Establishing a Fixed Place for Tefillah
[1] (Halacha 887)
Question: Is there value in purchasing a fixed place for tefillah in the beis haknesses?
Answer: It is stated in the Talmud Yerushalmi Brochos1: 'R' Tanchum bar Chanina said: A person must designate for himself a place in the beis haknesses in which to daven and what is the reason2 ויהי דוד בא עד הראש אשר השתחוה שם לאלהים - it is not written here, but rather אשר ישתחוה שם לאלהים'.
And in the Gemara Brochos3: 'Rabbi Chelbo said in the name of Rav Huna: Whoever fixes a place for his tefillah - the G-d of Avraham is at his aid. And when he dies - they say of him: Alas, the humble one! Alas, the pious one! Of the disciples of Avraham Avinu! And Avraham Avinu, from where do we know that he fixed a place? - As it is written: וישכם אברהם בבקר אל המקום אשר עמד שם, and standing is nothing other than tefillah, as it is stated: ויעמוד פינחס ויפלל'.
And in the Zohar4: 'As it is written ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה לפנות ערב - and did he not have a house or another place in which to daven? Rather, it was that field which Avraham had bought near the cave, as it is written השדה אשר קנה אברהם מאת בני חת; and at the time when Yitzchak would enter it he saw the Shechinah upon it, and supernal holy fragrances ascended, and because of this he would daven there and fixed it for his tefillah, and why would Avraham not daven there? Because he already had the fixing of another place from the outset'5.
And further on in the Gemara6: 'And Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: Whoever fixes a place for his tefillah7, his enemies fall beneath him, as it is stated: ושמתי מקום לעמי לישראל ונטעתיו ושכן תחתיו ולא ירגז עוד ולא יסיפו בני עולה לענותו כאשר בראשונה. Rav Huna raised a contradiction: it is written לענותו and it is written לכלותו - at first לענותו and at the end לכלותו'.
The Rambam8 brought this din as one of the eight things that invalidate the tefillah: 'Eight things the one who davens must be careful about and do, and if he was pressed or forced, or transgressed and did not do them, they do not invalidate, and these are they .. and the proper arrangement of the place'. And in halacha 7 he wrote: 'The proper arrangement of the place, how so? .. and he fixes a place for his tefillah always'.
And Rabbeinu Manoach wrote in his commentary on the Rambam: 'And he fixes a place for his tefillah always. Its explanation is as in the Gemara, that it is stated וישכם אברהם בבקר etc., as its Targum renders it. And the tefillos were instituted corresponding to the temidim, and the temidim had a fixed place for their shechitah and their offering, and so too for tefillah, for then the kavanah settles more'.
That is to say, in the Gemara we saw a derivation from a pasuk, from Avraham, for the din of fixing a place, and Rabbeinu Manoach added that the basis of the matter is like the din of the korban tamid, which had a fixed place.
And so wrote the Tur9: 'One must be careful that it be like the korban in kavanah, and that he not mix into it another thought, like a thought that invalidates kodshim; and standing, similar to the avodah, as it is written לעמוד לשרת; and the aligning of the feet like the kohanim at the time of the avodah; and the fixing of a place, like the korbanos, for each one has its place fixed for its shechitah and for the placing of its blood'.
[And indeed the Bach wrote on the words of the Tur: 'It is not the view of Rabbeinu that the takanah of Chazal that tefillah be standing is in order that it be similar to the avodah, for even without this standing is required, as it is written regarding Avraham אל המקום אשר עמד שם, and from here we also learned the fixing of a place for tefillah; rather, the view of Rabbeinu is that a person should direct his tefillah, in all its halachos, that it be like the korban, in order to elevate the tefillah to the place to which the korban ascends ..'.
But as mentioned above, we saw explicitly in the words of Rabbeinu Manoach that it is because of the similarity to the korban that there is a din of fixing a place for tefillah, and so it appears at first glance also from the style of the language of the Mechaber and the Alter Rebbe10, and so wrote the commentary Yafeh LaLev11, brought in the Kaf HaChaim12].
And to note also from the words of the Rebbe Mahara"sh13: 'Behold, Chazal said in Brochos daf 7, end of amud b: Whoever fixes a place for his tefillah (another version: for his Torah), his enemies fall beneath him, as it is stated ושמתי מקום לעמי ישראל etc. ולא יוסיפו בני עולה לענותו (in Shmuel II 7); and Rav Alfas and the students of Rabbeinu Yonah have the reading "for his Torah". And the matter is: behold, "makom" refers to the Beis HaMikdash, as is understood from the pasuk ושמתי מקום mentioned above, for this was the answer of Nosson the prophet to Dovid regarding the building of the Beis HaMikdash. And now tefillah was instituted corresponding to the temidim, and therefore, just as in the Beis HaMikdash there had to be specifically a fixing of a place, so too in the matter of tefillah, which corresponds to the temidim, there must be a fixing of a place; and according to Rav Alfas and the students of Rabbeinu Yonah, who have the reading "for his Torah", the matter is also true and correct, for since the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed HaKadosh Baruch Hu has nothing in His world but the four amos of halacha, and therefore there must be a fixing of a place for his Torah, like the Beis HaMikdash, which was a permanent dwelling'.
