Tefilat HaDerekh In Modern Times (3)

 Translated by David Silverberg

  

THE BEI'UR HALAKHA'S QUESTION

 

     If we would end this article here, we would conclude that one should, indeed, recite tefillat ha-derekh when he drives from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, or from Gush Etzion to Jerusalem, in accordance with the Mishna Berura's ruling.  However, a question posed by the Bei'ur Halakha now enters the picture and once again gives rise to uncertainty surrounding our issue:

 

"According to this, at first glance, even if one must travel all together a parsa, but he travels that parsa through a city, of if he knows of some nearby city off the road he travels, within a parsa, he should likewise not recite tefillat ha-derekh with the conclusion ['Barukh Ata Hashem'], for this is not a dangerous place.  Or, perhaps they exempted him only if his entire trip constitutes less than a parsa… This issue requires further study."

 

The Bei'ur Halakha asks whether one recites tefillat ha-derekh whenever he embarks on a four-kilometer trip outside the city, or only if there is no populated area within a four-kilometer radius, in any direction.

 

     Due to this uncertainty, many have rendered tefillat ha-derekh nowadays (in Israel) practically null and void, as there is a hardly a place in the country without any inhabited area within a four-kilometer radius.[11]

 

     It would appear, however, that under current circumstances, the Bei'ur Halakha would have no question and would agree that one should recite tefillat ha-derekh, despite the presence of an inhabited area within a one-parsa radius.

 

     The Bei'ur Halakha's comments are based upon the Rosh, who writes (Berakhot, 4:18), "But when he must travel less than a parsa, near the city, this is not a dangerous situation and he need not recite the berakha."  The Bei'ur Halakha thus asked, since we do not consider the area near a city a dangerous situation, perhaps one should not recite the berakha even if he travels further than a parsa away from the city, so long as he remains nearby other settled areas.

 

     The basis of the Bei'ur Halakha's question is the assumption that the danger for which we recite tefillat ha-derekh stems from thieves or animals and the like.  Therefore, within the vicinity of a residential area, where one does not face this danger, perhaps one does not recite tefillat ha-derekh.  But is this the primary danger facing a traveler nowadays?  Certainly not.  Today, one faces primarily the risk of automobile accidents, and this danger presents itself even near residential areas.

 

     Several poskim mention car accidents as a factor obligating one to recite tefillat ha-derekh, but they tend to dismiss this argument, claiming that if this is the case, "when one travels four kilometers – one parsa - within a city, he should have to recite the berakha!" (Yabia Omer, 1:13).

 

     In my humble opinion, however, there is very good reason to require the recitation of tefillat ha-derekh in the Bei'ur Halakha's case, but not when driving within a city, despite the risk of car accidents, which arises in both situations.

 

     Tefillat ha-derekh is not a prayer asking God to save us from danger.  One obviously would not start reciting tefillat ha-derekh if burglars assault him in his house.  Tefillat ha-derekh was instituted strictly as a prayer recited when embarking on a trip: "Whoever EMBARKS ON A TRIP recites tefillat ha-derekh."  But we do not recite this berakha on any trip – only on a dangerous trip.  (In the next section we will discuss what forms of danger this includes.)

 

     "Embarking on a trip" means leaving the city; traveling within a city does not qualify as a "trip."  With this in mind, we can proceed to explain the Bei'ur Halakha.  If a person travels a parsa without any inhabited areas around him, then we have satisfied both conditions – he embarks on a trip, and the trip is dangerous.  If, however, someone ventures outside the city but his route passes near towns, then although he indeed goes on a "trip," we might not consider this a "dangerous" trip.  Today, however, the situation is different, as we must, unfortunately, take into account the risk of auto accidents.  If so, then someone nowadays who drives outside his city must recite tefillat ha-derekh even if he travels in the vicinity of other towns, since this indeed qualifies as a "dangerous trip."[12]

 

A DANGEROUS LOCATION

 

     We must add yet another factor, as well.  The Rosh, in the aforementioned passage, alludes to the possibility of reciting tefillat ha-derekh even when traveling less than a parsa: "But when he must travel less than a parsa, near the city, this is not a dangerous situation and he need not recite the berakha."  This would imply that if we had considered this situation dangerous, the individual would recite tefillat ha-derekh, despite the fact that he travels less than a parsa.

