Semichas geulah l'tefillah
[1] (Halacha 163)
"וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי" ("Then Yehudah approached him and said, Please, my lord")
Concerning this meeting between Yehudah and Yosef, the Zohar1 states: "We have learned that one does not interrupt between geulah and tefillah, just as one does not interrupt between the tefillin of the hand and the tefillin of the head, for one must show that all is one; and this has already been established."
That is, this special meeting between Yehudah and Yosef is an expression of the connection between geulah and tefillah, just as one connects the tefillin of the hand to the tefillin of the head, to show that all is one.
*
The Alter Rebbe2 wrote: "(Even though Krias Shema and its brochos are a mitzvah in their own right, and tefillah is a mitzvah in its own right,) one must join the bracha of geulah to tefillah."
Question: Why must one join geulah to tefillah?
Answer: The Gemara in Berachos3 states: "Mar said: he recites Krias Shema and prays. This supports Rabbi Yochanan, for Rabbi Yochanan said: Who is a ben Olam Haba4? - This is one who joins geulah to the tefillah of Maariv."
And Rashi wrote: "'This is one who joins' - and all the more so at Shacharis, for the essence of the redemption from Egypt was at Shacharis, as it is written, "ממחרת הפסח יצאו בני ישראל" ("On the morrow of the Pesach the Children of Israel went out"); and the joining of geulah to tefillah was alluded to by David in Sefer Tehillim, for it is written, "ה' צורי וגואלי" ("Hashem, my Rock and my Redeemer"), and immediately following it, "יענך ה' ביום צרה" ("May Hashem answer you on the day of distress"); and we say in the Yerushalmi Berachos5: To what may one who does not join geulah to tefillah be compared? - To a beloved friend of the king who came and knocked on the king's door; the king came out and found that he had gone off - so he too went off. Rather, a person should draw close to the Holy One, blessed be He, and appease Him with the praises and exaltations of the exodus from Egypt, and He draws near to him, and while he is yet near to Him he may petition his needs."
And so writes the Alter Rebbe6: "The essence of joining geulah to tefillah is from the words of the Sages, who compared the eighteen brochos [recited] after the bracha of geulah to a beloved friend of the king who came and knocked on the king's door, and the king came out to greet him; and if the king sees that he has departed and gone away, he too departs, and no longer draws near when he returns and knocks - so it is with one who interrupts between geulah and tefillah."
Question: If so, how do we recite the pasuk "ה' שפתי תפתח" ("Hashem, open my lips") between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei, and at Maariv recite the bracha of Hashkiveinu between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei?
Answer: The Gemara in Berachos there discusses the words of Rabbi Yochanan: "Mar the son of Ravina objected: In the evening one recites two [brochos] before it and two after it; and if you say one must join, does he not fail to join geulah to tefillah, for he must recite Hashkiveinu! They said: Since the Sages instituted Hashkiveinu, it is considered like an extension of the geulah. For if you do not say so - how can one join [them] at Shacharis? Did not Rabbi Yochanan say: at the beginning one recites "ה' שפתי תפתח" ("Hashem, open my lips"), and at the end he recites "יהיו לרצון אמרי פי" ("May the words of my mouth be acceptable")! Rather, there, since the Sages instituted the recitation of 'Hashem, open my lips,' it is considered like an extension of the tefillah; here too, since the Sages instituted the recitation of Hashkiveinu, it is considered like an extension of the geulah."
The Levush7 explained: "For the Sages, of blessed memory, [there] instituted its recitation before the tefillah, since we pray therein that Hashem, may He be blessed, open our lips so that we may be able to declare His praises with kavanah; and it thus pertains to the tefillah and is like an extension of the tefillah.
In this connection, the Kedushas Levi wrote at the beginning of Parashas Va'eschanan: "For in Gemara Berachos we conclude that 'אדני שפתי תפתח' ('My Lord, open my lips') is not an interruption between geulah and tefillah, even at Shacharis, since the Sages instituted it, it is considered like an extension of the tefillah. Now, ostensibly it should have said that the Sages instituted it as [part of] the tefillah? Rather, one must say that it was not included in the enactments of the tefillah by the Men of the Great Assembly, and only afterward, when they instituted it, did it become like an extension of the tefillah. And the reason is that 'My Lord, open my lips' is [a request] that we be able to pray, and in the times of the Tannaim and those before them they did not need to pray for this, for their tefillah was surely pure; and afterward, when hearts diminished over the course of time, they needed to establish a tefillah that our tefillah should be pure. It emerges that we have two aspects in tefillah: one, the tefillah itself; and two, the [prayer for the ability] to be able to pray."
And regarding the bracha of Hashkiveinu, the Levush8 explained: "Hashkiveinu is not an interruption, for the entire bracha of Hashkiveinu is of the nature of the geulah, for when Hashem, may He be blessed, passed to smite Egypt, [the Israelites] were afraid and prayed to Hashem, may He be blessed, that He fulfill His word not to allow the destroyer to enter their homes to smite; and corresponding to that tefillah they instituted the recitation of Hashkiveinu. Therefore it is of the nature of the geulah and is not an interruption."
And so writes the Alter Rebbe9: "And he shall not interrupt between them ... nor with any pasuk that is customarily recited before the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei, such as the pasuk 'For I proclaim the Name of Hashem' and the like, except for the pasuk 'My Lord, open my lips,' which is an obligation from the enactment of the Sages and is not considered an interruption; for since the Sages fixed it within the tefillah it became part of the tefillah and is like an extended tefillah ... And at Musaf and Minchah, where there is no joining of geulah to tefillah, it is permitted to recite pesukim before 'Hashem, open my lips,' but not after it, because of [it being] an interruption in the tefillah, for this pasuk is part of the tefillah."
Thus we have seen the great importance of joining the bracha of Gaal Yisrael to Shemoneh Esrei, and one who does so is a ben Olam Haba; and that the pasuk "Hashem, open my lips" is part of the tefillah, and Hashkiveinu at Maariv is part of the geulah, and therefore they do not constitute an interruption.
With Hashem's help, in the coming days we will explain the practical implications of this law.
Notes:
1 Zohar vol. 1, p. 205b ↩
2 OC siman 111:1 ↩
3 4b ↩
4 See Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah 2b, s.v. eizehu ben Olam Haba, who explains why the reward for this is so great ↩
5 ch. 1, halacha 1 ↩
6 ibid. 111:2 ↩
7 siman 111 there, 111:1 ↩
8 siman 236:2, from Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah 2 [Berachos], s.v. va'af al gav ↩
9 ibid. 111:1 ↩
[2] (Halacha 164)
Question: What is the practical significance of joining geulah to tefillah, and is it permitted to interrupt with silence?
Answer: Now, from the language of the Rishonim1 who wrote the word "immediately" with regard to joining geulah to tefillah. And so wrote the Alter Rebbe2: that because of joining geulah to tefillah one cannot wait, but is required to pray immediately. It is understood that one may not interrupt even with silence, nor tarry at all, but must begin to pray immediately, within the span of "toch kedei dibbur"3 "which is the span of a student's greeting to his teacher, namely the three words 'shalom alecha rabbi'"4. And so wrote the Pri Megadim5: "For a delay too is an interruption between geulah and tefillah." And the Mishnah Berurah6: "And even with a mere delay of more than toch kedei dibbur one should be careful lechatchilah [the span of kedei dibbur is that of a student's greeting to his teacher]." And in the Kaf HaChaim7 he wrote that so it is also according to the Kabbalah of the Arizal; see there.
If so, one must, immediately upon concluding the bracha, begin the Amidah, and it is forbidden to interrupt between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei even with silence for more than toch kedei dibbur, namely the time it takes to say "shalom alecha rabbi."
*
Question: As part of the preparations for Shemoneh Esrei we stand and take three steps; what is their significance and when is their proper time?