In the next halacha we will see additional reasons that the Rishonim and Acharonim wrote for the reason of the din of fixing a place for tefillah.
Notes:
1 ch. 4, halacha 4 ↩
2 Shmuel II 15:32 ↩
3 6b ↩
4 Bo 39b ↩
5 And to note also from the Tikunei Zohar, tikun 6, 21a ↩
6 7b ↩
7 However the Rif and other Rishonim had the reading in the Gemara "Whoever fixes a place for his Torah", and see below what the Rebbe Mahara"sh wrote ↩
8 Hilchos Tefillah ch. 5, halacha 1 ↩
9 OC siman 98 ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 98, se'if 4, for they did not mention the conclusion of the words of the Tur upon which the Bach bases himself ↩
11 vol. 1, siman 90, os 17 ↩
12 OC siman 90, os 117 ↩
13 Sefer HaMaamarim 5629, p. 393 (and see also p. 17) ↩
[2] (Halacha 888)
In the previous halacha we saw that a person must fix a place for his tefillah, like Avraham Avinu and Dovid HaMelech who fixed a place for their tefillah, and we also saw that this is likewise like the din of the korban, which had a fixed place for its shechitah .
In this halacha we will see further reasons brought in the commentaries to explain the importance of fixing a place for tefillah, as follows:
a) The students of Rabbeinu Yonah wrote1: 'And when he dies they say: Alas, the humble one! Alas, the pious one! And some ask: is it because of this alone that they relate after his bier such great praise? .. And one can say that they did not say it on account of the fixing of the place alone, but rather it means that he is so particular in his tefillah that in this too he is careful, for he wants his tefillah to be in a designated place; and since he loves tefillah so much, certainly he possesses the trait of humility, so that his tefillah should be accepted before HaMakom, as in the matter of that which is stated זבחי אלהים רוח נשברה וגו', for if he does not have humility he will never be able to daven with kavanah and it will not be accepted before HaMakom Baruch Hu; and since he merited humility he will merit the trait of chassidus, which is greater, for the one brings about the other, as we say: humility brings to chassidus. It emerges that on account of his exactness in tefillah he merits these virtues, and they say them about him when he departs from the world. From the mouth of my teacher the Rav נר"ו'.
And the Rashba wrote2: 'If you should wonder why they obligated a place for tefillah, and that it be in a fixed place rather than its being one time here and one time there, to the point that they called one who fixes a place humble and pious - know that in this too they alluded to a hidden secret. And what is revealed is that one who davens must direct his mind when he davens to know before Whom he stands, and to stand in awe, and to recognize his own lowliness and the greatness of the Master of whom he is asking; and as they said, the early chassidim would wait one hour and then daven - the intent being to think upon the awe of Him, may He be blessed, and that they should stand in tefillah with desirable kavanos. And a place prepared for tefillah adds awe, and for this the Torah warned ומקדשי תיראו; and the awe of the place brings one to be as one standing before Hashem, and from it he will come to the trait of chassidus and humility, and his heart will not swerve from its qualities, as it is written 'שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד וגו'. And to this they alluded in what they said, that when he dies they say of him: Alas, the pious one! Alas, the humble one! Alas, a disciple of the disciples of Avraham Avinu! - because the fixing of a place brings to humility and chassidus, as we said, apart from there being in it a further revealed benefit in the fixing of a place, that it causes him to be constant in his tefillos at set times, whereas when the place is not fixed there will come from it despair and laziness. And with this intent they further said in this perek: Rabbi Yochanan said, etc., as written above, ad kan'.
b) The Meiri3 wrote: 'It is fitting for a person to fix a place for his tefillah, for whenever the place is designated for him for tefillah his kavanah is present all the more'. And so wrote Rabbeinu Manoach4: 'for then the kavanah settles more'. And the Radak5 wrote: 'for his heart is more settled in a place to which he is accustomed'.
c) The Mahara"l of Prague6 wrote: 'It is part of the completeness of tefillah that his tefillah not be by mere happenstance, for tefillah is the deveikus in Him, may He be blessed, in that a person cleaves through his tefillah to Him, may He be blessed; and if this deveikus is merely by happenstance it is not considered deveikus at all, for everything that is by happenstance is for a time and for an hour and is not constant, whereas a thing that is not by happenstance is constant. Therefore it is fitting that this deveikus not be by happenstance at all. And regarding this came the admonition that he fix a place for his tefillah; and the matter of fixing a place for tefillah is because the fixing of a place indicates that his tefillah is not by happenstance, for happenstance has no fixity; and if he sits one time in this place and one time in another place, this is not fixity at all, and this is not deveikus in essence but only happenstance'.
