Iyun Masechet Sota: 40a

 

The Gemara states that the tzibbur should recite "modim derabanan" when the shaliach tzibbur reaches modim. What is the significance of this practice and why only modim was singled out from the rest of shemoneh esrei in this way are the topics that will concern us in this shiur.

 

The answers to these questions are to be found not only in our sugya but must be sought in an additional passage relating to modim derabanan in the third perek of Berakhot (21b). The Gemara there quotes in the name of Rav Huna that if a person enters a shul and discovers that the tzibbur have already begun shemoneh esrei, he must assess whether he can begin his Amida and finish in time to join them for modim or not. If he can conclude before modim, he should begin his tefila; but if he can't, it is preferable to wait and recite modim derabanan with the congregation than to begin the shemoneh esrei.

 

The Gemara apparently considers the reciting of the shemoneh esrei together with the tzibbur to be of halakhic value, and therefore rules that one should join them, even if one arrives in the middle of the tzibbur's Amida and lags behind their pace. Nonetheless, this kiyum does not override the obligation of modim derabanan. At first glance, this is a very surprising position; after all, modim derabanan is not an integral part of the tefila and seems to have no particular importance in the sugyot that deal with tefila. The very fact that we have to wait till Sota to discover the very existence of modim derabanan (the Gemara in Berakhot quoted above determines that one must reach modim with the tzibbur but does not tell us anything about modim derabanan) speaks volumes as to its place within the world of tefila. In contrast, the conflicting opinion in Berakhot of R. Yehoshua ben Levi that the cutoff point is the possibility of joining the tzibbur for KEDUSHA is readily understood, since we correctly perceive Kedusha to be an important part of tefila.

 

A priori, there are two possible options to deal with this problem. We could accept the premise that modim derabanan is indeed a non-essential part of tefila, yet there are other valid reasons for requiring the individual to join the congregation for modim, or we can revise our supposition and arrive at the conclusion that the importance of modim derabanan is much greater than previously assumed.

 

Rashi adopts the former approach, explaining that the desirability of responding to modim with the tzibbur is not due to the positive requirement of reciting modim derabanan itself, but to the negative consequences of not participating. If the entire tzibbur bows down in praise and thanksgiving to the KBH and only the latecomer remains erect, he appears to be denying He whom the tzibbur is praising. The underlying assumption of this approach - that modim derabanan is not important enough to be the reason for this requirement - is explicit in Tosafot: "But it is unreasonable to assume that it is because of the mitzva of modim derabanan, since it has no basis in the Gemara" (see Maharsha and Ma'adnei Yom Tov on the Rosh for differing approaches as to the relationship between this statement and our Gemara). 

 

From this line of reasoning one could conclude that if one can act in a manner that will give the impression that one is participating in the tzibbur's thanksgiving of modim, even if he is not actually doing so, the problem would be solved. This conclusion was indeed accepted and practiced by R. Tam. If he were in the middle of the shemoneh esrei when the shaliach tzibbur reached modim, he would bow down without reciting the text. Although he is not joining the tzibbur in their acknowledgement of modim derabanan, the perception that he is doing so suffices to remove any possible suspicions, so that he is free to continue his own Amida. The fact that he is unable to say modim derabanan is unimportant, for it is indeed a non-essential part of tefila itself but merely a response to the tefila of the shaliach tzibbur.

 

Rashi and Tosafot's analysis of this sugya is the predominant approach in Rishonim and subsequently in the poskim. The Rambam omits this din entirely, apparently  unconcerned about missing modim derabanan and not fearful of the possible suspicions that Rashi raised (see Beit Yosef OC 109 and Meiri [with attendant footnote] for suggestions how to reconcile the Rambam's psak with the Gemara).

 

Some Rishonim, though, did not accept the Tosafot's claims. R. Yona seems to interpret the Gemara's requirement to conclude prior to modim as based upon the actual need to say modim derabanan and not as a function of possible suspicion. The Ravia (66) is explicit that this is indeed the case: "It seems to me that it is so that he can bow down and conclude with tzibbur and recite modim derabanan that is known from masekhet Sota…. There are rabbis who explain (the reason for the halakha is) that he should not be considered a non-believer since he doesn't bow down with the tzibbur, but if so it should suffice to bow with the tzibbur at Magen Avot…."

