Communal Prayer: Defining a Tzibbur

 

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass 

 

            Communal prayer, tefilla be-tzibbur, serves two main functions:

 

1. The community, the tzibbur, is the FRAMEWORK within which devarim she-bikedusha, declarations of God's holiness like Kaddish and Kedusha, can be said. These prayers relating to sanctity cannot be said without the presence of ten adult men. 

 

2. Communal prayer has independent significance because of the community's metaphysical and religious importance.  Even prayers that can be said independently take on new significance because of the special status of the community.  As the beraita (Berakhot 8a) says,

 

"R. Natan says, 'What is the source that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not despise (mo'ais) the prayer of the community?  It says, 'For He is a powerful God, yet         does not despise (Iyov 36:5).'"

 

            In this article we relate to the definition of a tzibbur regarding these two different functions of communal prayer: providing a framework within which devarim she-bikedusha can be said; and giving new significance to prayers that can also be said in private.  Our discussion will focus specifically on the level of obligation required of people to be counted as making up this community.  (Our discussion will not focus on who may or may not be counted.  Rather, assuming people can be counted, do they have to be obligated in the given prayer to be counted.)

 

            The beraita in Masekhet Sofrim (10:7) states,

 

"The Shema is not recited communally (ein porsim al Shema)... and Kaddish and Borkhu are not said with less than ten present.  Our teachers in the west (Israel) say that seven [is sufficient for a minyan], and quote the following verse as basis for their opinion:  'When there was unrest among Israel, when the people rallied together, Bless God.'  [There are seven in a minyan] like the number of words (in this portion of the Hebrew verse).   Some say even six - "Blessing is six.  When     there are nine or ten people present that heard either Borkhu or Kaddish, and after prayer one of these stands and says Borkhu or Kaddish and the community answers him, they fulfill their obligation.  The sages have already decreed that the chazan should say it after Ge'ula … in order to fulfill the obligation of those who did not hear."

 

            Three numbers appear: 10 - as the beraita opens; 7 or 6 - the opinion of the sages of the west; and, at the close of the beraita, one. 

 

            The rishonim apparently argued about the explanation of this beraita in light of the mishna in Megilla (23b):

 

"One does not do the communal reading of the Shema (ein porsin al Shema) and one does not have communal prayer (ein ovrim lifnei hateiva)  … with less than ten."

 

            The gemara, in this context, quotes the principle, that matters of sanctity are not done without the presence of ten. The numbers seven and one, brought in Masekhet Sofrim, do not appear at all.

 

            To understand the relationship between these two sources, we have to understand the expression "porsim al Shema."  The Ran quotes two explanations:

 

A. Rashi and Tosafot translate "porsim" as breaking.

 

            The expression means saying Kaddish, Borkhu and only the first blessing of Keriat Shema ("yotzeir ohr"), without finishing the rest of Keriat Shema and its blessings.  Thus, there is a "breaking" of the Shema.

 

B. The Geonim translate "porsim" as beginning.

 

Both approaches require explanation.

 

            According to Rashi and Tosafot the people involved have already prayed and said Keriat Shema and its blessings.  The only need for "prisa al Shema" is to enable the group to say Kaddish and Borkhu.  Therefore the group does not say the rest of Keriat Shema and its blessings; they recite only the first blessing. 

 

            The Beit Yosef (OC 69) questions this interpretation:  If the goal of "prisa al Shema" is to enable the group to say Kaddish and Borkhu, why do they have to repeat the first blessing of Keriat Shema?  He offers two answers to this problem:

 

a. The Kedusha within the first blessing of Keriat Shema ("Kedushat yotzeir") requires a minyan to be said.  The group repeats the first blessing only to recite this kedusha.

 

b. Even though the Kedusha in the first blessing does not require a minyan, the first blessing is appended to Borkhu:

 

"Since the leader of the prayers said Borkhu, there is a need to say some blessing.  If not, it would look heretical, first announcing that everyone should bless God, and then not saying any blessing."

