Siman 55: Shemoneh Esrei with the Tzibbur (Part 3)

STARTING SHEMONEH ESREI WITH THE TZIBBUR:

            As we have seen, the essence of tefilla be-tzibbur is the praying of Shemoneh Esrei together with the congregation.  But individual tefillot vary; some people pray longer and some shorter.  What, then, is considered "with the congregation"?

 

            The Peri Megadim (Eshel Avraham, 109:2) is of the opinion that one must start together with the congregation. (This is found in the Biur Halakha at the beginning of siman 109, and in M.B. 66:35).

 

            What precisely is considered "beginning"?  The Responsa Be-tzel Ha-chokhma (vol. IV, 2) writes that when one begins while the congregation is still at "Magen Avraham" (the first berakha), then his tefilla is considered a true tefillat ha-tzibbur; this is possibly the case even when he starts before they have finished "Ha-E-l ha-kadosh."

 

            The Igrot Moshe (OC vol. III, 4) writes that logic dictates the opposite of the Peri Megadim's stance: if one begins after the congregation, this does not rule out tefillat tzibbur.  Even when a group starts simultaneously, it does not remain so, but rather when one is at "Ata kadosh," another is at "Refa'einu," and a third at "Al ha-tzadikim."  Nor do they finish together.  There are even those who pray so slowly that the bulk of their tefilla is said when there are no longer ten who are standing in prayer.  Why should the beginning of tefilla be considered of greater imporatnce in this respect than the middle or the end?  In response to the Peri Megadim, he writes that it is likely that only if one arrived so late that he cannot pray with the tzibbur at all - i.e., right at the end of the tefilla - perhaps only then the Peri Megadim felt there was no tefillat tzibbur.

 

            The Yabi'a Omer (vol. II, 7) writes as well that tefilla be-tzibbur is not dependent upon having started together with the tzibbur (in accordance with the Responsa Peri Ha-tevu'a, 68) and further states that the same holds true for the reverse case: if one started ahead of the congregation in order that he finish in time for kedusha, it is still considered tefilla be-tzibbur.  (It is also not considered a case of preceding the tzibbur with his tefilla, for his whole tefilla is not ahead of theirs but rather just a portion.)

 

            What if one arrives late and prays his Shemoneh Esrei together with chazarat ha-shatz - is this considered tefilla be-tzibbur?

 

            The Peri Megadim writes (Eshel Avraham 109:4): "While the shatz is praying - it appears that this is not tefillat tzibbur" (though in Eshel Avraham 52:1 he expresses doubts regarding this issue).  The same view appears as well in Igrot Moshe (OC vol. III, 9), based upon the Rema who writes in 109:2 that a latecomer should wait until after "Ha-E-l ha-kadosh" and then begin, unless the hour is so late that the end of the proper time for prayer is approaching. Were praying together with the shatz to have the status of tefilla be-tzibbur, the Rema should have instructed the latecomer to begin with the shatz even when there is no fear of the proper time passing. 

 

            [The Elia Rabba, in contrast, believes that he should begin simultaneously with the shatz, as does, apparently, the Mishna Berura in 109:14.]

 

            [This logic is not indisputable: it is possible to explain that the Rema preferred that one not let Kedusha cause an interruption in his private Shemoneh Esrei (see the Biur Halakha op. cit. s.v. Aval), accepting the leniency of the Shulchan Arukh in this matter only when the end of the time for prayer is approaching.  Alternatively, he might believe that even if one started after the beginning of chazarat ha-shatz, this too is tefilla be-tzibbur - although it appears from the Chazon Ish (Tefilla, 19:7 - see below) that one must start simultaneously with the shatz to have his prayer considered tefilla be-tzibbur.]

 

            There are many poskim who do see a tefilla together with the shatz as tefilla be-tzibbur.  These include the Chatam Sofer (Likkutei Shu"t Me-chatam Sofer siman 3); the Eshel Avraham Mi-butshatsh (siman 52:1); the Chazon Ish (Tefilla 19:7), who writes, "When one prays with the shatz it is tefilla be-tzibbur" (but see the previously-cited Igrot Moshe, who understands the Chazon Ish differently); Yabia Omer (vol. II, 7:4-6); and Yechaveh Da'at (vol. V, 7).

 

A MINOR (55:4):

            The Gemara in Berakhot 47b states:

 

            "Said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Even though they have said 'A minor still in his crib may not be counted for a            zimmun,' he nevertheless may be used as an 'attachment'   for ten."

 

            The Gemara provides additional possibilities for combinations, such as nine plus an ark, but goes on to conclude (48a):

 

"We do not rule like any of these traditions, but instead like that which R. Nachman said, 'A minor who knows to Whom we direct our blessings - may be counted for a zimmun.'"

 

            Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot there) states that we rule in accordance with R. Yehoshua ben Levi regarding the joining of a minor.  (The Gemara's statement of non-acceptance refers to the idea of nine plus an ark, etc.)

