this is a “best practice”. In his Whatsapp Q and A group, Rav Romin argues that the same effect is achieved through everyone singing the first bracha together, and the leader pausing just before the “chatimah”, as above.

Q: When can the chazzan repeat a word or phrase as part of singing during tefilah, and what factors go into this determination? I repeat, when can the chazzan repeat a word or phrase as part of singing during tefilah, and what factors go into this determination?

A: (RYK) Nearly every halachik discussion of the past 200 + years about this topic expresses great rabbinic frustration over the fact that the rabbis cannot control what the hazzanim do, in part because the people love the hazzanim and pay them handsomely to do what they do. 

That said, I think that Rav Moshe’s teshuva (Igrot Moshe OH 2:22) sums up the discussion well. He divides the repetition of words into several categories. 

1. The “must be silenced” - this is a repetition that could suggest that the hazzan believes in multiple deities. The Mishna’s sole example (Berachot 33b) is the “one who says מוֹדִים, מוֹדִים” to open the penultimate blessing of the amidah. 
2. Repetitions that constitute a הֶפְסֵק, an improper and unacceptable interruption of the tefilla. These are instances in which the hazzan isn’t simply repeating words, but repeats them in places where they just don't belong
   (e.g. [?!? [שַׁבָּת יִשְׂמְחוּ בְּמַלְכוּתְךָ שׁוֹמְרֵי שַׁבָּת וְקוֹרְאֵי עֹנֶג) 
3. The “very distasteful” - this is the moniker applied by the Gemara (there in Berachot) to one who repeats words within the שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל line, presumably because he is unable to muster sufficient kavannah to say them right the first time. Rav Moshe extends this category to any needless repetition of words at all, on the grounds that any deviation from the “nusach established by the Sages” is, well, very distasteful. 

What Rav Moshe seems to leave the door just a crack open for, is a repetition of words that actually serves to focus and intensify kavannah, which is therefore not distasteful but complementary to the nusach established by the Sages. While this ought not be done within the nusach of a bracha, one could imagine applying this exception to e.g. Hallel. There are a couple of phrases in Hallel that are repeated within the context of deeply popular and beloved Hallel melodies, and personally I feel completely comfortable singing these melodies, including these repetitions, on this basis. But I regard these as the exceptions that prove the rule, and I believe that they should be treated exactly as such. 

As a final thought: It is common practice to apply all of the above to what we refer to as the מַטְבֵּעַ, the liturgy that our Sages composed and established, as opposed to medieval piyyut, examples of which densely populate our Yamim Noraim davening. Here, repetition is common (though spiritual logic and common sense should prevail). Think for example of how many time we punctuate the final paragraph of וּנְתַנֶּה תֹּקֶף with בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה יִכָּתֵבוּן....

Q: A few years ago, I learnt that the obligatory part of Birkat Hamazon ends at yichasreinu, and that the following harachamans are optional or add-ons. When did it become common practice to include them, and why? When is it appropriate not to include them? Do you fulfill the mitzvah if you don't include them?

A: (RYK) Inquiring minds want to know! Please permit me to simply stitch together the response to your question from two responses on one of my favorite online Q and A forums. 
See https://www.yeshiva.co/ask/61475 and https://www.yeshiva.co/ask/6356:

Rav Ari Shvat (Chwat):

The "HaRachamans" are not found in the ancient bentching found in the Cairo genizah, but are already found in the siddurs of R. Amram Gaon in Bavel, about 1150 years ago, and R. Saadya Gaon. Accordingly, as far as I know, they are said, with minor changes by all of the communities, and as all customs, obviously should be said, unless one is really in a hurry. They are also mentioned in the Tur (Or.Ch. 189) from about 650 years ago as a custom which is commonly known, and he suggests that it may stem from the bracha of the guest for his host which we recite after the 4 basic brachot, which is already found in the Talmud (Brachot 46a).   