d) The Maharsh"a7 wrote: 'It is explained that whoever changes the place of his tefillah receives influence and Divine power according to that place and direction, as they said8: whoever wishes to become wise should face south, to become wealthy should face north; but one who fixes for himself one place for his tefillah without change unifies the powers of Elokim to the one true Name. And this is what it says, the G-d of Avraham is at his aid, as it is stated וישכם וגו'. And it is explained, as is written in Pesachim9, that HaKadosh Baruch Hu said to him והיה ברכה - with you they conclude, with the name Havayah, the unique Name - for through Avraham His name, may He be blessed, Baruch Hu, was made unique in the world; and it is fitting to say of him: Alas, the pious one, etc. - for this is of the trait of chassidus, that he asks for his needs from the attribute of mercy and does not turn his face to ask for great things by another way, and it is easily understood'.
e) The Tzlach10 wrote: 'And it appears that the essential reason for fixing a place is because that place, since he davened there, acquired kedushah, and then when he davens a second time the kedushah of the place assists him that his tefillah be accepted. And behold, we find in Taanis daf 21b that they said: it is not a person's place that honors him, but rather he honors his place. And if so, one who is haughty says that he does not need his place to honor him - that is, that the place should assist him to have kedushah rest upon him and that he be able to have kavanah in his tefillah, and likewise that his tefillah be able to ascend on high through the abundance of kedushah in the place; but on the contrary, he honors his place, and in every place where he davens the place will be sanctified from him, and not that he be sanctified from his place - and this is haughtiness. But this one who fixes a place indicates that he needs the assistance of the kedushah of the place, which will bring it about that he not confuse his tefillah with extraneous thought, and assists him that his tefillah be able to ascend on high - this indicates that he is humble'.
-------------
In the next halacha we will see that there are those who wrote that the fixing of a place is a din stated only regarding a person who davens at home, and on this basis several of the commentaries wrote reasons for the fixing of a place at home:
f) Rabbi Dovid Arama wrote in his commentary on the Rambam11: 'And the reason for fixing a place, in my humble opinion, is so that it should not be like two domains, sometimes in this corner and sometimes in that one. But the beis haknesses in its entirety is a place of tefillah ..'.
g) The Baal HaNesivos wrote in his sefer Emes L'Yaakov12: 'And one could say that whenever one designates a place for tefillah and davens there, that place becomes sanctified like a beis haknesses, and since it has become sanctified, kedushah rests in that place. And therefore, when he davens in a holy place in which the Shechinah rests, he acquires kedushah and awe such that he is fit to be called by the name pious and humble. And this is specifically when he davens there with desirable kavanah; but not with kavanah - regarding this it is stated למה לכם רמוס חצרי'13.
Thus we have seen several reasons why one must fix a place for tefillah; in the next halacha we will see what is meant by fixing a place.
Notes:
1 Brochos 3b in the pages of the Rif ↩
2 Brought in the Ein Yaakov on the Gemara Brochos ibid. ↩
3 Brochos 6b ↩
4 Hilchos Tefillah ch. 5, halacha 7 ↩
5 Lech Lecha 13:4 ↩
6 Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah ch. 4 ↩
7 ח"א, Brochos ibid. ↩
8 Bava Basra 25b ↩
9 117b ↩
10 Brochos ibid. ↩
11 Hilchos Tefillah ch. 5, halacha 7 ↩
12 Brochos ibid. ↩
13 And see also the Sfas Emes, Brochos ibid. ↩
[3] (Halacha 891)
In the previous halachos we saw that by din there is great importance in fixing a place for tefillah
Question: What is meant by fixing a place for tefillah - must one fix a particular beis haknesses, or, more than that, that within the place in which I daven I must designate a defined spot in which I daven?
Answer: In explaining the words of Chazal that one must fix a place, we find three different approaches among the Rishonim, as follows:
a) There are Rishonim who wrote that the intent is that a person must have a fixed beis haknesses, as Rabbeinu Yehonasan of Lunel wrote1: 'Whoever fixes a place for his tefillah - such as one house designated for this, evening, morning and afternoon'.
And such is the view of the Mahara"m of Rothenburg2: 'That which the Sages said, whoever fixes a place for his tefillah etc., one can say it means when he goes one time to this beis haknesses and one time [another] to a different beis haknesses; but in two places in one beis haknesses it is fine'.
And so wrote the Orchos Chaim3, and in the Kol Bo4: 'And to fix a place for their tefillah always, for whoever fixes a place for tefillah, the G-d of Avraham will be at his aid. The explanation is that he goes every day to one beis haknesses and does not go one time to this one and one time to that one'5.
b) But there are Rishonim who wrote that the intent of the Gemara is that one must also fix a place within the beis haknesses itself, as the Meiri wrote6: 'It is fitting for a person to fix a place for his tefillah, for whenever the place is designated for him for tefillah his kavanah is present all the more; and this matter, its explanation is where there is no beis haknesses there, and even in the beis haknesses a person must designate for himself a place; and so they explained in the Talmud HaMaarav from that which is stated ויהי דוד בא עד הראש אשר ישתחוה שם לאלקים - השתחוה is not stated, but rather ישתחוה'.