 

            According to the geonim who argue against Rashi and Tosafot and explain "porsim" as beginning, "porsim al Shema" includes all of the blessings of Shema.  Ten men seem to be needed in order for one to be able to make the blessings for all of them.  This approach is also difficult: this whole arrangement seems superfluous; one person can always fulfill his obligation to say a blessing through another's recital of the blessing.  (This is the principle of "shomeia ke'oneh" - listening is tantamount to speaking.)  Why is there a need for a minyan?  The Ran in Megilla explains that ten are needed because of the "davar she-bikedusha" in the first berakha of Keriat Shema, the kedusha of the berakha.  The Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona in the third chapter of Berakhot claim that one cannot fulfill the obligation to say this BLESSING (not only the Kedusha within it) merely through answering amen to another's berakha.  Either way, according to both of them the participants HAVE NOT YET said Keriat Shema, its berakhot, and the Shemoneh Esrei.  They now begin to pray.  The question is how many men must be present for one to make the blessing for all.  According to Rashi and Tosafot the purpose of the whole procedure is to enable those who have ALREADY PRAYED to say Borkhu and Kaddish with a minyan.

 

            Let us return to the discrepancy between the beraita and the mishna.  According to Rashi and Tosafot there is no argument between the tannaim about how many make up a minyan for a davar she-bikedusha or for "porsim al Shema."   All agree that ten are needed.  (In this respect the two sources are the same.)  The argument between the sages of the west and the opinion quoted at the end of the beraita is how many people within the minyan must still have AN OBLIGATION to say Borkhu and Kaddish, seven (or six) or just one.  Rashi follows the opinion quoted last, that one is sufficient, and Rabbeinu Tam rules like the sages of Eretz Yisrael that at least seven ba'alei chiyuv are needed. 

 

            The Ran in Megilla (in the name of the rabbis of France) quotes another interpretation of Rashi - The argument between the sages of the west and the other tannaim actually involves the amount of people needed to say a davar she-bikedusha; the first opinion quoted requires ten and the sages of the west require only seven or six.  Everyone agrees on how many of the those that make up the minyan must be obligated - only one.  THEREFORE Rashi rules that only one of the minyan must be obligated but there must be at least ten in order to make up the minyan. 

 

            According to the geonim both of these possibilities also seem to be open.  The sages of the west might allow for "porsim al Shema" even if only seven are present - and the halakha rules against them in favor of our mishna.  They might, though, assume that everyone agrees that ten are needed in order to begin "porsim al Shema."   The argument between the sages of the west and the latter opinion is limited to whether Borkhu (alone, without the rest of Keriat Shema) can be said if only one is obligated or if seven are required. 

 

            In summary, all agree that ten men are needed to say a davar she-bikedusha.  Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam argue about how many of that minyan must still have an obligation to say Kaddish and Borkhu in order to be "porsim al Shema" and say birkot Keriat Shema again:  one (Rashi) or seven - a majority of the group (Rabbeinu Tam).  According to the Geonim, it is impossible to repeat the birkot Keriat Shema for the sole purpose of saying Kaddish and Kedusha. 

 

            Rashi and Tosafot speak only of repeating Borkhu and the first berakha of Keriat Shema, but the Ran broadens this to include the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei.  According to the Ran, one who has already prayed the Shemoneh Esrei can repeat it to enable the community to say an additional Kedusha (besides the Kedusha of the first berakha of Keriat Shema - Kedushat yotzeir).  The Beit Yosef accepts the Ran's version of the Rashi approach; he deliberates only about the nature of the repetition: must the whole Shemoneh Esrei be repeated or only the first three berakhot.  He concludes that the whole Shemoneh Esrei should be repeated.