 

Though this is a straightforward explanation that solves Tosafot's problem why the Gemara itself didn't suggest R. Tam's simple solution - as the glaring omission of a seemingly obvious suggestion is indeed very suspicious - the doubts that were raised by the Tosafot regarding the significance of modim derabanan must be addressed by R. Yona and the Ravia.

 

An attempt to follow in R. Yona and the Ravia's footsteps and to ascribe a central role to modim derabanan within tefila must involve an examination of the basics of chazarat hashatz and the relationship between the shaliach tzibbur and the congregants. The Gemara in Rosh HaShana (34b) quotes a machloket between R. Gamliel and Chakhamim regarding the need for a double shemoneh esrei. R. Gamliel considers the public Amida of the shaliach tzibbur to be the basic shemoneh esrei through which the tzibbur discharges its obligation and therefore he claims that the only reason that we engage in silent individual tefila prior to chazarat hashatz is as a preparation for the tefila of the shaliach tzibbur. Chakhamim differ and claim that the essential shemoneh esrei is that of the individual. The basis for chazarat hashatz, according to Chakhamim, is to provide a service to those who are unable to pray on their own, since this enables them to listen to chazarat hashatz and to discharge their individual obligation by answering to his tefila. Thus, there is a basic disagreement between R. Gamliel and Chakhamim as to the significance of chazarat hashatz for the congregation. Logically, the next step is to inquire whether there may be a difference in the role of the tzibbur and the obligations imposed upon them regarding their participation in chazarat hashatz, according to the two theories. If chazarat hashatz is no more than a service provided to those who are in need of it, it is quite reasonable to assume that members of the congregation who have davened shemoneh esrei need not pay attention to the chazan's Amida; however, if the public Amida is their Amida, it follows that they should listen to the text and respond to it.

 

Although the Gemara doesn't address the issue of how the tzibbur should conduct itself during chazarat hashatz according to R. Gamliel, the Rambam (tefila 9:3) ruled that the entire congregation, including those who have already prayed, must stand during chazarat hashatz, pay attention to the berakhot, and answer amen after each berakha. The Rav zt"l noted that the Rambam devoted the ninth perek of hilkhot tefila to a systematic description of "tefilat hatzibbur," even though he has previously introduced the concept of shaliach tzibbur as assisting others to discharge their obligation and explained the technique (tefila 8:9-10), so that the halakhot in the ninth perek seem a superfluous repetition. Moreover, the psak that the entire tzibbur must stand during chazarat hashatz is difficult to reconcile with the claim (8:9, 9:3) that the shaliach tzibbur's aim is to recite shemoneh esrei for the benefit of the unknowledgeable. Therefore, the Rav claimed that the Rambam has a dual concept of public tefila - there is tefila WITH the tzibbur (tefila be-tzibbur)(see 8:1) and tefila OF the tzibbur (tefilat ha-tzibbur)(see 9:1). The former is the tefila of the individual approaching God as an individual in the company of other likewise individuals who are engaged in the same attempt, while the latter is the body public as a corporate entity addressing the KBH. To phrase the same point in a more "heimeshe lashon," there is the tefila of Reb Yisroel that is viewed more favorably by the KBH when he davens together with other yiddin and there is the tefila of Am Yisroel that is an expression of the special relationship between Am Yisroel and the KBH. In the same manner that korbanot tzibbur are offered by the corporate body of Am Yisroel, so too is the tefila of the tzibbur. This is the reason that the tzibbur must stand and listen to the chazan, for the Rambam is of the opinion that if it is THEIR tefila; hence they must participate in it and conduct themselves accordingly. The special emphasis that the Rambam placed upon reciting "amen" in chazarat hashatz (see Shiurim lezekher Abba Mori 2:95) is due to the need to involve the members of the congregation in the communal prayer.