And so wrote the Rosh7: 'It does not mean to say that he should be accustomed to daven in one beis haknesses, but that if he davens in one of them in two places it is fine; for we say in the Yerushalmi, perek Tefillas HaShachar: Rabbi Tanchum b'Rabbi Chiya said, a person must designate for himself a place in the beis haknesses, as it is stated ויהי דוד בא עד הראש אשר ישתחוה שם לאלהים - השתחוה is not stated, but rather ישתחוה'. And the Tur explained8: 'השתחוה is not stated, but rather ישתחוה - this implies that he would constantly bow down there'9.
And so wrote the Hagahos Maimoniyos10: 'In the first perek: Rabbi Chelbo said in the name of Rav Huna, whoever fixes a place to daven etc. .. and even in that same beis haknesses he should not change the place of his tefillah, one time in this corner and one time in that corner - Tosfos, ad kan'.
And so wrote Rabbeinu Yerucham11: 'A person's tefillah is heard only in the beis haknesses, and one must fix a place to daven; so it is plain in Brochos. The explanation is to fix in the beis haknesses a designated place in which he will daven, and so too in the Yerushalmi, and they wrote in Tosfos that all the more so should he go always to one beis haknesses'.
And the Agudah12 wrote: 'And whoever fixes a place for his tefillah, the G-d of Avraham will be at his aid - פר"י, not specifically regarding two batei knesses, but rather even in one beis haknesses a person must designate for himself a place; and so it is proven in the Yerushalmi, perek Tefillas HaShachar'.
[And at first glance such is the view of Rav Amram Gaon13, the Machzor Vitry14, and the Ravyah15, who brought the Yerushalmi that is brought in the Rosh].
c) However, the students of Rabbeinu Yonah16 wrote: 'Whoever fixes a place for his tefillah, the G-d of Avraham will be at his aid. He did not say this regarding places within the beis haknesses, for since all of it is a place of tefillah there is no need to be particular if he sits sometimes in this corner and sometimes in that one; rather, it means to say that he should fix a place for his tefillah in his home, for there are times when he cannot go to the beis haknesses and he davens in his home, and he designates a known place for this; and so it implies in the Yerushalmi, for we have the reading there: whoever fixes a place for his tefillah in his home to daven, it is as if he surrounded it with walls of iron'17.
That is to say, from his words it is understood that the intent of the Gemara is with regard to a person who davens in a place that is not a beis haknesses, such as in his home, that he must designate a place for tefillah.
Thus we have seen that the Rishonim disagreed as to whether one must designate a beis haknesses, or, more than that, to designate a particular place within the beis haknesses; and there are those who held that the intent is altogether to designate a place in his home
And the Beis Yosef wrote18: 'And since the Rosh and the Hagahos agree to one view, this is what we hold'. That is to say, that the essential ruling is like the second view, that one must fix a place within the beis haknesses itself.
The Tur further wrote19: 'And he should fix a place for his tefillah, that he not change it except for a great need20 .
In the next halacha we will see how the Acharonim ruled on this din in practice.
Notes:
1 Brochos 6b ↩
2 Shu"t (Berlin edition) siman 237 ↩
3 Hilchos Tefillah os 50 ↩
4 siman 11 ↩
5 And it is possible that this is also the intent of the Raavan, Brochos siman 129 ↩
6 Brochos ibid. ↩
7 Brochos ch. 1, siman 7 ↩
8 OC siman 90 ↩
9 And see what the Levush wrote, OC siman 90, se'if 19 ↩
10 Hilchos Tefillah ch. 5, os 10 ↩
11 Toldos Adam V'Chava, nesiv 3, part 4, 25b ↩
12 Brochos ch. 1, siman 10 ↩
13 Seder Rav Amram daf 115, and see there in the Magen HaElef, os 12) ↩
14 siman 21 ↩
15 Brochos siman 90 ↩
16 Brochos 3b in the pages of the Rif ↩
17 See Tzitz Eliezer vol. 15, siman 56 ↩
18 OC siman 90 ↩
19 ibid. ↩
20 There is a version: 'for the need of a mitzvah' ↩
[4] (Halacha 892)
In the previous halacha we saw that the Rishonim disagreed as to the intent of the Gemara that one must fix a place for tefillah, and that the Beis Yosef wrote that the essential ruling is that one must fix a place within the beis haknesses.
And in practical halacha the Mechaber wrote1: 'He should fix a place for his tefillah, that he not change it except for a great need2. And it is not enough that he fix for himself a beis haknesses in which to daven; rather, even in the beis haknesses in which he is fixed he must have a fixed place'.
And the Maadanei Yom Tov wrote3 [and it is brought by the Eliyahu Rabbah4]: 'And the students of the ר"י z"l wrote in the name of the Yerushalmi that one need not be particular in the beis haknesses, but rather in his home, when at times he cannot go to the beis haknesses etc.; and I found written in the Yerushalmi: whoever fixes a place in his home to daven, it is as if he surrounded it with walls of iron, ad kan (and I did not find it in the Yerushalmi). And if you will say that the Yerushalmi contradicts itself, one can say that it is not difficult, for it is possible that both in the beis haknesses and in his home one must designate a place, and so it stands to reason ..'.
And the Magen Avraham5 wrote: 'And also when he davens in his home he should fix a place, so that the members of the household not confuse him'.