 

     We may infer this position from Talmidei Rabbenu Yona, as well.  The Yerushalmi (Berakhot 4:4) comments that all roads have a presumed status of danger.  If so, then according to the Behag, who views tefillat ha-derekh as a prayer for rescue from danger, one should recite tefillat ha-derekh even when traveling less than a parsa.  On this Talmidei Rabbenu Yona write, "One might say that this [presumed status of danger] does not apply near a city; only when one travels on the road between the villages, it is all presumed dangerous and one must pray and ask for his life [to be spared]."  This implies that when one knows without a doubt that a given location poses danger, he must recite the berakha even when traveling less than a parsa.

 

     The "Alfasi Zuta" mentions explicitly that somebody who finds himself in a dangerous place must recite tefillat ha-derekh even if he travels less than a parsa.  The Taz (6) and Mishna Berura (30) rule accordingly.

 

     It turns out, then, that we must speak of two different circumstances.  When one travels a parsa, we automatically consider this a dangerous situation, requiring tefillat ha-derekh.  When we deal with a shorter trip, less than a parsa, then one recites tefillat ha-derekh only if we know that he comes upon a dangerous location.

 

     Now we must clarify what precisely a "dangerous location" means.  Does this depend on the facts on the ground (an objective definition), or on one's personal feeling (a subjective definition)?

 

     We find a parallel discussion, albeit in the context of hilkhot Shabbat, in a letter written by the Rogatchover.[13]  The Rogatchover demonstrates that we define "danger" subjectively.  Among other sources, he brings the mishna in Shabbat (29b) which states, "One who extinguishes the candle because he fears gentiles or burglars or 'the bad spirit' [illness requiring one to sit in the dark]… he is not liable [for punishment for having desecrated Shabbat]."  The Rogatchover explained, "This refers merely to one's imagination, that he imagines to himself that he is thereby exposed to danger… It therefore says specifically, 'because he fears'."  (The mishna does not say, "because there are burglars," because the determining factor is not the objective reality, but rather one's fears.)

 

     Although this approach represents a very novel chiddush within the context of hilkhot Shabbat[14], with regard to tefillat ha-derekh it is quite reasonable.  In introducing the halakha of tefillat ha-derekh, the Gemara points out that this prayer stems from the requirement to "consult your Creator and then leave."  Earlier, we viewed this "consultation" as the fundamental basis of tefillat ha-derekh according to Rashi.  As mentioned, however, the Behag, too, must accept this concept, as it does, after all, appear in the Gemara.  How does he explain this phrase?

 

     "Consulting" with someone means presenting one's concerns, raising his doubts and fears.  This results not necessarily from a clear, existing reality, but rather out of anxiety and apprehension.  The fundamental basis of tefillat ha-derekh is that we hold onto the Almighty – "like a weaned child with his mother."  The person in fear then feels that he is not alone: "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no harm, for you are with me."  While this might not mean, as Rashi maintains, that one asks God's permission before leaving, this does involve consulting and embracing Him, conferring with Him for the purpose of receiving encouragement and reassurance through the knowledge that "I am with you: I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land" (Bereishit 28:15).

 

     I came across a similar explanation in "Iggerot Moshe" (O.C. 59): "The language, 'consult your Creator and then leave' is precise… It teaches that although this is but a doubt, for perhaps there will be nothing harmful there, in which case it turns out that he had nothing from which to pray to God to protect him on his trip more so then when he is home… this is not the case; rather, when it comes to prayer, one must pray even when in doubt."

 

     For encouragement and reassurance one must pray whenever he senses danger, so long as we can define his current situation as a "trip," as opposed to driving within the city.

 

     It turns out, then, that somebody who feels he is in danger, whether he fears car accidents or stone throwing and the like, may certainly recite tefillat ha-derekh with God's Name.  We may add several other considerations, as well, such as Rashi's position, that one recites tefillat ha-derekh even when traveling less than a parsa.  Secondly, even according to the Behag, who requires a parsa, perhaps every parsa-long trip outside the city requires a berakha even if the route passes near towns, and it stands to reason that "parsa" refers to the geographic distance of four kilometers.  And although the Bei'ur Halakha is uncertain on this matter, presumably today, given the risk of accidents, he would agree that one must recite tefillat ha-derekh even in such a situation.  Finally, even if we would not conclusively allow the berakha's recitation based on all these factors, if one feels endangered he certainly may recite tefillat ha-derekh, for in this case tefillat ha-derekh is said even when traveling less than a parsa (outside the city).