Answer: a) The time of standing - It is written in the Sefer Maharil8: "In the morning he stood for the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei when the shliach tzibbur began 'Tehillah la-Kel Elyon.'" And so wrote the Arizal9: "And when he says 'Tehillos la-Kel Elyon,' then the person shall rise to a standing position."
b) Three steps forward - The Rokeach10 wrote: "And when he wishes to pray, he shall walk forward three steps, for it is written [there are] three 'approaches' for tefillah: 'And Avraham approached'; 'And Yehudah approached'; 'And Eliyahu approached.'" This was cited by the Rama11. And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe12: "There is one who says that when one stands to pray he should walk three steps forward, by way of drawing near and approaching the matter he must do, and it is good to be mindful of his words."
c) Three steps backward - The Mishnah Berurah13 wrote that if one cannot walk forward, the custom is to walk three steps backward in order to [then] walk forward. However, the Ben Ish Chai14 wrote that the steps backward are not merely something technical [done] when it is impossible to advance forward, "but rather there is a secret in this, to step back three steps before beginning to pray. And according to the plain meaning they are a remembrance of those three mil that Israel retreated at the standing at Har Sinai, and then returned and drew near." And so wrote the Chesed La'alafim15, that one steps three steps backward and only afterward forward. And so too wrote the Kitzur Shelah16.
d) The time of the steps - The steps backward: the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch17 wrote: "When one reaches 'Tehillos la-Kel Elyon,' he shall stand and prepare himself for the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei, and clear his throat and phlegm and everything that disturbs his concentration, and walk three steps backward, and recite 'Tehillos la-Kel Elyon,' etc., until Gaal Yisrael, and then return three steps forward, by way of drawing near and approaching the King." If so, the time of the steps backward is when one stands for "Tehillos la-Kel Elyon."
e) And the time of the steps forward is immediately upon concluding the recitation of Gaal Yisrael, and this is not considered an interruption, as the Tehillah LeDavid18 wrote: "And the walking of three steps beforehand, as is customary ... ostensibly is also not called an interruption, since it is a need of the tefillah"19.
In practice, regarding the Rebbe's conduct it is brought20 that the Rebbe would stand when the shliach tzibbur said "Tehillos la-Kel Elyon," and immediately began to step backward, and when the shliach tzibbur concluded Gaal Yisrael he began to step the three [steps] back forward. (However, when the Rebbe served as chazzan, he stepped the three steps backward as well after reciting Gaal Yisrael.)
Notes:
1 Seder Rav Amram Gaon, Krias Shema and its brochos. Rambam, Hilchos Tefillah 7:17. Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah, Berachos 12b, s.v. veheicha shetzarich. Peirushei HaTefillah of the Rokeach on Ezras Avoseinu. Sefer HaBatim, Tefillah, sha'ar 1 ↩
2 siman 109, se'ifim 2 and 3 ↩
3 That the definition of "immediately" is toch kedei dibbur is seen in Shulchan Aruch HaRav in the laws of the bracha over food - for in siman 167:9 he wrote "after the bracha he shall eat immediately," and in siman 206:3 he explained his words: "and even with silence it is forbidden to interrupt more than kedei dibbur" ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch HaRav siman 206:3 ↩
5 siman 66, s.k. 13 ↩
6 siman 111, s.k. 2 ↩
7 siman 111, s.k. 6 ↩
8 Minhogim, Hilchos Tefillah, os 1 ↩
9 Pri Etz Chaim, Sha'ar Krias Shema, ch. 29 ↩
10 in Hilchos Tefillah, siman 322 ↩
11 siman 95:1 ↩
12 siman 95:2 ↩
13 siman 95, s.k. 3 ↩
14 Parashas Beshalach, os 3 ↩
15 siman 93 ↩
16 beginning of the laws of Tefillas Shemoneh Esrei, daf 34. And note what the Eliyah Rabbah wrote in siman 66, s.k.: "The Etz Chaim wrote that he shall then walk three steps from his place and stand there until he wishes to pray Shemoneh Esrei, and then walk those three steps by way of drawing near and approaching the King" ↩
17 siman 18:2. And so too wrote the Aruch HaShulchan siman 98:7 ↩
18 siman 111, s.k. 1 ↩
19 However, the Tehillah LeDavid himself raised a difficulty from the fact that one does not wrap oneself in a tallis between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei, since it is not so much a need of the tefillah, and one could say the same regarding the steps; therefore he wrote to distinguish that wrapping is more of an interrupting act than walking, but his proof from the Magen Avraham at the end of siman 90 requires study. This is not the place to elaborate ↩
20 See Nesivim BiSdeh HaShlichus vol. 2, p. 42. Ma'aseh Melech ch. 3, os 60 and 61 ↩
[3] (Halacha 166)
Question: What is the halachic status of the interval between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei?
Answer: We learn the halachic definition from the prohibition of interrupting at this stage of the tefillah, which is more stringent than in the middle of a section [of Krias Shema], and it is considered as if one has already begun the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei. In the language of the Alter Rebbe1: "One must join geulah to tefillah, for a reason that will be explained in siman 111, and he shall not interrupt after concluding Gaal Yisrael even as [he may] in the middle of a section." And he further wrote2: "One may not interrupt to answer Kaddish and Kedushah between geulah and tefillah, just as one does not interrupt during the tefillah itself, for from the conclusion of the geulah [it] is the beginning of the tefillah." And he further wrote3: "For its law is like [being] in the very middle of the tefillah, even to answer Kaddish or Kedushah, which is a passing mitzvah."
If so, [the interval] between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei is considered as if one has already begun the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei, and therefore he is not permitted to interrupt for anything, nor even to answer devarim shebikdushah [matters of sanctity] [apart from certain matters that we will see below].
In a case where a person has already reached such a state, that he is between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei and heard Kaddish or Kedushah, the poskim4 wrote that he should remain silent and have kavanah as [one does] during Shemoneh Esrei, and it is considered for him as if he answered, by the principle of shomea ke'oneh [one who hears is as one who responds]5.
★★★★
Question: A person who is before the conclusion of "Ezras Avoseinu," and the chazzan will shortly reach Kedushah or Kaddish, what should he do?
Answer: The Alter Rebbe6 wrote: "And how does he do it? He waits at 'Shirah Chadashah' in order to answer7. And even if he tarries enough to complete the entire [Kaddish], there is no concern, as was explained in siman 65." And in the Siddur he wrote: "And likewise one may not interrupt to answer Kaddish, Kedushah, Borchu, and Modim between geulah and tefillah; how does he do it? He waits at 'Shirah Chadashah,' for [to answer] Kaddish, Kedushah, Borchu, and Modim one interrupts even in the middle of a section and even in the middle of a pasuk ... Nevertheless, one should be careful lechatchilah to wait at some conclusion of a matter, so as not to interrupt in the middle of a matter - for example, [in] the pasuk 'U'samtem' etc. he may interrupt between 'nafshechem' and 'ukshartem,' which is another matter, but until the word 'nafshechem' he may not interrupt between one word and another; yet if it is impossible for him, he may interrupt and answer even in the middle of a matter, and when he resumes, he resumes from the beginning of the pasuk."
And bedieved, [in a case] where he did not wait, the Ketzos HaShulchan8 wrote that as long as he has not said "Baruch atah Hashem" he may answer, and afterward he must go back and begin from the beginning of "Shirah Chadashah" or from "Ne'emar Go'aleinu," because one must recite [something] of the nature of the concluding formula close to the concluding formula.
★★★★
Question: One who has no tallis or tefillin, and they were brought to him between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei, what should he do?
Answer: Regarding tefillin the Alter Rebbe9 wrote: "And there are those who say that even in the middle of a section he may recite a bracha over them. But not between geulah and tefillah, for its law is like [being] in the very middle of the tefillah, even to answer Kaddish or Kedushah, which is a passing mitzvah; and all the more so regarding the bracha over tefillin, which he can recite afterward. And so one should conduct oneself.
And so too [he wrote] in the Siddur regarding tefillin: "And if they came to his hand between Krias Shema and tefillah, even in the middle of a section he may recite a bracha over them, but not between geulah and tefillah - rather, he dons them without a bracha." And after the tefillah he shall handle them and recite the bracha, as is written there, 66:1110.