That is to say, although the Mechaber ruled like the Rosh, that the din of fixing a place is stated regarding the beis haknesses, nevertheless one who is compelled to daven in his home should likewise fix a place, in accordance with the words of the students of Rabbeinu Yonah6.
★ ★ ★
Question: May one make two fixed places?
Answer: The Pri Megadim wrote7: 'And in the summer in the beis haknesses, and in the winter in the winter house - this is a fixing of a place, as we find8 a winter house, in the summer etc.'9.
And the Eshel Avraham (Butchatch)10 wrote: 'Concerning a fixed place in which to daven, it appears that it is not necessary that all the days of his life he daven only in one place; and Avraham Avinu a"h too went on his journeys and called in the name of Hashem in several places. And the intent is that a place in which there is an aspect of fixity to daven in it draws down illumination and benefit all the more. And we find a fixing of a place for chalitzah by means of designating it one time beforehand11. Certainly there are gradations according to the measure of the fixity, for whatever is more fixed is more sanctified, and as is written in the holy Tikunei Zohar regarding this, that according to the fixity for good deeds so is the resting of the kedushah, as is known. And even the first time, one who goes to daven there with the intention to daven there afterwards as well - this is a fixed place. And the place of which Hashem spoke to Avraham Avinu a"h, Avraham Avinu a"h called it ה' יראה12, and this is fixity, and he went there again afterwards'.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is considered a fixing of a place?
Answer: It is written in the Yosef Ometz (Yuzpa)13: 'He must have a fixed place for his tefillah, that is, that he not stand one time in this place and one time in another place next to it, even if the two are adjacent to one another; all the more so must he have a fixed beis haknesses to go to always'.
However, the Magen Avraham14 wrote: 'And it appears to me that within four amos is considered one place, for it is impossible to be exact'.
[And the Eshel Avraham wrote there: 'And according to what is written in the holy sefarim, that an entire house is considered like four amos, and four amos is a person's place - if so, whenever he has fixed himself to a place in this building of the holy beis haknesses, then every particular place in the holy beis haknesses is a fixed place for the Most High; just as, apparently, according to all opinions the four amos of his own particular place are included in the fixed place, so too is that entire holy beis haknesses, according to those who hold that an entire house is considered like four amos - and in such a case we rule leniently, and Hashem Yisborach fixes for the good for the nation of Bnei Yisroel, like the words of all those who advocate merit for the nation of Bnei Yisroel, as is known from the words of Chazal. And in any case the practice is that each and every one designates a particular place, a specific amah, as is known. And so too is the precision of the language of Chazal15: between the pillars, where they learn. And this is a trait of chassidus, and there is good protection in this from coming to quarrel, and from coming to a confusion of the mind through another preceding him in his place, or through his neighbors pushing him or confusing him'].
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe16: 'He should fix a place for his tefillah, that he not change it except for a great need; and whoever fixes a place for his tefillah, the G-d of Avraham is at his aid, for so we find regarding Avraham, that he fixed a place for his tefillah, as it is stated וישכם אברהם בבקר אל המקום אשר עמד שם etc. And it is not enough that he fix for himself one beis haknesses in the city in which to daven; rather, even in the beis haknesses in which he is fixed he must have a fixed place. And anything within four amos is considered one place, for it is impossible to be exact. And also when he davens in his home he should fix for himself a place, so that the members of the household not confuse him'.
An example of a change for a great need - the Kaf HaChaim17 (Palagi) wrote: 'Except that if it happened to him that there are people opposite him who disturb him in his tefillah, then he should change his place'.
Thus we have seen that it is fitting for a person to fix a fixed place for all the tefillos18, but where there is a reason, then even a partial fixity is considered fixity, as above. And where there is a great need, a person may daven not in his fixed place.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 90, se'if 19 ↩
2 So it is in the first printing; in later editions this word was omitted (and some emended it to 'for the need of a mitzvah'). [And it is possible that the Alter Rebbe too had before him an edition of the Shulchan Aruch without the word *גדול*, and therefore in the source references the Tur and the Levush are cited] ↩
3 Brochos ch. 1, os 90 ↩
4 OC siman 90, s"k 22 ↩
5 ibid. s"k 33 ↩