 

The model of tefilat hatzibbur, the prayer of the public that requires the involvement of the tzibbur, is not limited to the stating of amen after a berakha but can include other forms of answer as well. The Gemara in Succa (38b) describes the format of Hallel betzibbur as a setup in which the shaliach tzibbur recites the entire text aloud while the congregation responds with a refrain. The original paradigm of this form is Shirat HaYam, which was the song of the entire nation, and was recited according to R. Akiva in the same manner as Hallel (Sota 30b). The mechanism of Zimmun, as understood by the Rav zt"l (Shiurim lezekher Abba Mori 2:81-104), also creates a communal birchat hamazon through the call of the mezamen and the response of the assembled diners.

 

     We may now suggest that the purpose of modim derabanan is to create the communal shemoneh esrei by having the tzibbur respond and participate with the shaliach tzibbur at the conclusion of the Amida. Thus, it is not the non-participation in the public thanksgiving and the possible suspicions that may be cast upon the mitpallel who doesn't respond (which it must be admitted are somewhat farfetched – after all, any reasonable onlooker will realize that the non-bower is in the middle of shemoneh esrei) that obligate him to conclude prior to modim, but the need to join forces with the tzibbur and to be part of the tefilat hatzibbur. The reason that modim derabanan serves this purpose is not necessarily due to its content but to the fact that it is at the CONCLUSION of shemoneh esrei. Not only is the berakha of modim the central pillar of the concluding section of shemoneh esrei but in many regards it is the final berakha  (see my article "Birkat Sim Shalom," in "Zikhron HaRav," for an elaboration of this thesis and the source texts that support it) and therefore the appropriate place for the members of the congregation to respond to the shaliach tzibbur and affirm his tefila. Actually, a careful reading of the Gemara in Berakhot 34a-b will demonstrate that the logic of our bowing down in the beginning and end of the Amida is rooted in the approach to God and the taking leave of Him and is not an expression of thanksgiving, so that the tzibbur's participation in this act is due to the taking leave from the KBH of the entire tzibbur.

 

Our suggestion that the significance of modim derabanan is the involvement of the tzibbur in the public Amida, analogous to the concept of response in Hallel, is strongly supported by the Yerushalmi that is quoted by Tosafot and cited by the Rama (OC 109:1). The Yerushalmi claims that the latecomer must maneuver his tefila so that he is able to respond not only to modim derabanan but to the amen of the berakhot of HaKel Hakadosh and Shomea Tefila as well. The logic behind this psak is not due to suspicions cast upon the latecomer by a bystander, since there is no externally visible act in them, but to the need for the participation of the tzibbur in the Amida. The three junctions at which the Yerushalmi demands a response from the mitpallel, HaKel Hakadosh, Shomea Tefila and modim derabanan, correspond, of course, to the classic tripartite division of shemoneh esrei, each of them being the conclusion of a unit. The need to respond is based on the need to receive the affirmation of the congregation at each point of transition, just as they answer at the conclusion of each perek in Hallel.

 

The theory that modim derabanan is required for the listener's participation, though in a somewhat different formulation, is to be found in the Abudrahm. He writes that the tzibbur must recite modim since the chazan, although he can serve as an intermediary to petition God for our needs, cannot serve as an agent to discharge our obligation to personally thank Him. The result of this distinction is that the tzibbur can rely upon the chazan to represent them to approach the KBH in all of their contacts with Him, except for modim. Thus, although the Abudrahm's conception of chazarat hashatz assumes the proxy model rather than the communal prayer, he is in agreement with our suggestion that modim derabanan serves an essential role in the format of the shaliach tzibbur's Amida that necessitates the individual's participation and is not merely a ploy designed to remove the suspicions of others.

 

Sources for next week's shiur:

 

1) Sota 40b - 41a. Rashi and Tosafot.

Mishneh LeMelekh Hilkhot Beit HaBechira 7:6.

2) Ramban Bereishit 49 s.v. lo yasur. Rambam Hilkhot Melakhim 1:7-11.

3) Yoma 68b mishna and the first four lines of the gemara. Rashi s.v. ba.