And regarding tzitzis the Alter Rebbe wrote there: "And all this is with tefillin, which are an obligation for the tefillah, in order to accept upon oneself the full sovereignty of Heaven; but tzitzis, which is not an obligation of the body but only when one is wearing a garment that is obligated in tzitzis - one shall not interrupt to wrap oneself in it between geulah and tefillah, even without a bracha, for the wrapping is also considered an interruption in the tefillah itself, as will be explained in siman [97], and the same applies between geulah and tefillah, since there is not so great a need of it for the tefillah."
Notes:
1 siman 66:9 ↩
2 ibid. 66:10 ↩
3 in 66:11 ↩
4 Tehillah LeDavid siman 111, s.k. 1 ↩
5 as explained in Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe siman 104:5 ↩
6 siman 66:10 ↩
7 Ostensibly, according to the words of the Alter Rebbe in siman 109:1, the need to wait and not begin the Amidah is only for Kaddishim (which are obligatory, unlike the Kaddishim after Tiskabbel) and for Kedushah and Borchu when one did not hear [them]. But when one has already heard Kedushah, or when he will hear [it] afterward, he need not wait at this bracha, and therefore he may begin his Shemoneh Esrei immediately after Gaal Yisrael, and when the chazzan reaches Kedushah or the Kaddish and Borchu he shall stop and remain silent ↩
8 siman 19:6. And so too wrote the Sha'arei Teshuvah os 15 from the Sefer Shalmei Tzibbur 101a. And in the Ma'amar Mordechai siman 66, os 12. Mishnah Berurah siman 66, s.k. 52. (And not like the Eliyah Rabbah s.k. 13, who wrote that from "Shirah Chadashah" it is considered the conclusion of the bracha of Gaal Yisrael) ↩
9 siman 66:11 ↩
10 And see also siman 30:3. And siman 25:23 ↩
[4] (Halacha 167)
Question: The Sefer HaMinhogim¹ states: "The Gaal Yisrael bracha is concluded by the shliach tzibbur in a normal voice, and so is the practice throughout the year." Since this is so, the question arises: is it permitted to answer amen to the shliach tzibbur's bracha?
Answer: In the previous halacha (number 166) we learned that between Gaal Yisrael and Shemoneh Esrei it is as if one has begun the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei, and it is forbidden to answer even devarim shebikdushah. However, regarding answering amen to the bracha of Gaal Yisrael, the poskim disagree as to whether it is permitted or forbidden to answer, as follows:
The Gemara in Berachos1 states: regarding the bracha of Boneh Yerushalayim - "One who answers amen after his own brochos is praiseworthy." And the Rishonim2 wrote that the intent is not only [for] the bracha of Boneh Yerushalayim, but for any bracha that is a conclusion, such as Yishtabach, the conclusion of Shemoneh Esrei, and the amen after Gaal Yisrael. And so wrote the Tur3, that one answers amen.
Now, although according to these Rishonim even the individual should answer amen in his own tefillah, as [he does] at Boneh Yerushalayim, nevertheless the custom in Ashkenaz was not to answer amen after one's own bracha4; but one does answer amen after the chazzan's bracha of Gaal Yisrael, and the Prishah5 and the Levush6 wrote that the basis of the leniency is the principle of geulah arichta [an extended geulah].
But the Beis Yosef7 wrote: "And now the people have the custom not to answer amen after Gaal Yisrael ... rather, the reason is that they consider it an interruption between geulah and tefillah; and I have already written in siman 51 that on the basis of the Zohar8 the custom is not to say amen after Gaal Yisrael." And so wrote the Maggid Meisharim9: "That which you did last night, to interrupt between geulah and tefillah, for at that moment you caused Knesses Yisrael to fall through you, and you separated her from her mate; and because of this accusers rose against you, were it not that I and my hosts prayed before the Holy One, blessed be He, that He have mercy on you. Therefore, from now on be very careful; do not interrupt at all, even by answering amen. And apart from the honor of R. Yaakov, who said it is a mitzvah to answer amen after Gaal Yisrael - he did not descend to the depth of the matter; on the contrary, it is a transgression in his hand and not a mitzvah, and therefore one should not interrupt at all."
And so wrote [the Mechaber] in the Shulchan Aruch10: "One does not say amen after Gaal Yisrael, because it is an interruption." And the Rama wrote on this: "And there are those who say that one does answer amen, and so is the minhag to answer after the shliach tzibbur. But if one prayed alone, one does not answer amen."
Yet we find poskim from among the Ashkenazim who disagreed with the Rama, as the Shelah11 wrote: "And likewise regarding the amen of 'Gaal Yisrael,' I have retracted from the minhag of the Ashkenazim, and follow their minhag (that of the Sephardim) not to answer. And so too wrote the divine Arizal, of blessed memory, on the basis of deep secrets, and one should not deviate." And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah12 and the Aruch HaShulchan13.
Now, the Alter Rebbe14 wrote: "And he shall not interrupt between them even with amen after Gaal Yisrael ... And there are those who say that it is permitted to answer amen after Gaal Yisrael, and so is the custom, as explained in siman 66." And there15 he wrote: "Therefore there are those who say that one does not answer amen after Gaal Yisrael - neither after his own bracha, even in a place where the custom is to answer after one's own brochos at the conclusion of two or three brochos, nor after the shliach tzibbur. And there are those who say that answering amen is not considered an interruption, since it is a need of the bracha and its conclusion; and so is the minhag in these lands, to answer amen between geulah and tefillah after the shliach tzibbur concludes this bracha, but not after one's own bracha, as explained in siman 54.
And one who wishes to satisfy all opinions may aim to conclude together with the shliach tzibbur, and then he is not obligated to answer amen after the shliach tzibbur, according to our minhag that one does not answer amen after one's own bracha, even after Yishtabach and the like, among the places where it is permitted to answer amen after the shliach tzibbur, as explained there and in siman 51.
And there are those who are meticulous to wait at 'Tzur Yisrael' in order to answer amen after the shliach tzibbur; and there are those who say that it is forbidden to interrupt in the middle of the bracha with the answering of amen, even the amen after this bracha itself, except for an amen that is like a davar shebikdushah alone, as explained above (and therefore one should not deviate in this from the minhag, or he shall act in a manner that satisfies all opinions)."
And so too he wrote in the Siddur: "And it is forbidden to interrupt in the middle of the bracha of Krias Shema even with the answering of amen after this bracha itself; therefore one should not wait at 'Shirah Chadashah' to answer amen to Gaal Yisrael. Rather, if one wishes to satisfy all opinions - for there are those who say one should not answer amen after saying Gaal Yisrael, so as not to interrupt between geulah and tefillah, and there are those who say to answer - he may aim to conclude together with the shliach tzibbur, and then he is not obligated to answer amen after the shliach tzibbur, according to our minhag that one does not answer amen after one's own bracha."
It emerges from the words of the Alter Rebbe that in order to satisfy all opinions it is preferable to conclude together with the shliach tzibbur, and thus he will certainly not answer amen16.
[And note that there are those who have the custom17, in order to satisfy all opinions, that the chazzan concludes the ending of the bracha of Gaal Yisrael quietly, so that it is not heard and there is no answering of amen. And the Rebbe mentioned this minhag on Shabbos Vayigash 575218: "For just as, in the plain sense, this joining is without any interruption in between, to the extent that one is careful even not to answer 'amen' to the bracha of Gaal Yisrael itself [and several means are employed for this, one of them - and it is the best of them - that the shliach tzibbur concludes 'Gaal Yisrael' (and similarly the individuals who are praying) quietly, so that consequently there is no applicability of answering after him], but rather immediately from 'Gaal Yisrael' one continues with the recitation of 'A-donai etc., and my mouth shall declare Your praise.'"
However, this passage was omitted and did not enter the edited version of the sichah.)] And also after this sichah, when the Rebbe served as chazzan on Yud Shevat 5752, he concluded the bracha aloud.
If so, in practice our minhag is as written in the Sefer HaMinhogim, that the chazzan concludes aloud.
★★★
Question: In a case where a person finished reciting the bracha before the shliach tzibbur and now hears the conclusion of the bracha, should he answer amen?
Answer: We saw that the opinions disagree as to whether to answer, and that the Alter Rebbe wrote that the minhag is to answer, except that there is a way to conclude with the chazzan and thereby avoid it.