6 The Maamar Mordechai (OC siman 90, s"k 22) wrote to explain the words of the Mechaber: 'The intent is clear: that we should not say that what they said, that one must fix a place for his tefillah, is specifically in his home, but that in the beis haknesses there is no need to designate a place for his tefillah since all of it is designated for tefillah; rather, even in the beis haknesses he must have a fixed place, as the Rosh and the Tur wrote, and to exclude the reasoning of the ר"י z"l'. And on this basis he wondered at the Magen Avraham: 'For what is he coming to teach us, and what is this "and also" that he says? Surely at home it is an obvious matter that according to all opinions a fixing of a place is required. And one could say that the Rav z"l understood that according to the view of the Rosh and the Tur this din speaks of the beis haknesses; and if so, one can say that they did not admonish regarding the home, since he davens there only occasionally, by happenstance, and they were not particular if he davens one time here and one time there - therefore he wrote that he should fix a place also at home, so that they not confuse him etc. And it is more correct in my opinion to say that the intent of the Rav z"l is that at home he must fix a designated place in such a manner that the members of the household will not confuse him, and it is not sufficient to have a fixing of a place wherever it may be; but the plain meaning of the wording does not accord with this so well'. But his words require study, for we have already seen that according to the view of the Rosh the din of fixing a place is stated regarding the beis haknesses and not regarding the home, and to this the Magen Avraham added that one who is compelled to daven at home should likewise fix a place - and there is no question on the Magen Avraham ↩
7 OC, Eshel Avraham, siman 90, s"k 33 ↩
8 Bava Basra 3b ↩
9 And to note from the Halichos Shlomo, Tefillah ch. 5, Dvar Halacha os 2, that this is so even if he fixes a different beis haknesses for each tefillah (Shacharis, Mincha and Maariv), and likewise if he fixes one beis haknesses for a weekday and a beis haknesses for Shabbos ↩
10 OC siman 90 ↩
11 Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer siman 169 ↩
12 Bereishis 22:14 ↩
13 part 1, Dinei Tefillas Shemoneh Esrei, siman 30 ↩
14 ibid. s"k 34 ↩
15 Brochos 8a ↩
16 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 90, se'if 18 ↩
17 siman 11, os 10 ↩
18 See the words of Rabbeinu Yehonasan of Lunel that were brought in the previous halacha ↩
[5] (Halacha 893)
Question: Must one fix a place for the entire tefillah or only for tefillas Shemoneh Esrei¹?
Answer: The Ben Ish Chai wrote1: 'And the essence of fixing a place is in tefillas ha'Amidah'.
And in Toras Chaim (Sofer)2 he wrote: 'And I heard from א"א [=the author of the Machaneh Chaim] z"l that fixing a place for his tefillah is only for tefillas Shemoneh Esrei, which is the essence of the tefillah, but in Pesukei D'Zimra and the rest of the order of the tefillah one need not be particular; and in my humble opinion, from the language of the Tur, 'and he should not sit' today here etc., it implies that also in Pesukei D'Zimra and the rest of the tefillah there is particularity, and likewise in the students of Rabbeinu Yonah he adopted the wording 'if he sits', see there. But from the pasuk brought in the Yerushalmi, that a person must designate a place in the beis haknesses, as it is stated ויהי דוד בא עד הראש אשר ישתחווה שם לאלוקים, see there, it implies that the particularity is only in tefillas ha'Amidah - and so held אאמ"ו z"l'.
And so wrote Shearim Metzuyanim BaHalacha (Braun)3: 'It appears to me, according to what is written in the Tur siman 90 in the name of the Yerushalmi, that we derive it from a pasuk, ויהי דוד בא עד הראש אשר ישתחוה שם, it is proven from this that it is specifically in Shemoneh Esrei, where there is a din of bowing, and not in the rest of the tefillah'.
And in Shu"t Revavos Efraim4 he wrote: 'And I saw it brought in the name of the sefer Toras Chaim .. that it is only in Shemoneh Esrei, and in the rest of the tefillah there is no particularity. But at first glance, according to what is explained, that the essence of the fixity is so that his kavanah and his mind not become confused in the tefillah, if so it is the same in the entire tefillah. And one must say that the essential matter is Shemoneh Esrei; and the proof is that workers may not recite Shemoneh Esrei at the top of a tree, lest they not have kavanah, but Krias Shema and the rest of the tefillah they may - we learn from this that the essential matter is Shemoneh Esrei. And my friend the Rav HaGaon R' Ch. Kanievsky שליט"א wrote to me that "tefillah" without qualification speaks of Shemoneh Esrei. And my friend HaGaon R' S. Z. Braun שליט"א wrote to me that in siman 90 a dispute is brought as to whether a fixity is required in the beis haknesses itself, or whether the fixity of the beis haknesses suffices; and in the name of the ר"י, that it is not required in the beis haknesses itself, and the view of the Rosh in the name of the Yerushalmi that it is required, and it is derived from אשר ישתחוה - and if so, one can say that this is specifically in tefillas Shemoneh Esrei, in which there is bowing, and not in the rest of the tefillah. And my friend HaGaon R' A. Azbaud שליט"א wrote to me on this: fixing a place for tefillah - it is correct that it refers to Shemoneh Esrei, this being a matter derived from its context, in siman 90, where the discussion there in Hilchos Tefillah is about Shemoneh Esrei, end of his words. So the essential matter is that he have a fixed place for Shemoneh Esrei'.
And it is written in the Yalkut Yosef5: 'And so it appears from the fact that this din is explained in siman 90, which refers to tefillas Shemoneh Esrei. And so too it may be inferred from the fact that they learned this din from Avraham Avinu, and it is stated in the holy Zohar6: and why would Avraham not daven there? Because he had the fixing of another place from the outset. See there. And presumably it does not refer there to Pesukei D'Zimra etc. And even though the reason is so that his kavanah and his mind not become confused in the tefillah, and this applies also to the rest of the tefillah, nevertheless the essential particularity is in Shemoneh Esrei.
