Paying Attention to the Repetition of Shemoneh Esrei

 

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

  

QUESTION:

 

            If ten prayed the silent Shemoneh Esrei together, must they wait for all participants of the minyan to finish before beginning the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei (chazarat ha-shatz)? In other words, must all members of the minyan (or at least ten of them) pay attention to the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei?

 

ANSWER:

 

CONTRADICTION IN THE SHULCHAN ARUKH

 

            The Shulchan Arukh seems to rule leniently on this issue.  In OC 55:6 he writes,

 

"If one of the ten either began to pray by himself or else was sleeping and cannot answer with them - he is nevertheless considered part of the minyan."

 

            The source of this halakha is the Maharam of Rotenberg's ruling (quoted by the Hagahot Maimoniot - Hilkhot Tefilla 8:9 and later by the Beit Yosef) that one of the ten who cannot answer because he is still praying the silent Shemoneh Esrei can still be counted in the minyan.

 

"For it is written, 'I will be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel' - the Shekhina rests among any ten that are 'benei kedusha' (that God CAN be sanctified in their midst)."

 

            He proves his case by quoting R. Yehoshua ben Levi's radical opinion, that even a baby can be counted as the tenth of a minyan.

 

"Even those who argue with him only are opposed because he (the baby) does not even know to Whom they are saying the blessings; in other words, he is not a 'bar kedusha' (one who can even potentially bring about the sanctification of God that the verse speaks about)."

 

            One who can, at least potentially, be part of the sanctification, answer to kedusha and berakhot, can be counted towards the minyan even if he can not now actively participate.  The Beit Yosef there quotes his teacher the Mahari Beirav who ruled, based on the Hagahot Maimoniot, that one can be counted for a minyan even though he is sleeping.

 

VS. THE ROSH

 

            This ruling seems to go against a responsum of the Rosh quoted in the Tur (OC 124):

 

"I am inclined to say ("karov be-einai") that when there are not nine men in the synagogue paying attention to the prayer of the chazan, his blessings are in vain.  Because the blessings of the chazan were instituted to be said in the presence of ten, when there are not nine people paying attention to his blessings, they are in vain.  Therefore, everyone should imagine himself as one of the only nine listening and pay attention to the chazan."

 

            It seems clear from the Rosh that someone who is either praying by himself or sleeping does not count towards the minyan because he is not paying attention to the chazan, against the Shulchan Arukh's ruling in 55:6.  Yet, strangely enough, the SA rules like this Rosh in OC 124:4!  We shall try to resolve these two rulings of the SA.

 

THE RAMBAM'S DECREE

 

            It is noteworthy that the Rambam expresses a similar opinion in a responsum (#256, Bloi edition).  The Rambam explains why he instituted for his congregation to skip the silent Shemoneh Esrei on Shabbat and Yom Tov and pray silently while the chazan is praying out loud.  He writes:

 

"I was forced to do this because of all of the men not paying attention to the chazan while he prays the Shemoneh Esrei aloud.  People instead would speak to each other and walk out.  The chazan ended up saying blessings in vain because no one was listening to him." 

 

            It follows from the Rambam's opinion that someone sleeping or praying by himself cannot be counted towards the minyan for the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei.

 

RESOLVING THE SHULCHAN ARUKH'S RULINGS

 

            The Taz (OC 55) claims that the Shulchan Arukh really rules against the Rosh's position.  However, there are those (the Shulchan Arukh Harav and others) that reconcile the Shulchan Arukh's opinion (55:6, quoted above) with that of the Rosh.  They distinguish between the passage in the Rosh, referring to the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei that involves the recital of unnecessary blessings if there is no minyan, and the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, that might just refer to other areas requiring a minyan that would not lead to unnecessary blessings.  In those areas the Shulchan Arukh rules that one can count a sleeping or inattentive person towards the minyan. 

 

            This resolution is difficult to maintain, in light of the context of the Shulchan Arukh's source in his Beit Yosef in OC 55.  He quotes the Maharil who writes that "despite the ROSH'S ruling that ten people paying attention are needed for a minyan, we nevertheless see that the custom is to even count people engaged in conversations.  Even though I am hesitant ..."  The Maharil, quoting the Rosh, is clearly relating to the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei, and wants to rule leniently DESPITE the Rosh.  The Beit Yosef, speaking about the same topic, eventually concludes, "We can certainly rely on my teacher, of blessed memory (the Mahari Beirav)."  The Shulchan Arukh, then, rules that even for the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei inattentive people can be counted towards the minyan.