However, in the Ketzos HaShulchan19 he wrote that in practice one does not answer amen after Gaal Yisrael, and in the Shvil HaChaim20 he wrote that its source is from the Siddur; but his words require explanation, for ostensibly there is no source in the Siddur that one does not answer amen at all21.
If so, in practice it is very proper not to come to such a situation (as explained in the words of the Rebbe above); and since according to our minhag the chazzan recites aloud, one should therefore try very hard to conclude together with the shliach tzibbur (as per the words of the Alter Rebbe in the Shulchan Aruch and in the Siddur). But if one concluded beforehand, there are Chabad rabbanim who wrote that one must interrupt and answer22. And there are Chabad rabbanim who wrote that one should not interrupt23, and this appears in practice to be the more widespread minhag among Anash.
Notes:
1 p. 11 ↩
2 45b ↩
3 Rashi s.v. ha b'Boneh. Rosh ch. 7:10 and in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel and the Ba'al Halachos Gedolos. Rabbeinu Yonah 33b, s.v. ha ↩
4 OC siman 66 ↩
5 as explained in the Rama in siman 215:1. And in Shulchan Aruch HaRav siman 54:1 ↩
6 s.k. 11 ↩
7 siman 66:7 ↩
8 there in siman 66, s.v. v'gomer. And so too in siman 51 and in siman 111 ↩
9 vol. 1, 132b. 205b ↩
10 Mishlei siman 23 ↩
11 siman 66:7 ↩
12 Maseches Tamid, perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
13 siman 66, s.k. 5. However, that which was written (and so too in Shu"t Minchas Elazar vol. 1, 20) that the Levush too omitted the Ashkenazi custom to answer, requires study, for the Levush in siman 111:1 wrote explicitly that the custom is to answer after the chazzan ↩
14 66, s.k. 14 ↩
15 siman 111:1 ↩
16 in 66:9 ↩
17 Although there is one who wrote (see Hiskashrus issue 773) that there is no preference to conduct oneself thus. But see the response of Rabbi Raskin who thoroughly refuted his words ↩
18 noted in Piskei Teshuvos siman 66, din 10 ↩
19 Sichos Kodesh 5752 vol. 2, p. 486 (unedited) ↩
20 siman 19:6 ↩
21 Hosafos to Ketzos HaShulchan vol. 1, p. 93 ↩
22 See at length in Hefsek B'Tefillah p. 155 ↩
23 Shulchan Aruch with Biurim (Ra"a edition) p. 401, note 35; Hefsek B'Tefillah p. 157. Beirurei Halachos (Platkin) p. 107 ↩
24 Ketzos HaShulchan there, Shulchan Aruch HaKatzar 28:10. Rabbi Ginzburg, Hiskashrus issue 773 ↩
[5] (Halacha 168)
Question: Does the law of joining geulah to tefillah apply to Maariv?
Gemara: The Gemara in Berachos1 states: "Mar said: he recites Krias Shema and prays. This supports Rabbi Yochanan, for Rabbi Yochanan said: Who is a ben Olam Haba? - This is one who joins geulah to the tefillah of Maariv.'
In this Gemara it is a novel teaching that although the essence of the redemption from Egypt was at Shacharis, nevertheless one must join [them] also at Maariv, and not like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that at Maariv one need not [join them].
But the poskim discussed how the Gemara, which requires joining geulah to tefillah, is reconciled with the halacha that in general the tefillah of Maariv is optional [reshus]?
The Tosafos2 cited the dispute of the Geonim as to how to decide, and wrote that in practice it is correct to be stringent, and these are their words: "And the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan, for a beraisa supports him, and so ruled the Halachos Gedolos. And if so, one should take care not to converse between the geulah of Maariv and Shemoneh Esrei. However, in Seder Rav Amram he explained that the [reason] we recite Kaddish between geulah and the tefillah of Maariv is to teach us that we do not require joining the geulah of Maariv to the tefillah, because the tefillah of Maariv is optional ... And it is correct to be stringent and careful not to converse in between, and if you say [there is] a difficulty of one halacha upon another - for we hold that the tefillah of Maariv is optional, yet here we rule like Rabbi Yochanan - one must say that even if Rabbi Yochanan holds like Rav, who said it is optional, nevertheless one is obligated to join. If so, we too must join.' And so wrote the Rosh3 and the Mordechai4.
And so ruled in practice the Mechaber5: "One should not converse between the geulah of Maariv and tefillah."
If so, in practice the law of joining geulah to tefillah applies at Maariv as well (and further on we will see whether there is nevertheless a leniency at the tefillah of Maariv relative to the tefillah of Shacharis).
★★★
Question: In the Gemara it is mentioned that the bracha of Hashkiveinu is not an interruption between geulah and tefillah because it is considered like geulah arichta, as brought in halacha number 163; and what about pesukim (such as the bracha of Yir'u Eineinu) that are customarily recited in several communities after Hashkiveinu?
Answer: The Tosafos in Berachos there wrote to justify the custom: "And as for us, who recite Yir'u Eineinu and other pesukim after Hashkiveinu - it appears that since the Sages instituted them, it is considered like geulah arichta, for they instituted the recitation of this so that in the meantime one's fellow may also complete his tefillah, and one should not leave the shul until each one finishes his tefillah. And also, in those pesukim there are eighteen mentions [of the Divine Name] corresponding to the eighteen brochos of Shemoneh Esrei; and incidental to instituting the recitation of those pesukim, they instituted the recitation of a concluding formula, Yir'u Eineinu." And the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah there6 added in the name of Rabbeinu Yonah: "But my teacher Rabbeinu Yonah, his relative, gave a reason for the minhag that the whole world adopted to recite them: that at first, when the tefillah of Maariv was optional, they would recite these pesukim, which contain eighteen mentions corresponding to the eighteen brochos, and conclude with a bracha over them and recite Kaddish and depart; and afterward, even though they established it as obligatory, the matter remained as the minhag.' And so wrote the Rosh there, and the Tur in siman 236.
However, the Rashba7 wrote that there were those who refrained from reciting it: "And one may inquire: as for us, in accordance with whom do we act, for we interrupt with the pesukim of 'Baruch Hashem le'olam' and 'Yir'u Eineinu' and conclude with it and recite Kaddish after it - and therefore many of the great ones refrained from reciting it at all; and so too wrote the Tosafos in the name of R. Shmuel, of blessed memory, that he would not recite them at all.' And so too in the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah there: "And one may ask on what basis the world relied to add and recite afterward pesukim of a bracha of the King in His glory, for concerning this they did not say 'it is considered like geulah arichta,' and it is an interruption; and some of the Chachamim refrained from reciting them, and such was the minhag of my teacher the Ramban, may He guard and protect him.' And so wrote the Abudraham8 in the name of the Ri"tz Gias. And also in the Orchos Chaim9 he cited Rishonim who negated this recitation.
If so, we have seen that there are those who justified the custom, and in their understanding it is like Hashkiveinu, which is geulah arichta; and there are those who did not accept this reasoning, and did not recite these pesukim.
And as halacha the Mechaber10 wrote: "And even those who have the custom to recite the eighteen pesukim and Yir'u Eineinu should not interrupt between Yir'u Eineinu and tefillah." And the Rama there mentioned that one must recite them standing, since they correspond to Shemoneh Esrei.
However, in the Knesses HaGedolah11 he wrote: "There are those who do not recite it, neither on Shabbos nor on weekdays. The Rashba, of blessed memory, in a responsum siman 14, and in a responsum to the Ramban, of blessed memory, siman 188. And so is the minhag of the Sephardim in Constantinople and here in Tiria.'
And so too wrote the Gra12, that the [correct view] is like the opinions holding that it is an interruption and one should not recite these pesukim, and so he conducted himself in practice, as brought in Ma'aseh Rav13. And on this basis the minhag spread among the Perushim in Eretz Yisrael, as brought in the Luach Minhogei Eretz Yisrael (Tukachinsky). And the Kaf HaChaim14 wrote that so it appears from the words of the Arizal.
And so too the Alter Rebbe did not include in the Siddur the recitation of Baruch Hashem, and on the other hand wrote in the Siddur before the tefillah of Maariv: "The minhag of the world is to recite before Chatzi Kaddish, on a weekday, 'Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen,' and on Shabbos 'V'shamru' ... and they have upon what to rely. But those who have the custom not to recite on a weekday 'Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen' because of concern for an interruption, also on Shabbos ... should not interrupt with pesukim.