Thus, according to many Acharonim, the essence of the din of fixing a place for tefillah is in Shemoneh Esrei.
On the other hand, Rav Chaim Avraham Gatinio wrote in his sefer Tiras HaKesef7 that every tefillah - even a private tefillah that a person davens - he must daven in the fixed place: 'And it is fitting to understand the word "all" that he says - what does it come to include? And why did he not say "one who fixes a place for tefillah" - what is "for his tefillah"? And further, what is his chassidus in this, for it is possible that it is fitting and that by law he is obligated to fix a place in a designated beis haknesses, since we hold that the tefillos were instituted corresponding to the temidim; if so, the line of the law dictates: just as the temidim had a fixing of a place in the north of the mizbeach and the like, so too the tefillos, which are in place of the korbanos, require a fixing of a place - and so wrote the הרי"ף z"l8, that for this reason one must fix a place for tefillah, like the fixity of the temidim, an olah in the north, see there. If so, what is this "Alas, the pious one" that he says, and why did they need to learn this matter from Avraham Avinu a"h, until they asked about this, "And Avraham Avinu, from where do we know that he fixed a place" etc., and they did not learn it from the temidim themselves? Therefore it appears in my humble opinion that R' Chelbo was not speaking about the obligatory tefillos, such as tefillas hashachar and tefillas hamincha, for regarding those tefillos we do not need R' Chelbo, since they certainly must be with a fixing of a place, like the temidim - for what is stronger about this than that which the Rabbanan taught: why did they say that tefillas hashachar is until four hours? Because the olas hashachar was offered until four hours. If so, the same law follows from the temidim regarding the fixing of a place for the tefillos as well. And so too is the language of the Yerushalmi, perek Tefillas HaShachar: he must designate for himself a place in the beis haknesses, see there - so our case is an obligation. Rather, the words of R' Chelbo, who said "whoever fixes a place" - the word "all" comes to include a tefillah that a person davens to Hashem about some matter; and regarding this he said "a place for his tefillah", that is, his own tefillah about some matter for which he is davening: if he davens, he should daven in a fixed place. For this he is called pious, a disciple of Avraham Avinu. And for this reason he did not say "one who fixes a place for tefillah", for that would imply the obligatory tefillah of evening and morning, since for those tefillos he certainly must fix a place, like the temidim, which must be offered in one house and in one place; and for this he is called pious, that even his own tefillos he davens in a fixed place. And for this reason he asked: from where do we know that Avraham Avinu fixed a place for such tefillos, even though it was not an obligatory tefillah? To this he said, as it is stated וישכם אברהם אברהם בבוקר אל המקום. And the Tosfos z"l wrote at the beginning of the third perek of Yoma that that tefillah was not an obligatory tefillah but rather a tefillah regarding Sodom, and Hashem did not desire it; and that regarding that tefillah the Scripture testified about him that he davened in the place fixed for him to daven - and this is certainly chassidus ..'9.
Thus we have seen that many poskim wrote that the essence of the din of fixing a place is in tefillas Shemoneh Esrei; however, there are those who wrote that this din applies to the entire tefillah, and more than that, there are those who wrote that this din applies to every tefillah, even a private tefillah that a person davens, that he should daven it in his fixed place.
Notes:
1 In halacha number 887 we saw that there are two sources for the obligation of fixing a place: a) *since it must be similar to the korban* (as explained in siman 98). b) from the derivation from Avraham and Dovid (as explained in siman 90). And if so, according to the first approach it is certainly specifically with regard to Shemoneh Esrei, for part of the similarity to the korban is the obligation to stand, which is only in Shemoneh Esrei. But according to the second approach there is room to discuss, and on this the poskim wrote opposing views, as follows ↩
2 ש"א, Mikeitz, se'if 4 ↩
3 siman 90, s"k 25 ↩
4 siman 12, Kuntres Acharon to siman 10 ↩
5 part 1, siman 67 ↩
6 Tefillah, notes to siman 90, os 28 ↩
7 Bo 39b ↩
8 parshas Chayei Sarah, derush 4 ↩
9 See halacha number 887, that so wrote Rabbeinu Manoach and the Tur ↩
10 Zechuseih D'Avraham (Palagi), maareches tav, os 64, brought the words of the author of the Tiras HaKesef, and remarked: 'But he asked there after this: how do they derive in perek Tefillas HaShachar that the Avos instituted the tefillos from that pasuk, when that pasuk does not speak of the daily tefillas shacharis but rather of what he davened regarding Sodom - this is the substance of his words. And with the permission of the master I will express my opinion, that he derives it from the end of the pasuk, אל המקום אשר עמד שם, which refers to temidim in their order, that he fixed his tefillah there every day; and two things we learn from it, and this depends on that' ↩
[a] (Halacha 894)
Question: May a son or daughter sit in their parents' fixed place in shul?
Answer: The Gemara in maseches Kiddushin1 says: 'Tanu Rabbanan: What is mora? .. Mora - he does not stand in his place, and does not sit in his place, and does not contradict his words, and does not overrule him'.