 

THE REASONING OF THE ROSH

 

            What is the reasoning behind the Rosh's opinion?  (We will return to the contradiction in the rulings of the Shulchan Arukh later.)  Why does he not only require the presence of all ten members of the minyan, but also that they pay attention?  This question can only be dealt with after relating to a much more basic issue - why is there a need for a minyan at all for the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei?  The reason for the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei is to fulfill the obligation of those who are not fluent with the prayers (the prayers were originally said by heart).  This could easily be done without a minyan.  Why the minyan?

 

TEFILLAT HA-TZIBBUR

 

            Perhaps the need for ten stems, not from the REASON behind the decree to repeat the Shemoneh Esrei, but from its CONTENT and FORM.

 

            The need for ten might be based on the well-known words of the Rambam (Hilkhot Tefilla 8):

 

"The prayer of the congregation is always heeded, even if there were sinners amongst them ... and one should not pray by himself if he is able to pray with the community (8:1) ...  How should the community's prayer ("tefillat ha-tzibbur") be done?  ONE SHOULD PRAY OUT LOUD AND THE REST SHOULD LISTEN.  This is not done when there are less than ten free men. ... (8:4)"

 

            The repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei is to be said as "tefillat ha-tzibbur" - the prayer of the community.  Even though the original REASON for the decree is to enable the non-fluent to pray, the FORM the decree takes on is for the community, at least a minyan, to pray as a unit.  [The Rambam himself also clearly subscribes to this reason - see Tefilla 8:9, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam #221.]

 

            The Rosh can also be understood in this light.  It can only be considered as if the community is praying if a minyan is paying attention to the blessings of the chazan.  How can we consider a minyan standing in a room together as a group praying together if one is sleeping, another two talking, and one praying something else? 

 

            There are two possible objections:

1. It might be sufficient for a majority of the minyan (or, perhaps, nine of them) to pay attention, based on the principle of "rubo ke-kulo" - the majority can be considered as the whole;

2. Perhaps the Rosh does not subscribe to the Rambam's "prayer of the community" approach (in which case we would have to search for a new reason for the need for ten). 

 

DAVAR SHE-BIKEDUSHA

 

            The mishna in Megilla (23b) might furnish another source for the need for ten for the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei.  The mishna lists a number of things that require ten:

 

"One does night make a public reading of the berakhot of keriat shema ("ein porsin al Shema"), have a chazan go up [to repeat the Shemoneh Esrei] ("ein ovrin lifnei ha-teiva"), the kohanim do not perform the priestly blessing, the Torah is not read [publicly], the prophets are not read [publicly], ... unless there are ten."

 

            The gemara asks what the source of the mishna's halakha is and answers,

 

"R. Yochanan says, the verse says, 'I will be sanctified in the midst of the people of Israel,' - any matters relating to "kedusha," holiness, should not be performed in the presence of less than ten people."

 

            It seems that "ovrim lifnei ha-teiva", (lit. - passing before the aron kodesh),acting as a chazan, is included among the activities classified as matters of holiness, "devarim she-bikedusha," and require ten people just like kadish and kedusha.  The simple explanation of "ovrim lifnei ha-teiva" is, as Rashi says, the whole repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei, and not just the kedusha within it.  The Rambam also (Hilkhot Tefilla 8:4-6) mentions separately both the kedusha and the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei in his list of devarim she-bikedusha.  According to the Rambam, the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei has a dual nature, BOTH as the community's prayer (tefillat ha-tzibbur) and as a matter of holiness (davar she-bikedusha).  The two are not inseparable, though.  One can see it as either a davar she-bikedusha OR as tefillat ha-tzibbur.

 

            The Rosh's ruling, that all ten of the minyan must pay attention (have kavana) during the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei in order to be counted, might also stem from viewing it as a davar she-bikedusha.  All devarim she bikedusha require some type of participation from the congregation - "Barekhu," "Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh," "Yehei Shemei rabba" and the like.  Perhaps the congregation's participation in the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei, totally done by the chazan, is through paying attention.  Their attention takes the place of their active participation.