And this is another of the halachos in which the Alter Rebbe and the Gra decided the same way against the minhag that preceded them.
Notes:
1 4b ↩
2 there, s.v. d'amar Rabbi Yochanan ↩
3 siman 5. And in a responsum, klal 4 siman 6 ↩
4 siman 5 ↩
5 OC siman 236:2 ↩
6 2b, s.v. v'yesh lish'ol ↩
7 Berachos 4b ↩
8 Arvis of a weekday, at the end of s.v. v'kasav Even HaYarchi ↩
9 Tefillas Arvis, os 4 ↩
10 ibid. ↩
11 Hagahos Beis Yosef siman 236, os 5 ↩
12 s.k. 1 ↩
13 os 67 ↩
14 siman 236, os 12 ↩
[6] (Halacha 169)
Question: Is the law of joining geulah to tefillah at Maariv equal to the law of joining at Shacharis?
Answer: As we learned in the previous halacha, at Maariv too we must join geulah to tefillah; but as we will see below, [there are] several halachos in which one can see that the law of joining at the tefillah of Maariv is more lenient than that of Shacharis.
a. The Gemara in Berachos1 states: "Rabbi Chiya bar Avin said: Rav prayed [the tefillah] of Shabbos on erev Shabbos; Rabbi Yoshiya prayed [the tefillah] of Motzaei Shabbos on Shabbos."
And the Rosh2 wrote: "Rav prayed [the tefillah] of Shabbos on erev Shabbos from plag haMinchah and onward, and after the emergence of the stars he would recite Krias Shema in its proper time, and even though he was not joining geulah to tefillah, since he intended [to fulfill] the mitzvah of adding from the mundane to the holy, he was not concerned about the joining.' And so too wrote the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah there3, and the Magen Avraham4 wrote this as halacha.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe5: "And it is customary to advance the tefillah of Maariv more than on weekdays, and it is correct, in order to advance the acceptance of Shabbos as much as possible6, only that it be from plag haMinchah and onward ... And one must also be careful to recite Krias Shema ... And he may also recite it at night with its brochos, and while it is still day he shall pray the tefillah of Shabbos alone, without Krias Shema and its brochos, and even though he is not joining geulah to tefillah there is no concern, since he intends [to fulfill] the mitzvah of adding from the mundane to the holy.'7.
And he further wrote8: "One who is compelled, for whom it is impossible to recite Havdalah over the cup at night - for example, if he must go for a matter of a mitzvah and departs from his home while it is still day ... and if he wishes, he may pray the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei alone while it is still day9, without Krias Shema and its brochos, and when it grows dark for him on the way, he shall recite Krias Shema with its brochos, and even though he is not joining geulah to tefillah there is no concern, since he intends [to fulfill] a matter of a mitzvah.'10.
If so, we have seen that a matter of a mitzvah overrides the law of joining geulah to tefillah at the tefillah of Maariv. [Whereas between geulah and tefillah of Shacharis it is forbidden to interrupt for a matter of a mitzvah, as explained in Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe (siman 51:4): "And between the brochos of Krias Shema and tefillah it is forbidden to interrupt even for the need of a mitzvah, because one must join geulah to tefillah."]
★★★
b. The announcement of Yaaleh V'yavo before the Shemoneh Esrei of Maariv:
The Rashba11 wrote: "You asked concerning what is customary in this land on the night of Rosh Chodesh, that the shliach tzibbur announces between Kaddish and the tefillah of Maariv of Rosh Chodesh. Inform us whether there is in it [a concern of] interruption, and whether it is proper to protest or not?
Answer. It is not proper to protest, and by law any matter that is a need of the tefillah is not an interruption. As we say regarding the bracha over bread, [saying] 'take,' 'baruch,' 'take,' 'baruch' is not an interruption. And all the more so this, which is an actual need of the tefillah - that they not err and fail to mention the occasion in the tefillah. And all the more so at the tefillah of Maariv, which is optional. Go out and see how the people conduct themselves. And so is the custom everywhere, and no one protested about the matter."
And so wrote the Mechaber12: "However, that which the shliach tzibbur announces regarding Rosh Chodesh between Kaddish and the tefillah of Maariv is not an interruption, since it is a need of the tefillah"13.
And the Magen Avraham14 wrote: "A need of the tefillah. And furthermore, the tefillah of Maariv is optional (Rashba) ... And it appears to me that between the sections its law is like at Shacharis, that only between geulah and tefillah are there those who are lenient because the tefillah of Maariv is optional, but between Krias Shema and its brochos it is obligatory according to all."
If so, we see from the Rashba and the Magen Avraham that since the tefillah of Maariv is optional, this constitutes a leniency in the obligation of joining between geulah and tefillah.
However, it is written in the Maharil15: "And he said that he was of the opinion that there is a custom in some places that the children call out, so that the beadle need not interrupt with the calling out between geulah and tefillah."
And so, in practice, the Alter Rebbe decided in the Siddur: "And one should not interrupt to announce Yaaleh V'yavo on the night of Rosh Chodesh." Just as the Alter Rebbe was stringent like the opinions that lechatchilah one does not add pesukim, as we learned in the previous halacha.
And on this basis he wrote in the Sefer Hefsek B'Tefillah16: that one should likewise not announce 'V'sen tal umatar' on the night of the 7th of Marcheshvan, and all the more so 'V'al HaNissim' on Chanukah and Purim.
The minhag in practice is that one knocks on the table, and the Rebbe would wait until they knocked17.
In the next halacha we will see further cases in which there is a difference in joining geulah to tefillah between Shacharis and Maariv.
Notes:
1 27b ↩
2 there, ch. 4 siman 6 ↩
3 18b, s.v. Rav tzli ↩
4 siman 267, s.k. 2 ↩
5 267:2 ↩
6 In practice our minhag is not to advance [it]; see Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe with the Divrei Shalom commentary on this se'if, note 17 ↩
7 See note 10 ↩
8 siman 293:2 ↩
9 And note the words of the Alter Rebbe there in 293:13: "There are those who say that although the Sages permitted a person to do so, it is good for a person to be careful not to do so, because it is a matter perplexing to the public" ↩
10 But note that although the basic law - that for the need of a mitzvah at Maariv one need not join geulah to tefillah - is [accepted] as halacha, the Alter Rebbe proved in the Kuntres Acharon s.k. 1 that in practice, since one can recite Krias Shema early and also advance [to attend to] the matter of the mitzvah, it is therefore preferable that he not separate between Krias Shema and tefillah ↩
11 Shu"t vol. 1 siman 293 ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch there ↩
13 From the words of the Alter Rebbe in siman 114:1 regarding the announcement of Morid HaGeshem it is implied that one should not permit the announcement on the grounds of a need of the tefillah alone, because one must join geulah to tefillah ↩
14 s.k. 1 ↩
15 Hilchos Rosh Chodesh ↩
16 p. 89 ↩
17 Dinei U'Minhagei Rosh Chodesh ch. 7 din 4 note 4. Hefsek B'Tefillah there, note 17. Ma'aseh Melech p. 21 ↩
[7] (Halacha 170)
Continuation of the laws in which there is a difference between joining geulah at Maariv and at Shacharis (2)
c. Tefillah with a congregation
a) The Rashba1 wrote: "And to pray the tefillah of Shacharis before Krias Shema if one found a congregation praying, in order to pray with the congregation, as Rabbeinu Hai Gaon, of blessed memory, said regarding the tefillah of the evening2 - and you were in doubt about this matter.
I say that the Gaon spoke only of the tefillah of the evening, since the tefillah of Maariv is optional. And even according to the opinion of the Geonim, of blessed memory, who said that anyone accustomed to pray has established it upon himself as an obligation - even so, it is not an obligation like the tefillah of Shacharis, which is a full obligation even if one has not accepted it. And therefore joining geulah to tefillah at Shacharis is more preferable, and so is the custom throughout Israel."