 

            The Radvaz (Responsa - 4:241) argues with the Beit Yosef and the Ran on this issue.  He is open to the possibility that one or seven obligated people can justify the community saying Kaddish or Kedusha. He is bothered, though, by the legitimacy of people who have already fulfilled their obligation of Shemoneh Esrei repeating it solely in order to say the Kedusha within it.  Would we allow people who have already said Birkat Hamazon to repeat it only in order to say the zimun that precedes it?  The Radvaz, convinced of his approach, claims that one who repeats the Shemoneh Esrei only to say Kedusha has said unnecessary berakhot (berakhot levatala).  According to his reading, Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam allowed nine people to say the Kedusha only for one who had not yet prayed AT ALL, not for one who already prayed but just did not yet say Kedusha. 

 

            The Ran himself seems to concur with the Beit Yosef's reading of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, for he writes:

 

"Rashi, of blessed memory, explains that there are ten people present who have EACH INDIVIDUALLY PRAYED yet did not hear Kaddish or Kedusha, and ONE OF THEM gets up and prays..."

 

[Rashi's own language, though, does not preclude the Radvaz's reading, though.]

 

            The Chatam Sofer (Responsa OC #17) explains that the argument between the Beit Yosef and the Radvaz stems from a difference of opinion about the status of Kaddish and Kedusha:

The Radvaz compares Kedusha to zimun, a non-essential addition to birkat hamazon.  Therefore one cannot repeat Shemoneh Esrei solely to be able to say Kedusha. 

 

            The Beit Yosef sees Kedusha and Kaddish as an integral part of prayer.  True, one can say the Shemoneh Esrei as an individual without Kedusha, but it is a deficient Shemoneh Esrei.  It is therefore permissible to repeat Shemoneh Esrei in order to be able to say Kedusha. 

 

            [This discussion might be related to the discussion of whether one who forgot ya'aleh veyavo on the afternoon of Rosh Chodesh is able to make up for the Shemoneh Esrei he said improperly.  According to the Beit Yosef, just as one can repeat the Shemoneh Esrei in order to say ya'aleh veyavo, one can repeat it to say Kedusha.] 

 

            In light of this discussion, Rabbeinu Tam's opinion is difficult.  If, like the Beit Yosef, one can repeat a blessing for the sake of a kedusha, it would seem that if even one person has not heard kedusha, we could repeat the blessing.  (Similarly, our custom is that if one person has not prayed, he can begin his Shemoneh Esrei out loud (in front of a minyan) and say kedusha.)  If, like the Radbaz, Shemoneh Esrei is like zimmun, even if ten people have not heard kedusha, we could not repeat the blessings.  How can we understand Rabbeinu Tam's requirement of seven who have not heard kedusha?  How is seven better than one?  We will return to this point later.

 

COMMUNAL PRAYER

 

            The Chayei Adam writes (19:1):

 

"The principal communal prayer is Shemoneh Esrei; that is, that ten adult men should pray together.  This is in contrast to the common misconception, that communal prayer mainly involves listening to Kaddish, Kedusha, and Borkhu...."

 

            Acharonim argue about the meaning of this passage in the Chayei Adam:

 

1. Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l in the Igrot Moshe (OC 1:28) writes that the Chayei Adam's intention is that all ten of the men must pray together, not just most of them.

 

2. The Chelkat Ya'akov (2:138) as well as the Beit Barukh commentary on the Chayei Adam claim that even a majority of the community actually praying is sufficient for the Chayei Adam.  They base this on the Rambam's comments in Hilkhot Tefilla (8:4): "What is communal prayer? ...when most of the ten have not prayed." 

 

            [Even though the Rambam's formulation is quite explicit, the Igrot Moshe does not see it as a challenge to his approach that it is essential for ten men to actually be praying - see his comments in his responsa.]