Rabbi David Sperling: 

Question
I understand that because one should not ask on Shabbat for personal things,  some have the minhag to stop benching after וּמִכָּל טוּב לְעוֹלָם אַל יְחַסְּרֵנוּ. This is really the minority opinion, yes? Thanks, Mitch

Answer
Shalom,
The question of what is permitted and what is forbidden to request on Shabbat is an interesting one. In connection with the requests we say in grace after meals, after the end of the fourth blessing, the overwhelming consensus of opinion is to say these requests as we do on a weekday. This is the normal practice.

You are correct however in pointing out that there is a custom not to say the "harachamans" on Shabbat. This was the custom of the Vilna Ga'on (the Gr'a), and still today some of his followers have this practice. Many people mistakenly think that he never said these requests, and that he always finished grace after meals with the end of the fourth blessing. But in truth, on a weekday the Gr"a did in fact say them, and only refrained from saying them on Shabbat, because he felt one should not make these personal requests on the Shabbat.

But, as I wrote, the custom of the Gr'a is a (very) minority opinion on this question, and unless one has a real tradition otherwise, one should say the whole of the grace as we do on every day of the week, and add the special sections for Shabbat.

Q: Can you clarify your guidance on the requirements for women and davening? If a woman is running short on time, what are the priorities for which tefillot must be said during Shacharit? How does it differ on Shabbat vs during the week?  Does any of this really vary specifically based on the needs of children?

A: (RYK) Everyone needs to pray. It’s fundamental to having a relationship with God. This is the reason the Gemara gives for why women and men alike are obligated to daven daily. At the same time, “daven daily” is a broad term, and needs to be broken down, in particular as it applies to women, whose time the Halacha is famously concerned about. 

1. Amidah: According to the understanding of most rishonim (Ramban chief among them), the Gemara is teaching that women are obligated to daven the Amidah as men are, once in the morning (Shacharit time), once in the afternoon (Mincha time), and presumably once at night (Ma’ariv time).   Mishna Brurah (106:4) endorses this position (despite the Shulchan Aruch's disagreement with it in 106:1), and only  qualifies the ruling with regard to Ma’ariv. He points out that although men have historically taken the Amidah of Ma’ariv on as obligatory it should be optional for women, as the Talmud originally ordained it as an optional Amidah.  
2. Shema and its blessings: Shema is considered a “positive time-bound” mitzvah from which women are exempt. However, the spiritual essence of the mitzvah of Shema, pledging ourselves to the service of God, is considered so essential to the meaning of Jewishness, that the Shulchan Aruch strongly encourages women to at least recite Shema’s first line. (70:1). Others extend this to the first paragraph or even all three paragraphs of the Shema. The blessings surrounding Shema are optional for women, as time-bound institutions.
3. The morning blessings are largely regarded as obligatory for everyone (see for example Aruch HaShulchan 70:1 and Mishna Brurah 70:2)

So in terms of priorities, whether on a weekday or whether on Shabbat, you’ve got the Amidot, the morning blessings, and at least the first verse of Shema. I think that the brachot surrounding the Shema would be “next up”. 

In terms of the realities of childcare: As I mentioned above, the Halacha is deeply concerned about this potential time crunch. This is undoubtedly what underlies the Magen Avraham’s position that in practice women seem to follow the the minority opinion, that of Maimonides (and of the Shulchan Aruch) that, “Biblically, it is sufficient to recite one prayer a day, in any formulation that one wishes.” And Magen Avraham continues, “Therefore, most women have the practice of not praying regularly, rather immediately after washing their hands in the morning they say some request, and this is biblically sufficient, and it is possible that the sages did not extend their obligation any further. But the Ramban thinks that tefillah is rabbinic [and therefore equally obligatory upon men and women], and this is the opinion of most decisors.”

In sum: Tefilla is a really important part of our relationship with God and our relationship with Judaism. Couples should work together as best they can to maximize the Tefilla opportunities for one another.