 

            This idea is plausible, but can be rejected in several ways:

1.         Perhaps the congregation's participation is expressed through their actively answering "amen;"

2.         Perhaps the congregation's answering to the kedusha - an integral part of the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei - serves as their participation in the whole repetition;

3.         Perhaps everyone in the congregation (or even ten of them) is not required to participate.  This was definitely the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, who was willing to count a baby as the tenth in a minyan.  Even though his position is rejected, and we rule that all ten members of the minyan must be free adult males, we might still hold that not all ten of them must participate.

 

10 MEMBERS PRESENT

 

            There is, however, another way that the concept of devarim she-bikedusha can help us explain the Rosh's requirement of ten paying attention to the chazan.  Perhaps the Rosh does NOT require PARTICIPATION of all ten, but DOES require the PRESENCE of all ten.  However, what is the definition of being present in a minyan?  Perhaps one whose body stands in the room where the minyan is praying, but whose mind wanders around to his personal affairs cannot be considered present in the minyan.  Only those whose minds are also present in the minyan can be counted.  If the congregation is not paying attention to the Shemoneh Esrei, the question can justifiably be posed, "Where are they?"

 

THE ROSH AND THE YERUSHALMI

 

            Before we return to the contradiction within the two rulings of the Shulchan Arukh, we will pose a question on the Rosh.  The Rosh's ruling seems to go against an explicit Yerushalmi that says that if a congregation was saying a davar she-bikedusha and some of them walked out, it is permitted to finish.  This seems to contradict the Rosh's ruling requiring ten paying attention to the chazan; certainly those who left the room are not paying attention!?  Based on this objection, the Derisha claims that the Rosh never meant to call the blessings said by the chazan ACTUAL blessings in vain (berakhot levatala).  He only meant that when the congregation does not pay attention the chazan's blessings are CLOSE to becoming blessings in vain.  The language of the Rosh might, in fact, bear this out - "karov be-einai lihyiot birkat shaliach tzibbur berakha levatala" can translate as, "the blessing of the chazan is, in my eyes, close to being a blessing in vain," and "nir'eh ki-vrakha levatala" can read as, "it seems like a blessing in vain."

 

            In order to resolve the Rosh with the Yerushalmi it seems necessary to read the Rosh this way, but it creates a new, enigmatic category: something that is close to being called a blessing in vain.  Either it is one or it is not?!  What is a blessing that is close to being considered in vain?

 

"CLOSE TO" BEING A BERAKHA LEVATALA

 

            Perhaps there are two aspects to the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei:

1. "tefillat ha-tzibbur," the community's prayer; and

2. "davar she-bikedusha," a matter involving God's holiness.

 

            Like all "devarim she-bikedusha," if some of the members of the minyan leave the room, the Yerushalmi rules that the chazan must finish his job and his blessings are not considered blessings in vain.  The need for all of the members of the congregation to pay attention to the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei stems from its identity as the community's prayer.  Concerning this, the Rosh voiced his hesitations, that this is "close to" being considered a blessing in vain.  As a davar she-bikedusha it is a legitimate berakha, but lack of attention might hamper its being considered the community's prayer.  [The Rambam, in the responsum quoted above writes that the blessings are "almost in vain" (kim'at levatala).  We have already seen that the Rambam recognizes both strains within the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei.]

 

            In short, the Rosh's approach might be based on his understanding of the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei as tefillat ha-tzibbur or as a davar she-bikedusha.

 

            Practically, the Acharonim differ on how to rule.  The Taz rejects the Shulchan Arukh's leniency because of the Rosh's approach.  He must assume that the Rosh referred to all devarim she-bikedusha.  Those who distinguish, within the Shulchan Arukh, between the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei and other devarim she-bikedusha, understood that the Rosh only referred to the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei (because, we suggest, it is tefillat ha-tzibbur). 