 

            Rishonim likewise argue about how many of the participants of the minyan must be fasting on a communal fast day in order to read "Vayikhal."  (The Tur (OC 566) quotes the dispute on this issue.)  The Peri Megadim distinguishes between the following cases:

 

A. When the fast takes place on Monday and Thursday - and there is a separate obligation to read the Torah communally because of Ezra's decree - six people fasting is sufficient to justify reading Vayikhal. 

 

B. When the fast day turns out on other days, when there would not have been a communal Torah reading otherwise, the Torah portion for the fast day cannot be read without ten men fasting.

 

            The Peri Megadim's distinction is based on a simple idea.  When a community is needed in order to initiate an obligation to read the Torah, a complete minyan of fasting people is required.  When the obligation to read already exists the issue is only the content of that reading.  A majority of the people fasting is sufficient to determine the reading to be Vayakhel.

 

            This might be a useful analogy to help us understand how communal prayer works.  The distinction between personal and communal prayer can be formulated in the following two ways:

 

a. Prayer is basically a PERSONAL act.  Communal prayer occurs when ten INDIVIDUALS pray together.  The result of this togetherness is that each individual's prayer is enhanced - but the prayer retains its personal nature.  Just as one who prays with greater kavana enhances his prayer, so too when one prays in the context of a community.

 

b. Communal prayer is a unique, new creation.  When the community prays, they are no longer a collection of individuals, but a NEW ENTITY CALLED THE TZIBBUR.  Individual prayers make up this communal prayer, but each of their prayers is part of a unified communal prayer.

 

            Based on the Peri Megadim's comments it is possible to suggest the following:  If communal prayer is the enhanced prayer of a collection of individuals, then to create a communal prayer it might be sufficient for the majority of the minyan to be obligated in prayer.  Again, as the Peri Megadim established, when there is no need to CREATE a new halakhic entity, only to DEFINE a preexisting one, the majority of that entity sharing a common characteristic (here, the obligation to pray) is sufficient.  If, however, as in our second possibility, communal prayer is the radically different prayer of a new entity called the community, creating that entity might require all of its members to be obligated to pray.

 

            Returning to Rabeinu Tam's opinion, that in order to repeat Shemoneh Esrei for the purpose of saying kedusha we require seven people of the ten to be obligated in this kedusha.  This opinion seems to disagree with the Radvaz as well as the Beit Yosef.  It would seem that his opinion is to view a davar she-bikedusha of similar nature to tefilla be-tzibbur.  Just as tefilla be-tzibur requires a communal obligation (and not just the presence of a community), so too a davar she-bikedusha requires an obligation of the majority of the community.

 

PRACTICAL HALAKHIC CONCLUSIONS

 

1. The Mishna Berura (OC 69) follows the lead of the Chatam Sofer and rules like the Radvaz - If the community has already prayed they do not repeat the Shemoneh Esrei only in order to say Kedusha.

 

2. The Magen Avraham seems to adopt the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam according to the Radvaz and therefore rules that if only one has not yet prayed, the group may not repeat the Shemoneh Esrei.  Rather, that one who has not yet prayed should begin praying out loud and say Kedusha.  However, if six have not yet prayed, they may repeat the Shemoneh Esrei normally and say Kedusha. 

 

3. Ideally one should try and fulfill the Igrot Moshe's opinion and wait until ten who have not prayed gather in order to activate an obligation of communal prayer.  This opinion obligates latecomers to a minyan to make sure they finish Shemoneh Esrei with the congregation in order to enable a communal obligation for the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei.  If not, one can suffice with the majority of a minyan, regarding both repeating the Shemoneh Esrei and saying Kedusha, relying on those that say that even then the obligation of communal prayer exists.

 

4. In light of the importance the rishonim attach to communal prayer and to Kedusha, even in the first berakha of Keriat Shema, one should attempt to say the Kedusha of the first berakha of Keriat Shema in the context of a minyan.  Even though we rule that it can be said in private also, it is ideal to say it with the community.

 

 

[Adapted from Daf Kesher # 326, Adar I 5752, vol. 4, pp. 48-51.]