Simanim 119-122 Closing of the Amida
Mishna Berura
Yeshivat Har Etzion
SHIUR
#64: Simanim 119-122: CLOSING OF THE AMIDA
Pages
289-292
by
Rav Asher Meir
SIMAN 119 -
ADDITIONS TO STANDARDIZED BERAKHOT
**************************************************
The halakha of
adding personal requests to standardized berakhot is somewhat neglected. In an earlier shiur (number 55, on siman
98) we discussed the importance of prayer in general, and we quoted Rav Moshe
Feinstein's statement that turning to God with one's needs is an essential part
of belief in God. Although
standardized berakhot have great significance, and challenge each Jew to turn
his national goals into his or her, these fixed benedictions are certainly not
meant to take the place of a personal petition to God.
Although it is
appropriate to say personal prayers at any time of day, there are two advantages
to making these requests during the Amida.
First, during this time the ideal conditions are present for
concentration in prayer. Second,
merging personal prayers with those of the Jewish people as a whole encourages a
person to view his own needs within the framework of the needs of Am Yisrael
(see MB s.k. 3).
The source for
our siman is a passage in Avoda Zara:
It is taught
[in a beraita]: R. Eliezer says, One should ask one's needs and then pray, as it
is written (Tehillim 102:1), "A prayer of the poor man who is overcome [with
sorrows], and [then] pours out his speech before HaShem..."
R. Yehoshua
says, He should pray and then ask his needs, as it is written (Tehillim 142), "I
will pour out my speech before Him, [and then] my sorrow before Him will I
declare ..."
What is the
source of their dispute? As R.
Simlai learned: One should array praises of God and afterwards pray. And this is learned from Moshe Rabeinu,
as it is written: "HaShem, God, You have begun to show to Your servant ..." and
afterwards it is written, "Let me now continue and see the good land." R. Yehoshua agrees that we learn from
Moshe, [so we must start with praise, namely with the opening blessings of the
Amida]. Whereas R. Eliezer thinks
we can't learn from Moshe, whose [spiritual] might was so great [that there was
no insincerity in starting with praise and putting off his
request].
And the Sages
say not like either one, rather one should ask his needs in "Shome'a
Tefilla."
Rav Yehuda the
son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilat said in the name of Rav: Even though [the Sages]
said that one would ask his needs in Shome'a Tefilla, even so if he wants to say
at the end of any benediction a request in the nature of that benediction, he
may do so.
Rav Chiya bar
Ashi said in the of Rav: Even though [the Sages] said that one would ask his
needs in Shome'a Tefilla, even so if he has a sick person at home he should say
[his prayer] in the blessing for the sick, and if he is in need of livelihood he
should say [his prayer] in the blessing of the year.
Rav Yehoshua
ben Levi said: Even though [the Sages] said that one whould ask his needs in
Shome'a Tefilla, even so if he wants to say [his own prayer] after the Amida,
even if it is as long as the Yom Kippur prayers, he may do so. (Avoda Zara
7b-8a)
R. Eliezer and
R. Yehoshua seem to think that Shmoneh Esrei is not relevant to the individual
at all. Otherwise, they would agree
to putting personal requests in the middle. After all, everyone agrees that we
should IDEALLY learn from Moshe Rabeinu; the only problem is seeming
insincerity. This problem doesn't
arise when we put requests in the Amida, since then we are REQUIRED to begin
with praises. The Sages indicate
that although Shmoneh Esrei is the prayer of the community, individual prayers
are also relevant. In fact, each
Jew's personal prayer is part and parcel of the corresponding communal
prayer!
It
automatically follows that a person should say private prayers in Shome'a
Tefilla, or in the benediction that corresponds to his individual
request.
It makes sense
that since we want our own requests to be integrated into the fixed prayers, they
shouldn't be too long. This seems
to be implicit in the words of Rav Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that [only] AFTER
Shmoneh Esrei can one pray as long as he likes. This inference is made by Tosafot and
brought down in the SA in our siman.
In this way, a person can maintain the solemn atmosphere of the Amida as
a whole, and avoid interfering with the individual fixed
benedictions.
WHICH SICK
PERSON?
The gemara
states that one adds to the blessing for healing "if he has a sick person at
home." The Shulchan Arukh shortens
this statement to "if he had a sick person." Even this more general wording suggests
that it should be a sick person who is "his," or someone with whom he has a
relationship. Indeed, the Tzitz
Eliezer infers from this same wording in another context that only household
members are included (Tzitz Eliezer Vol. IX, "Kuntres Refu'a Be-Shabbat,"
chapter 3 siman 4.)
Does the Mishna
Berura recognize such a limitation?
See siman 116:3.
SIMAN 120 -
AVODA (RETZEH)
*******************************
The MB at the
end of the siman cites in the name of the Tur two ways of punctuating this
berakha, and three understandings in all:
1. "Ve-hashev
et ha-avoda l-devir beitekha.., ve-ishei Yisrael u-tefilatam tekabel be-ratzon"
- "Restore the Temple service, and may the 'ishim' of Israel and their prayers
be acceptable" - where "ishim" is the plural of "esh" (a burnt-offering) or of
"ish" (a man, in this context a righteous person).
2. The same as 1, except that ishim is the
plural of ish.
3. "Ve-hashev
et ha-avoda ... ve-ishei Yisrael, u-tefilatam ... tekabel be-ratzon" - "Restore
the service to the Temple, and [also] the sacrifices of Israel, and may their
prayers be acceptable."
The Taz favors
the second interpretation (ishei = righteous); the Gra favors the
third.
All three
understandings are mentioned in Tosafot.