 

THE RULING OF THE SHULCHAN ARUKH

 

            We find three directions through which the Acharonim resolve the Shulchan Arukh's seemingly contradictory rulings (OC 55:6 - even one sleeping or praying by himself can be counted towards the minyan; and OC 124:4 - that if nine others are not paying attention to the chazan his blessings are close to being considered in vain.):

1.         distinguishing between repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei (SA 124:4) and other realms that require a minyan (55:6) where we are more lenient;

2.         asserting that the real ruling is 55:6, and that he quotes the Rosh in 124:4 as an ideal, as a stringency;

3.         claiming that even the Rosh (124:4) would agree that someone sleeping or praying by himself (55:6) can count towards a minyan because they have not consciously chosen not to pay attention.

 

            This third approach is problematic.  If, as the Rosh seems to say, the decree of the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei demands that there be a minyan paying attention to the chazan, why should it matter WHY they are not paying attention?  Why should someone having been overcome by sleep against his will or being forced to pray at a different pace than the congregation make him countable for a minyan?  He is still not paying attention?!

 

            We suggest two approaches to explaining this third resolution of the Shulchan Arukh. 

A.        The sleeper or individual praying is still considered PRESENT, whereas those engaged in conversation or whose minds are wandering are not.  Earlier we suggested that ten are needed to be present (not necessarily participating) in order to be counted towards a minyan, but they must be present in mind, not only in body.  Perhaps only one who COULD pay attention is considered not present if he does not pay attention.  However, for one who is forced not to pay attention, physical presence is sufficient.  One must be as present in a minyan as he can be.  [This might explain the opinion that a baby can be counted as the tenth in a minyan.]

 

B.        A blessing of the chazan is only considered in vain if the congregation does not maximize its communal prayer potential.  Even though there were a couple in the congregation who could not pay attention, the community prayed as communally as they could.  We assume, in this explanation, that the definition of what is considered a "berakha levatala," a blessing in vain, is somewhat flexible, just like the terms "in vain," or "unnecessary" are flexible.  There might not be uniform standards for what is considered unnecessary or in vain for all realms of halakha where such categories apply. Where there are much higher expectations, something that in other contexts would be considered meaningful and non-wasted, might still be considered "in vain."

 

            For example:  The Rishonim argue whether the words, "Eil Melekh ne'eman" should be said between the blessing "Ha-bocheir be-amo Yisrael be-ahava" and Shema.  Most of those that object to it call it a break between the blessing and Shema.  The Tur, though, quotes the Rama who claims that it is not only a break, but also a blessing in vain.  Even though under normal circumstances these three words praise of God, the rules are different within keriat Shema.  Anything that does not meet the high standards of the blessings of keriat Shema and Shema itself is, in this context, considered an unnecessary blessing, a blessing in vain.

 

            Likewise, a prayer without ten paying attention might in some contexts be considered in vain and in others not.  The decree of communal prayer that the Rosh speaks of might be thus formulated: "The congregation must have a chazan say a prayer that is geared for the participation of the community with them."  If the whole community is able to pay attention and they do not, the blessing of the chazan was in vain.  If, however, the community had the handicap of two inescapably non-attentive members, one who dropped off to sleep and another who is praying at a different pace than the others, the requirements for their communal prayer are more relaxed and their blessing is not considered in vain, even according to the Rosh.  Their lack of attention does not harm the community's prayer.

 

PRACTICAL HALAKHA

 

            There are, amongst the poskim of the Acharonim, representatives of all approaches to dealing with the Shulchan Arukh's different rulings.  However, there are many (like Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita) who are lenient, like the simple reading of the Shulchan Arukh's ruling in 55:6.  It is certainly legitimate to rely on them in times of need and count someone sleeping or praying individually towards a minyan.

 

            This ruling is qualified by the Chayei Adam and the Eimek Berakha, though, and limited to when there are already eight others paying attention to the chazan and only one who is praying by himself or sleeping.  The Hagahot Maimoniot's leniency is based on the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi who held that a baby could be counted as the TENTH of a minyan.  Even Rabbeinu Tam, who rules like R. Yehoshua ben Levi, limits this approach to one baby.  The Hagahot Maimoniot (and later the Shulchan Arukh) retains this partially, allowing for one sleeping or praying member of the minyan, but requires that he be someone who is a bar mitzva.

 

(Daf Kesher #111, Kislev 5748, vol. 1, pp. 454-456.)