And so wrote the Mechaber3: "If one found a congregation that had recited Krias Shema and wishes to stand for the tefillah, he shall pray with them and afterward recite Krias Shema with its brochos." And the Levush there explained: "At the tefillah of Maariv, which by law is optional - even though nowadays they established it as an obligation, we are not so concerned about joining geulah [to tefillah] when such [a situation] arises."
b) In Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe we do not have the laws of the tefillah of Maariv, but his holy opinion he revealed in [the laws of] the tefillah of Shacharis4, and these are his words: "If, before one has recited Krias Shema and its brochos, one found a congregation praying, he shall not pray with them first and recite Krias Shema and its brochos afterward, as [one may] do at Pesukei DeZimrah, because joining geulah to tefillah at Shacharis is greater than tefillah with the congregation (but at Maariv the tefillah of the congregation is greater than joining geulah to tefillah, as will be explained in siman 236)."
Regarding this law the Mishnah Berurah5 wrote: "But all this is only when he estimates that he will not be able to obtain a minyan afterward to pray with them; for otherwise, he should not forgo the mitzvah of joining geulah to tefillah."
If so, from this halacha too we learned that joining geulah to tefillah at Shacharis is more stringent than at Maariv, and therefore at Maariv tefillah with a congregation overrides joining geulah to tefillah.
c) But in practice the Kaf HaChaim6 wrote that even for an individual who will not have another minyan, he should pray in the order of Krias Shema [first] and only afterward Shemoneh Esrei, and these are his words: "However, according to the words of the Mekubalim, Krias Shema must specifically precede the tefillah, because the beginning of the drawing down of the mochin is in Krias Shema and the completion is in the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei ... And although we do not have kavanah on the sefiros, nevertheless one must pray according to the order of the kavanah, and Hashem, may He be blessed, in His mercy will arrange [it] ... for we ask of Hashem, may He be blessed, that He arrange the study and the tefillah according to their aspect in the supernal place. And therefore it appears, according to the words of the Mekubalim, that it is better to pray as an individual than to pray before Krias Shema."
And this principle, not to alter the order of the tefillah in any way, we already find in the Ba'er Heitev7 in the laws of the tefillah of Shacharis, who brought that such was the custom on the basis of the Arizal: "The Maggid8 admonished the Beis Yosef to come to the shul early so that he could pray in order and not skip [portions]. For one who does so overturns the channels (Siddur HaAri). And many men of deed have the custom to pray in order for this reason, even if they came late to shul. But in the responsum of the Chacham Tzvi siman 36 he wrote that what is written in the Zohar - that one should pray in order - is [only] when one is not praying with the congregation; but if one came late to shul and came when the congregation is praying, all agree that he should skip in order to pray with the congregation; see there. And so ruled the Pri Chadash in siman 50; see there."
d) And in the holy words of the Rebbe we find several times that he cautioned not to skip in the tefillah (although these words were said explicitly regarding Shacharis, this is a general principle in the order of the tefillah):
In the sichah of Yud-Tes Kislev 57119: "And likewise regarding the service of the heart, which is tefillah - that although one demands conduct according to the Shulchan Aruch, and according to the Shulchan Aruch one must skip certain portions of the tefillah in order to pray with the congregation (if one came late to shul and the congregation is standing in the middle of the tefillah), nevertheless the Rebbeim say that one should not do so, but rather pray the entire tefillah in order; and the tefillah must be specifically with kavanah (as the Rambam ruled that 'any tefillah that is not with kavanah is not a tefillah'), and with the introduction of the matter of 'koved rosh' ('one does not stand to pray except in a state of koved rosh'); and for this it is worthwhile to lose [praying with] the congregation, and to lose even the [proper] time of tefillah, for the main thing is that the tefillah itself be as it ought to be.
And in the sichah of Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh Parashas Vayeishev, the 20th of Kislev 571710: "However, in order to come to a state in which the tefillah is out of a feeling of the great lack and a cry to the Holy One, blessed be He, etc. - there must be the introduction of the recitation of all the details of the matters of 'Mah Tovu,' 'Hodu,' Pesukei DeZimrah, and the brochos of Krias Shema, and without skipping, despite the leniencies in this that we find in the words of the Acharonim and those before them."
And see also Igros Kodesh11: "And as to your question regarding skipping in Pesukei DeZimrah - although many permit this so that the tefillah be with the congregation, [note] that in addition to the fact that there are opinions that there is a prohibition in the matter, even those who permit do not conceal that skipping is unseemly, and especially according to what is explained in the sifrei Kabbalah and the sifrei Chassidus, more than can be counted; therefore, as above, one should do what is in his power, i.e., begin his tefillah with the congregation and afterward pray in order, with the meaning of the words, etc. And the great reward for one who directs his heart to Heaven is already known, and this is easily understood."
And so too in another letter12: "Regarding skipping in the tefillah even from the beginning, the directive is well known that, notwithstanding all the leniencies in this, in practice one does not do so; one can, after all, come to shul earlier in order to keep up with the minyan."
Notes:
1 The responsum of Rav Hai brought in Chiddushei HaRashba, Berachos 2a, s.v. v'nish'al mei'Rabbeinu Hai Gaon z"l. And in the Tur OC siman 235 ↩
2 siman 236:3 ↩
3 siman 111:4 ↩
4 siman 236, s.k. 12 ↩
5 siman 236, s.k. 22 ↩
6 OC siman 52, s.k. 1 ↩
7 Maggid Meisharim, Parashas Behar ↩
8 Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 134 ↩
9 Toras Menachem vol. 18 p. 282 ↩
10 vol. 18 p. 81 ↩
11 vol. 15 p. 170 (in translation from Yiddish) ↩
[8] (Halacha 171)
Continuation of the laws in which there is a difference between joining geulah at Maariv and at Shacharis (3)
d. Borchu and answering devarim shebikdushah
a) The Beis Yosef1 wrote: "And it is written in the Sefer HaManhig2: 'And after the shliach tzibbur has begun Borchu and Yotzer Or, and people come to the shul at Shacharis, the shliach tzibbur shall not say Borchu to them until after the tefillah, and not between geulah and tefillah, for we require [tefillah to be] immediately [following] geulah. But at Maariv, where we hold3 that the tefillah of Maariv is optional, and we already interrupt between geulah and tefillah with pesukim, he may say Borchu, provided that they respond after him "Baruch Hashem hamevorach," and that they [then] recite Krias Shema according to the enactment of the Sages, with two [brochos] before it and two after it.'" And so wrote the Agur4 in the name of Rav Amram Gaon5. And so wrote the Mechaber6: "And likewise he may say Borchu, to fulfill [the obligation of] one who did not hear [it], and it is not an interruption."
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe7: "But between geulah and tefillah of Maariv it is permitted to interrupt in order to fulfill others' obligation with Borchu, for without this we [already] interrupt between geulah and tefillah with pesukim and Kaddish, since the tefillah of Maariv is optional." And similarly he wrote regarding the Kaddish8: "For we never begin a tefillah without a Kaddish before it, except for the tefillah of Shacharis, because of joining geulah to tefillah." And if so, even according to our minhag that we do not interrupt with the recitation of pesukim at Maariv, the very recitation of the Kaddish teaches that at the tefillah of Maariv the obligation of joining is lesser.
b) It was explained here that at the tefillah of Maariv the chazzan may, between geulah and tefillah, say Borchu for the sake of others who arrived late; and if so, it is understood from this that the same law applies to every individual for himself, when he is after the conclusion of the bracha of Hashkiveinu and hears Borchu, or Kaddish or Kedushah9, that he is obligated to answer10, and the same applies to amen after the other brochos11.
c) And additionally, it is understood that one should not say "Baruch Hu u'Varuch Shemo" in this place, and also not upon the chazzan's bracha of Hashkiveinu, for the Alter Rebbe12 wrote regarding answering "Baruch Hu u'Varuch Shemo": "Nevertheless, since it is only a custom and not from the enactment of the Sages, one does not interrupt to recite it in any place where it is forbidden to interrupt for an optional matter, even in a place where it is permitted to interrupt for answering amen, such as during Pesukei DeZimrah."
And on this basis it is obvious that one should not say "Baruch Hu u'Varuch Shemo" here, for the interruption between geulah and tefillah of Maariv is more stringent than Pesukei DeZimrah. And it is certainly forbidden to interrupt with it for an optional matter13.