 

 

SUMMARY

 

     We mentioned here the various views concerning the central issues relevant to tefillat ha-derekh.  According to the approach I have taken, we reach the following conclusions:

 

A.  One who drives from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, or from Gush Etzion to Jerusalem and the like, may recite the full text of tefillat ha-derekh.  The reasoning involves several points:

1)  Rashi's view, that one recites tefillat ha-derekh on a trip even shorter than a parsa.

2)  Even according to the Behag's view, requiring tefillat ha-derekh only when traveling a parsa or more, this very likely refers to the geographic distance of four kilometers, rather than a period of time.  (This is the view of the Mishna Berura, 110:30.)

3)  One perhaps recites a berakha whenever he travels a parsa, even if he passes near inhabited areas.  Although the Bei'ur Halakha questioned whether tefillat ha-derekh is recited in such a case, nowadays, given the threat of traffic accidents[15], one may recite tefillat ha-derekh whenever traveling a parsa outside the city, regardless of the route's proximity to other towns.

 

B.  One should endeavor to recite tefillat ha-derekh immediately upon his departure from the city (approximately fifty-three meters after the houses end, or beyond the eruv, if the eruv extends further than the houses), so as to satisfy Rashi's view that one cannot recite it beyond the first parsa.  Nevertheless, if one did not recite it within the first parsa, he may still recite it provided a parsa remains before he arrives at his destination.  (If he has less than a parsa remaining, he should recite tefillat ha-derekh but conclude only, "Barukh shomei'a tefilla.")

 

C.  One does not recite tefillat ha-derekh when he travels within a city, as we do not consider this a "trip."

 

D.  Even if generally someone prefers not to recite tefillat ha-derekh when driving from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, if he feels he is in danger, either because of driving conditions (such as a wet roadway, or a general fear of car accidents), or out of fear of stone throwing, or for any other reason, he may recite the full berakha of tefillat ha-derekh.

 

NOTES:

 

11. HaRav Yehuda Amital shlit"a is of the opinion that one recites tefillat ha-derekh even when he travels within a parsa of inhabited areas.  I then saw that the "Be-tzel Ha-chokhma" (5:68) cites several proofs to this ruling (though he concludes that in such a situation one should recite the berakha without "Shem u-malkhut," due to the rule of "safek berakhot le-hakel").

 

12. Unfortunately, the danger resulting from the risk of road accidents is no less than the dangers that faced us in the past.  Although there may have been more fear in the past – "and save me from the hands of every enemy and ambush along the road" – the number of fatalities caused by road carnage, which in the State of Israel exceeds by many the number of casualties in all the country's wars combined, itself testifies to the grave danger that exists specifically nowadays.

 

13. The Rogatchover wrote these comments in a postcard he sent and were later printed in the reponsa, "Tzofnat Panei'ach" (39), published by Rav Kasher.  I heard them several years ago, during the Gulf War, from HaRav Amital shlit"a, who mentioned this letter in a shiur kelali on the topic of "Shomer Peta'im Hashem."

 

14. The Rogatchover himself, towards the end of the letter, warns against issuing a general pesak on the basis of his approach.

 

15. Many have inquired as to whether we may add the phrase, "u-mei'te'unot derakhim" ("and from car accidents") into the text of tefillat ha-derekh.  When one compares the Gemara's text of the berakha with ours, he immediately reveals that the text has undergone several changes in accordance with each generation.  (These changes occur not in the chatima – the berakha's conclusion, but rather in the details in the body of the berakha.)  From here was can perhaps deduce that one may add "u-mei'te'unot derakhim" in tefillat ha-derekh nowadays.  (This point is made in the work of responsa "Mayim Chayim," 1:8.)  Although traffic accidents are already included under the general category of "and from all types of calamities," it can be shown that it is preferable to specify as much as possible.  The Zohar (Bereishit, p.169a) comments, "One who utters a prayer must make his words properly clear."  We might also draw proof from passage in the Midrash (Ester Rabba, 7:24), "This may be compared to a person who walked along the road and grew tired; he said: If I only I had a donkey now.  A Roman, whose donkey had just given birth to a baby-donkey, passed by and ordered that the traveler carry the baby-donkey on his shoulder.  He said: My prayer was accepted, but I did not pray properly, and I did not specify whether [I wished for] a donkey on which I would ride, or a donkey that would ride on me."  (When, however, one cannot specify, even a general, plainly formulated prayer is accepted.  We may prove this from Am Yisrael's response to the Amalekim, as described by the Chazal, when the letter dressed as Canaanim: Benei Yisrael prayed a general prayer, without specifying the nation to which they referred – "If you deliver this people into our hand" [Bamidbar 21:2 – see Rashi].)