 

            Rabbeinu Tam's reasoning (found in a responsum of Rabbeinu Tam cited in the Tosafot of R. Yehuda Ha-chasid [there] and in Or Zarua, 196) is based upon the verse "And I will be sanctified in the midst of Benei Yisrael" - it matters not whether they are adults or minors, as long as nine of them are adults, for if there are fewer than nine adults it is not in accordance with the dignity of heaven.

 

            The Tosafot write that in practice, Rabbeinu Tam did not actually count a minor for his minyan, even with a chumash in his hand, referring to the latter practice as a "minhag shetut" - a ridiculous practice - "for a chumash can turn him into an adult!?"

 

            The Rambam rules similarly (Tefilla 8:4) that all ten must be adults, as does the Eshkol (siman 14); and the Orchot Chayim (Tefilla, 73) writes that this opinion is shared by the Maharam Mi-rotenberg, the Rashba, and R. Hai Gaon.

 

            However, the Rosh and the Mordekhai (in Berakhot) and the Hagahot Maimoniot (Tefilla, chapter 8) permit in a case of need to include a minor above the age of six who knows to Whom we pray.  This opinion is cited by the Rema (55:4).

 

            As we have seen, Rabbeinu Tam, who permits in principle the counting of a minor for a minyan, does not see any advantage to having the minor hold a Torah.  The Magen Avraham, too, writes (55:5) that those who hold the lenient opinion do so even when there is no chumash in the minor's hand (this is also found in M.B.55:24, citing the Gra).  However, there are those who do restrict the dispensation to a case when there is a chumash in his hand.  The Yerushalmi (Berakhot 7:2) teaches, "A minor with a sefer Torah is made into an 'attachment.'"  So too write the Rosh in the name of Minhag Olam, Shibbolei Ha-leket Ha-shalem (9), and others.  (In any case, though, the Magen Avraham there instructs that the Kaddish after Aleinu should not be said, for it is only a minhag.)

 

            In practice, the Acharonim rule stringently in this matter (even with a sefer Torah): the Bach (55), Elia Rabba (55:5), Chayei Adam (30:1), Responsa of the Maharsham (vol. III, 162), and others.  [It can be demonstrated from elsewhere that the Rema himself, though he writes here that there are those who are lenient, actually holds the stringent opinion.  In 199:10, the Shulchan Arukh permits the inclusion of a minor in a zimmun, but the Rema disagrees.  See the Biur Halakha in siman 55, s.v. Ve-lo nir'in, who states that Kaddish is a more serious matter than zimmun.]

 

            However, in a case of need - meaning that without the inclusion of the minor, the minyan will not take place and the would-be participants will not go to another minyan, or would go to a Reform minyan or the like - the Igrot Moshe permits the inclusion of a twelve-year-old with a rolled sefer Torah in his hand (even an invalid one; during Shemoneh Esrei he should put the sefer Torah down on the bima and hold on to its handles).  The Chelkat Yaakov (responsum 93) rules similarly, noting that some say a chumash is sufficient, and that it is disrespectful to put a sefer Torah into the hands of a minor.

 

IF SOME PEOPLE LEFT IN THE MIDDLE (SE'IFIM 2,3):

            The Yerushalmi (Megilla 4:4) teaches that if a davar she-bikedusha was begun in the presence of ten and some left in the middle, it may be completed even though there are not currently ten.  Thus write the Rif, the Rosh, Tosafot (Megilla 23), the Rambam (Tefilla 8:6), and thus rules the Shulchan Arukh (55:2).

 

            The Ran (Megilla chapter 3) stipulates that this is so only if the majority remain present - i.e., six (according to the Peri Megadim, cited in M.B. 55:11, a "recognizable majority" - seven - is not necessary, for since they began with ten, the Divine Presence already manifested itself).  If only five or fewer remained, they must stop immediately, even in the middle of Kedusha (Shulchan Arukh there).

 

            If, as we have just seen, they are permitted to finish the unit which they were in the middle of, we must define a "unit" in this context.

 

            If they have already started the unit of Keriat Shema, it is written in the Yerushalmi (there) that they may continue until Shemoneh Esrei (even according to the opinion which holds that the Kedusha of Yotzer Or may not be said without a minyan), and thus rules the Rema (55:3).  But they may not say chazarat ha-shatz.  The beginning of the unit of Shema is defined in M.B. 55:17, citing the Acharonim, as after Barkhu.

 

            Regarding the unit of tefilla, the Rashba (responsum 96) and the Rambam (responsum 12 in the Freiman edition) write that this begins with chazarat ha-shatz, not the individual silent prayer.  To be sure, the Rema writes that this is only the case if Kedusha has already started, but the Mishna Berura in 55:17, citing the Acharonim, also allows the congregation to continue if the first berakha has begun.

 

            Until what point may the congregation continue if chazarat ha-shatz had begun with ten?  The Terumat Ha-deshen writes in responsum 15 that the kedusha of "U-va le-tzion" belongs with tefilla, as does the Kaddish which follows it.  The Rambam, however, writes (ibid.) that this Kaddish should not be said.  The Shulchan Arukh writes in se'if 3 that "they continue even until kedusha" - leading the Sha'arei Teshuva (55:1) to infer that this excludes the Kaddish after "U-va le-tzion."  The Peri Chadash seconds this opinion, but the Rema, the Magen Avraham, and the Mishna Berura (55:18) disagree, and even the Sha'arei Teshuva ends by admitting that the more accepted custom is in accordance with the Rema and the Magen Avraham.