★★★
Question: Are women too obligated to join geulah to tefillah?
Answer: a. Shacharis - Regarding the tefillah of Shacharis the Alter Rebbe14 wrote: "Nevertheless, they are obligated in the remembrance of the exodus from Egypt, which is a positive commandment that is not time-bound, whose mitzvah is by day and by night; therefore they should recite the bracha that was instituted over the exodus from Egypt, which is Emes V'yatziv; and since they are obligated in the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei, as will be explained in siman [106], they too should join geulah to tefillah."
If so, at the tefillah of Shacharis women are equal in their obligation to men and must join geulah to tefillah.
b. Maariv - However, regarding Maariv there are those who wrote to be precise15, on the basis of the words of the Alter Rebbe regarding the tefillah of Shacharis, that since women are exempt from the tefillah of Maariv, as the Alter Rebbe wrote16: "But the tefillah of Maariv, which is optional - even though nowadays all Israel has already accepted it upon themselves as an obligation, nevertheless the women did not accept it upon themselves, and most of them do not pray Maariv on weekdays."
If so, although they recite the bracha of Emes V'emunah17, nevertheless they need not join geulah to tefillah when they pray Maariv, and they may interrupt to answer anything.
c. However, notwithstanding this, there is great room to say18 that the Alter Rebbe did not intend to say that the obligation of joining derives from the obligation of tefillah, and that therefore women are exempt; rather, that the obligation arises for anyone who actually recites both matters, the bracha of Gaal Yisrael and the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei, and it is only that women generally do not pray. But in a case where they intend from the outset to pray Shemoneh Esrei at Maariv, and likewise women who have the custom to pray Maariv regularly, they must join geulah to tefillah19.
Notes:
1 OC siman 69 ↩
2 vol. 1 siman 27 p. 59 ↩
3 Berachos 27b ↩
4 siman 331 ↩
5 Siddur Rav Amram Gaon siman 92 ↩
6 OC siman 236:2 ↩
7 siman 69:7 ↩
8 siman 292:4 ↩
9 such as [the Kedushah] of Minchah from another minyan ↩
10 See also Derech HaChaim siman 33 din 1. Beirurei Halachos p. 107 ↩
11 Hefsek B'Tefillah p. 89, and explained there on p. 212 ↩
12 OC siman 124:8 ↩
13 And not like the Eshel Avraham (of Butchatch) in the second edition to siman 57, (and note from Tehillah LeDavid siman 124, os 4). And see also Shu"t Yechaveh Da'as vol. 2 siman 30 ↩
14 OC siman 70:1, from the Magen Avraham s.k. 1 ↩
15 Hefsek B'Tefillah p. 90 and note 18. Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Ra"a edition, siman 70 note 11 ↩
16 siman 106:2 ↩
17 In Hefsek [B'Tefillah] he wrote that so is the implication of siman 70. And see what is written in Shulchan Aruch, Ra"a edition, os 8 ↩
18 And as per the words of the Machatzis HaShekel on Magen Avraham siman 70, s.k. 1. And so it is in several Rishonim, and this is not the place to elaborate ↩
19 And see also in the Sefer Hefsek B'Tefillah there, who wrote "that in any event it is more preferable that they join and not interrupt for matters that are [merely] a minhag" ↩
[9] (Halacha 172)
Question: Does the law requiring the joining of tefillah to geulah apply also on Shabbos?
Answer: The Or Zarua1 wrote: "I found in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, may his memory be a blessing, that on Shabbos there is no concern to join geulah to tefillah, since we derive it from this pasuk, 'May Hashem answer you on the day of distress,' and Shabbos is not a day of distress."
The Beis Yosef2 cited the Hagahos Ashri, who recorded the words of the Or Zarua, and wrote concerning it: "And his words do not appear [correct], for that pasuk is a mere support, and even without that pasuk one must join geulah to tefillah; and furthermore, the tefillah of Shabbos is in place of the tefillah of a weekday, which is [a prayer for] a response in a time of distress."
However, the Darchei Moshe3 wrote: "But in the Kol Bo, Hilchos Shabbos4, it is written like the words of the Or Zarua5, and so it is implied in the Maharil, Hilchos Yom Tov6 … And practically it appears to me that certainly to interrupt on Shabbos with idle matters or the like is forbidden, as per the words of the Beis Yosef; but for matters that are needed, one may rely on the words of the Or Zarua." And so he wrote in a gloss on the Shulchan Aruch7: "And it is good to be stringent, except in a place where it is needed."
And on this basis the Alter Rebbe8 wrote: "There is one who says that on Shabbos one need not join geulah to tefillah, because the Sages derived this joining from what is written, 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable etc., my Rock and my Redeemer,' and after it is written, 'May Hashem answer you on the day of distress,' but Shabbos is not a day of distress9 ... And one should not rely on this reasoning except in a place where it is needed, because this derivation is only a mere support, and the essence of joining geulah to tefillah is from the words of the Sages, who compared the eighteen brochos after the bracha of geulah to a beloved friend of the king who came and knocked on the king's door, and the king came out to greet him; and if the king sees that he has departed and gone away, he too departs and no longer draws near when he returns and knocks - so it is with one who interrupts between geulah and tefillah."
And from the language of the Alter Rebbe it appears that, in principle, the halacha is that one must join even on Shabbos, and not like the Rama, who accepted as halacha the opinion distinguishing between Shabbos and a weekday; and therefore it is noted in Shulchan Aruch HaRav, in the marei makom os 14, [a reference] to the Beis Yosef, who wrote concerning this opinion, "And his words do not appear [correct]." It is only that in practice the Alter Rebbe is lenient like the Rama, that in a place where it is needed one may interrupt.
There are those who wrote10 that the Alter Rebbe in the Siddur retracted in practice and was stringent, that there is no distinction at all between Shabbos and a weekday (and that so it is on the basis of the Kabbalah of the Arizal, as brought in the Kaf HaChaim), and even in a place where it is needed one should not be lenient on Shabbos to interrupt between geulah and tefillah. But it has already been written11 to explain that there is no basis whatsoever to say that in the Siddur he retracted from [what he wrote in] the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, and that all the stringency of the Alter Rebbe in the Siddur is only regarding the recitation of pesukim that are not part of the tefillah, as we will see below.
If so, in practice the [accepted view] as halacha is that on Shabbos too one must join geulah to tefillah, except in a place of need.
Question: What is a place of need?
Answer: Indeed, the Alter Rebbe did not explain his intent as to what is considered a place of need, but there are those who wrote that: a) Wrapping in a tallis - The Pri Megadim12 wrote that one who prayed without a tallis on Shabbos may put on a tallis even after reciting Gaal Yisrael, and after Shemoneh Esrei he shall handle the tzitzis and recite the bracha.
b) Interrupting for a davar shebikdushah - The Ketzos HaShulchan13 wrote: "And on Shabbos there are those who say that one need not join geulah to tefillah; see siman 111, and therefore it is permitted to interrupt for a davar shebikdushah between Gaal Yisrael and tefillah, as [one may] between the sections14; see there and in the Acharonim. Nevertheless, one should conclude Gaal Yisrael together with the shliach tzibbur, in order to satisfy all opinions, so that he not need to answer amen." And the Tehillah LeDavid15 wrote: "And in any event, amen after Gaal Yisrael - it is obvious that one should answer [it] on Shabbos" when he concluded before the shliach tzibbur.
Sources: 16Hilchos Krias Shema siman 14. 17siman 111. 18ibid. os 1. 19siman 35, 37b. 20vol. 1, Hilchos Krias Shema siman 14. 21Hilchos Rosh Hashanah 2. 22siman 111:1. 23siman 111:2. 24In Shulchan Aruch HaRav with Biurim (Ra"a), note 11, he noted that one may inquire what the law is on erev Yom Kippur, for the Alter Rebbe wrote in siman 604:6 that erev Yom Kippur is not considered a day of distress. 25Rabbi Ginzburg in Hiskashrus issue 489. Siddur im Tziyunim p. 266 note 71. 26Hefsek B'Tefillah p. 192 and onward. 27Mishbetzos Zahav s.k. 3. 28siman 19, s.k. 17, and siman 83:2. And as explained in the Eliyah Rabbah siman 111:4. Pischei Olam siman 111 os 5. Mishnah Berurah siman 111 s.k. 9. Beirurei Halachos p. 107. 29In Tehillah LeDavid os 6 he wrote: "And in truth, for the other amens too it is implied that one interrupts," but his words pertained to the opinion of the Rama, and it was explained that the Alter Rebbe is more stringent. 30siman 111 os 7.