(The midrash mentioned in the MB is on Menachot 110a.) Tosafot write: "Some say [Michael's
sacrifice] is the souls of the righteous; and some say fiery lambs. And this is what we say in Avoda, "May
the 'ishim' of Israel and their prayers be acceptable."
But some say
that [ishim] belongs in the first half of the sentence - "Restore the Temple
service and the 'ishim' of Israel."
As I have
translated, the first version is the most grammatically correct. The second version seems to put half of
the object before the preposition and half after, and also leaves "THEIR
prayers" without an obvious referent.
But perhaps "ishei yisrael" is meant to be part of the prepositional
phrase: "Restore the service TO the sanctuary of Your house and TO the fires of
Israel." Or perhaps it is a new
object, unrelated to the preposition: "Restore the service to the sanctuary of
Your house, and [restore also] the fires of Israel."
Those
congregations referred to by the Shulchan Arukh who (erroneously) used to start
the benediction with the words "ve-ishei Yisrael" obviously connected these
words with the second half of the berakha, since the first half was omitted
entirely. They clearly understood
according to the first version.
I have several
translations, all of which punctuate the first way.
SIMAN 121 -
"MODIM"
***********************
The subject of
bowing was dealt with at length in the shiur on siman 113.
DUALISM
The mishna
(Berakhot 33b) rules that one who repeats "modim" must be silenced. The gemara explains that repeating
"modim" indicates recognition of two "rulers." This resembles dualist heresy, which
recognizes the domain of evil as an independent authority, not under the control
of God.
It may be that
the problem is not merely one of appearances: in the time of the Mishna when
dualist religions were popular, the sages may very well have been worried that
someone who prayed in this way was ACTUALLY a heretic. But even today the halakha is unchanged,
as this insistence on proper appearance helps to underscore our uncompromising
belief in God's unity and supremacy.
SIMAN 122 -
CONCLUSION OF THE AMIDA
*******************************************************
The rules
regarding proper responses during "Elokai netzor" - the petition customarily
recited after the last benediction of the Shmoneh Esrei as part of the Amida -
are very important. Anyone who
prays more slowly than the shaliach tzibur will need to know what responses are
permissible and when.
Based upon the
SA, the Rema, and the MB we can distinguish several segments of this prayer,
listed here from the most strict downward:
1. Between
"Ha-mevarekh et amo Yisrael be-shalom" and "yihyu le-ratzon," in a community
where yihyu le-ratzon is said right after the nineteen benedictions and where a
short prayer after this berakha is said only occasionally. Permitted responses: see SA beginning of
se'if 1.
2a. Between
"Ha-mevarekh et amo Yisrael be-shalom" and "yihyu le-ratzon," in a congregation
where yiyhu le-ratzon is said only after the short prayer, again if such a short
prayer is said only occasionally.
Permitted responses: see Rema in se'if 1.
2b. AFTER yihyu
le-ratzon in a community where a short prayer ("Elokai netzor") is ALWAYS
said. (All contemporary
congregations.) Permitted
responses: SA end of se'if 1.
3. After all
customary petitions are
finished. This may refer either to
a person saying petitions in a community where such petitions are said only
occasionally (MB s.k. 1) or where they are always said but the individual has
finished saying them (MB s.k. 4).
Yihyu le-ratzon must also be finished (BH).
The end of s.k.
4 seems to suggest that the last case - an individual who always says "Elokai
netzor" but has finished doing so - is actually a fourth case, more lenient than
the case of one who doesn't usually say so but is doing so in this
prayer.
There is a
slight discrepancy between this siman and 119. In 119, we learned that individual
prayers at the end of the Amida may be of unlimited length. In this siman (end of se'if 1), we learn
that one should abbreviate them in order to say ALL of kedusha with the shaliach
tzibur - even though one may reply
to kedusha while in the middle of these prayers.
A story about a
related question can help us resolve this discrepancy. We have already learned that one may
skip certain parts of the service in order to say the Amida with the
congregation; logically, one may also skip in order to pray "vatikin" at
sunrise, since this is at least as important as prayer with a minyan. What about RUSHING in order to daven
"vatikin?" When the Chazon Ish was
asked this question, he replied: "Tefilla is important too - not just the time
of tefilla!" (Dinim ve-Hanhagot p. 45, cited in Tefilla Ke-Hilkheta ch. 3 note
39.).
There are many
areas of halakha where tension arises between the detailed rules of a mitzva and
the spirit of the mitzva. The
resolution can differ depending on even minor details. For instance, there is a mitzva to eat
on Shabbat because of Oneg Shabbat, but someone who doesn't like to eat will be
fulfilling the DETAILS of the mitzva at the expense of the purpose of the mitzva. Accordingly, the SA (OC 288:2) permits
such a person to fast. The same
tension exists on Yom Tov, but some authorities rule that on Yom Tov the ruling
is different because of the special rule of "chatzi lakhem" - half of the day is
specially designated for bodily enjoyment. (Darkhe Moshe on OC 288, citing the
Mordekhai.)
When the rules
of prayer are concerned, there is even more reason to resolve these
discrepancies in favor of the spirit of prayer, as opposed to the technicalities
of prayer, (given that the fundamental rules governing the structure of prayer
are followed). As we pointed out in
a previous shiur (siman 98), tefilla which lacks the basic consciousness of
standing before God is not tefilla at all.
For this reason, some Chasidic leaders used to pray without a minyan when
they felt this would strengthen their intention.
If we apply
this principle to our case, we might resolve the discrepancy as follows: If
one's lengthy petition is an essential part of one's prayer - this is an
inherent part of the case we want to make before the Almighty - then one can go
on at length as one does on Yom Kippur.
But if these petitions are a kind of addition or appendix to one's
prayer, then it is more important to participate in
Kedusha.