 

            The Chiddushei R. Akiva Eiger points out that if so, the half Kaddish immediately following Shemoneh Esrei may certainly be said, and so it is ruled in M.B. 55:19.

 

            The Yerushalmi, though, proscribes ýBirkat Kohanim and the reading of the Torah under these circumstances, since these are separate "units," and so rules the Rema.

 

            To sum up, if a minority of the minyan left after chazarat ha-shatz has already begun, they finish chazarat ha-shatz without Birkat Kohanim (though the shatz does say "E-lokeinu ... bless us with the three-fold blessing...": Ba'er Heiteiv there) and without reading the Torah, then say Tachanun and half Kaddish, Ashrei, "U-va le-tzion" and the full Kaddish, then they end the tefilla without an additional Kaddish.

 

            If birkat kohanim was begun with ten, it should be finished even if some left (Yerushalmi there).

 

            If Keriat Ha-Torah had begun with ten, it should be finished, but the Haftara should not be read, according to the Yerushalmi.  However, the Kesef Mishna (Tefilla 8:6) raises the following doubt: perhaps in the time of the Gemara when only the first and last of the people to be called up to the Torah said the berakha it could be considered one unit, but nowadays that each one recites his own berakha it might be looked at either as discrete sections or as one long mitzva.  He concludes in favor of the latter view and rules that it is one unit and the rest still must be called to the Torah even after some members of the minyan have left.  (In contrast, the Eshkol [vol. I, p.32 in ed. Ratzba] believes that the first to be called up should go ahead and say the concluding berakha, but the rest should not.)

 

            In Ma'ariv, even if the full minyan was present only until after Barkhu, the half Kaddish before Shemoneh Esrei should be said (Levush 55:3; M.B. 55:22).  However, the kaddish which follows Shemoneh Esrei should not (Rema 55:3).

 

            We have seen regarding the Shemoneh Esrei of Shacharit that beginning the silent prayer does not constitute the start of the Shemoneh Esrei "unit."  The same is true of Mincha as well.  According to the Chayei Adam, Ma'ariv follows the same pattern and thus the Kaddish following Shemoneh Esrei is not said; since even an individual praying alone at home would say this Shemoneh Esrei, it is not considered a "lead-in" to Kaddish.  However, the Levush (3), the Noda Be-yehuda (Mahadura Tinyana, 7), the Peri Megadim (Eshel Avraham, 55:3), and others write that this Kaddish should indeed be recited since it was formulated to be said after this silent Shemoneh Esrei (unlike in Shacharit where it was meant to be said after chazarat ha-shatz).  See M.B. 55:22 and Sha'arei Tziyun 55:16 who accepts this as halakha (in opposition to the Chayei Adam).

 

            For the Kaddish which follows a section of learning, the Taz (55:3) writes that ten are not needed during the actual learning itself, as long as ten are present for Kaddish (the same being true for the Kaddish which follows Pesukei De-zimra and the Ashrei of Mincha).  In contrast, the Magen Avraham (69:4) rules that if there was not a minyan present for the learning etc., Kaddish should not be said.  See M.B. 55:2 who writes that the consensus of Acharonim is that if there was not a minyan present during these times, three verses should be recited before Kaddish.

 

            The Mishna Berura adds in the name of the Peri Megadim that regarding Pesukei De-zimra, the Magen Avraham agrees with the Taz, that there need not be ten present during Yishtabach in order to say Kaddish afterward.  However, in 63:11, the Misha Berura rules that Kaddish may not be said if there were not ten present for Pesukei De-zimra.  This matter requires further analysis, but in any case it is recommended to say three verses.

 

            If some of the minyan went out but are planning to return, the Responsa Meishiv Halakha (vol. I, 75) proves from the Magen Avraham (69:1) that it is not necessary to wait for them (though it appears that if the delay will be brief, it is appropriate to wait).

 

            Regarding one who leaves and thereby causes the minyan to be incomplete, even though the "unit" may be nevertheless finished, the Yerushalmi (there) says, "and those who forsake God will be consumed" (Yeshayahu 1:28).  However, if he had joined just for Barkhu, for example, see the Mishna Berura (55:12) who writes that he apparently need stay only until the end of that unit (e.g., for Barkhu until the end of chazarat ha-shatz; for chazarat ha-shatz, until the Kaddish after "U-va le-tzion").

 

            If there would still be ten after his exit, the Mordekhai (Megilla 23) writes that he may leave, and so rules the Rema.  However, see M.B. 55:14 (citing Derekh Ha-chayim, Dinei Kaddish, 9) who limits it to one who has already heard Kedusha and the Kaddishes until Aleinu.

 

(This shiur was translated by Pnina Baumgarten.)