----------------------------------------------
{Question 173}
The laws of joining geulah to tefillah [10]
Question: The minhag of many communities is to recite on Shabbos the pesukim of "V'shamru" before the tefillah of the Amidah; how does this accord with the need to join geulah to tefillah, and what is our minhag?
Answer: The Tur31 wrote: "And it is customary to recite the pasuk 'V'shamru Venei Yisrael etc.' to say that if they observe Shabbos they need no protection; and it too is of the nature of the geulah, as we wrote above, for if Israel observes two Shabbosos they are immediately redeemed."
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe32: "Those who have the custom to recite 'V'shamru Venei Yisrael es haShabbos' etc. have upon what to rely, and this is not an interruption between geulah and tefillah, for if Israel observes two Shabbosos they are immediately redeemed, and it is thus of the nature of the geulah as well."
But in the Siddur he wrote: "However, those who have the custom not to recite on a weekday 'Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen' because of concern for an interruption should also not interrupt with pesukim on Shabbos."
And since the Alter Rebbe omitted the weekday pesukim from his Siddur, he thereby, in effect, ruled that according to our minhag one should not interrupt with pesukim on Shabbos either, in order to join geulah to tefillah33.
★★★
Question: Since we do not recite these pesukim, why then did the Alter Rebbe write the pesukim in the Siddur?
Answer: The Rav Chaim Naeh34 wrote: "It is a familiar saying among Anash that the holy R. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, may the memory of the righteous be a blessing, the in-law of the Alter Rebbe, sent to him (or told him): since at the time that Israel recites 'V'shamru' on Shabbos night a fair is held in Heaven, why did the Alter Rebbe institute not to recite it? And the Alter Rebbe replied to him that from joining geulah to tefillah too a fair is held in Heaven, and it is impossible to be at all the fairs [at once]. Therefore, out of honor for the holy R. Levi Yitzchak, of blessed memory, who would recite 'V'shamru,' the Alter Rebbe wrote 'V'shamru' in the Siddur and did not omit it entirely; but he prefaced [it with the ruling] that those who do not recite 'Baruch Hashem' on a weekday should not recite 'V'shamru.' So I heard the story in this version, and the content of the story, from which it is understood that the holy [rebbe] of Berditchev, of blessed memory, greatly cherished the recitation of 'V'shamru,' and the matter was known and famous, is surely true; and support for this is from what the Alter Rebbe, the Tzemach Tzedek, of blessed memory, wrote in Piskei Dinim to siman 236, 'And in Berditchev they certainly recite V'shamru' ... Now, from the fact that he wrote that in Berditchev they certainly recite V'shamru, the truth of the aforementioned matter is clearly apparent."
★★★
Question: When one prays in a minyan in which they recite V'shamru, must one recite it with them so that there not be [a concern of] lo sisgodedu upon him?
Answer: The Tzemach Tzedek wrote in Piskei Dinim36: "Now, [regarding] the bracha of Yir'u Eineinu, there are several opinions that one need not recite it at all, as is written in the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah, chapter one of Berachos, and the Ramban and some of the Chachamim with him, who had the custom not to recite it. Surely they were not praying as individuals, and presumably they prayed in the beis midrash, and the entire congregation would recite that bracha, and they did not recite it, and it did not enter their minds at all [that there was any concern] of lo sisgodedu ... And in Berditchev they certainly recite V'shamru, and there are also there several distinguished ones of Anash who likewise pray in that beis midrash and do not recite V'shamru, and no one thought that there would be in this [a concern of] lo sisgodedu. Therefore, that which the honored Rav wrote simply, that there is in this a prohibition of lo sisgodedu, is not understood - how can he disagree with the implication of the aforementioned great Rishonim? And regarding what [he wrote] in siman 624, see the Maharal Chaviv there, s.k. 1. And nevertheless, it is more proper that they share [the same practice as those of] the beis midrash, and in any case make peace."
And in the Sefer HaMinhogim it is brought37: One does not recite these pesukim even when praying in a congregation that has the custom to recite them, and there is in this no [concern of] lo sisgodedu.
And note also from Igros Kodesh38: "With astonishment I read at the conclusion of his letter that he recites 'V'shamru' etc., which is contrary to the minhag of Anash for generations upon generations; and it is understood that the reasoning he writes in this matter is not at all sufficient to justify conduct contrary to [that of] our Rebbeim, the Nesi'im, who instructed their disciples and those who follow in their footsteps. And after requesting his forgiveness, I must say that even according to nigleh, the conduct is astonishing, in light of the ruling of Chazal regarding the conduct of a disciple toward his teacher (Sukkah 32b, 'Rav Acha the son of Rava would go around, etc., since it issued from the mouth [of his teacher], etc.'). And as to what [I wrote] regarding the absence of the joining [of geulah to tefillah] in any case in the shul in which he prays, there is room to say39 that by thought in the interim on matters of geulah or tefillah, the absence of the joining is nullified [note also from the well-known dispute40 as to whether it must be literally adjacent or not literally], whereas when one comes in the middle of a new matter, not a matter of geulah and tefillah, [it is otherwise], and this is easily understood."
★★★
Question: If a Chabad shliach tzibbur prays in a shul where they recite V'shamru, must he recite it?
Answer: The Rebbe writes41: "As to your question - a Chabad chassid who serves as chazzan in a shul where they have the custom to recite V'shamru, should he too recite [it]? - It appears to me that he should not recite [it], since he has accepted upon himself the ruling that there is in this a concern of interruption, as per the ruling of the Alter Rebbe; and especially since, regarding those praying in a minyan, there is a well-known ma'aseh rav in this that they do not recite [it] even though the other worshippers recite [it], etc. (see OC siman 236 in the Piskei Dinim of the Tzemach Tzedek). Also if he serves as chazzan, he should not recite it."
If so, even a chazzan who prays in a shul where they recite V'shamru should not recite it, but rather remain silent until the congregation finishes.
Notes:
1 Minhogim, Hilchos Rosh Hashanah, os 2 ↩
2 OC siman 111 os 1 ↩
3 ibid., printed within the gloss of the Rama ↩
4 siman 111:2 ↩
5 siman 19, s.k. 17 ↩
6 at the end of vol. 1, 90b ↩
7 And regarding the essence of the words of the Magen Avraham (in siman 490, s.k. 6, and 584, s.k. 7) and the Eliyah Rabbah (siman 490, s.k. 17 and siman 584, s.k. 12), that this piyut constitutes an interruption between geulah and tefillah, the Hagahos of Rabbi Akiva Eiger noted in both places, "It is not understood, for 'Yom LaYabashah' is recited by 'Shirah Chadashah,' so if that is the case there is no interruption in this between geulah and tefillah; and regarding an interruption in the middle of a section there is no distinction between Shabbos and a weekday." And indeed the Alter Rebbe in siman 490:14, who brought that when it falls on Shabbos one recites "Yom LaYabashah," did not bring this reasoning of the Magen Avraham. (And see the Levush siman 584, s.k. 3, for another reason for the recitation of "Yom LaYabashah" when it falls on Shabbos.) And if so, the difficulty raised in the Sefer Hefsek B'Tefillah p. 80 note 31 on the words of the Tehillah LeDavid falls away ↩
8 And so too appears the opinion of the Pri Megadim in the Eshel Avraham siman 114, s.k. 2 ↩
9 siman 111, s.k. 4. And he repeated and wrote so in his glosses ↩
10 Gloss of the Rebbe: "Menachos 98a. And in Tosafos there, 78b" ↩
11 Igros Kodesh vol. 18 p. 200 ↩
From the "Shoneh Halacha" project - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the group (silent): "Shoneh Halacha - Minhogei Chabad"
Join the WhatsApp group