And Rashi wrote: 'He does not stand in his place - in the place designated for his father to stand there among the council of elders together with his colleagues in counsel'.
And Rabbeinu Yehonasan of Lunel2 wrote: 'He does not stand in his place. That is to say, in the place designated for his father to stand there. And he does not sit in his place. That is to say, if his father is one of the seven tovei ha'ir, and he sees that six of the tovei ha'ir are gathering there to take counsel, the son is not permitted - even though he fills his father's place in wisdom - to say, "I will sit with them in my father's place and I will not summon him"; rather he is obligated to summon him'.
And Rabbeinu Yerucham3 brought Rashi's explanation and wrote: 'And the Ramah explained: the place designated for his father to stand there for tefillah or in an assembly of elders to take counsel; and he shall not sit in the place designated for him in any of these, and even in the place designated for him to sit in his home'.
And the Prishah4 wrote in the name of his rebbi the Maharsha"l: 'And it appears that a place in shul is forbidden according to all opinions, וק"ל. My teacher and rebbi'.
And as halacha the Mechaber5 wrote: What is mora? He shall not stand in the place designated for him to stand there among the council of elders together with his colleagues, or the place designated for him to daven6, and he shall not sit in the place designated for him to recline in his home'.
And the Taz7 wrote: 'In the place designated etc. In this, even standing is forbidden to him, since his father makes use of it there for standing as well; whereas in the latter clause, in the place designated for reclining etc., standing is permitted to him. And it is implied here, in the prohibition of standing in the first clause, that this is even if he wishes to stand or to sit alone, with no other person with him, in the manner of counsel, in the way his father is accustomed to do; and likewise in the latter clause regarding sitting, even if he does not wish to eat then - rather the standing and the sitting alone are themselves forbidden'.
If so, it appears from his words that in his father's place of standing it is forbidden to sit as well; however, in a place of sitting, it is permitted to stand.
And indeed, regarding what he wrote - that this prohibition applies even with no other person with him - the Ohr HaChaim wrote in his sefer Rishon LeTzion8: 'He shall not stand in his place etc. It appears that this is specifically in his presence; or alternatively, when there are people sitting there and he comes and sits in his father's place - in such a case it is a disgrace; whereas otherwise it appears that it is permitted, for is there holiness in the place? And we have not found this din except regarding the Beis HaMikdash, for even though it was destroyed it remains in its holiness; and even there the reason is because the Shechinah has still not moved from the Western Wall, so that it is as though in his presence. But otherwise it is permitted, for not in his presence there is no degradation - and not like the Taz wrote, that even by himself it is forbidden, for there is no compelling proof for his words z"l'.
And the Ben Ish Chai9 wrote: 'And all this is specifically in his presence; and even not in his presence, if there were people sitting there and he came and sat in his father's place, it is likewise forbidden, for it is a disgrace. And there are those who are machmir to forbid even not in his father's presence and not in the presence of others, but only by himself alone; and one must be concerned for their words, since this is a Torah prohibition. And see the Taz and Rishon LeTzion'.
The Aruch HaShulchan10 wrote that this din applies not only to a son with respect to his father's place, but also with respect to his mother's place, and likewise a daughter with respect to her parents' place; and he added that if the parents give the children permission it is permitted: 'And it is obvious that with his mother the din is likewise; only that since it is not the way of a woman to have a fixed place, therefore they did not speak of this. Therefore, if his mother has a fixed place, it is forbidden for him to sit there. And likewise the daughter should not stand in the women's shul in the place designated for her mother, unless she gives her permission. And likewise the son, regarding his father's place in shul, when he gives him permission he is permitted to stand. And it seems to me that nowadays the sons stand in their father's place in shul when the father is not there, and the reason is that such is the minhag, and it is as though he gave him permission, and none opens his mouth to object to this, and the father is not particular about it'11.
And the Acharonim wrote that in a case where the father changed his place permanently, it is permitted for the son to sit in the old place; and likewise if, Rachmana litzlan, the father passed away, it is likewise permitted to sit in his place12, and as the Az Nidberu13 wrote: 'Behold, there are two dinim: the din of kavod and the din of mora .. the essence of the din of kavod is only in his presence, or where he derives benefit from it; but the din of mora is a din that the son must not perform actions that cause the mora of the father to be nullified, and this is as though for the benefit of the son and not for the benefit of the father, in the aspect of "סור מרע". Therefore all of these - he shall not stand in his place etc. - apply even not in his presence .. If so, seemingly his question is correct, that it should apply also after his death, as with mentioning his name .. And it requires study, for from the plain implication of the poskim it appears that "he shall not stand in his place" etc. does not apply after his death. And it appears that this is simple: that if the father changed his place in his lifetime it is permitted to sit in his former place, and after his death it is as though he changed his place entirely. And these words are correct l'halacha ul'ma'aseh'.
And so wrote Shu"t Olas Yitzchak (Ratzabi)14: 'It stands to reason that since his father moved away from here permanently, it is no longer called his place, and it is permitted to sit there'.
If so, on account of mora of the father it is forbidden for a son to stand or to sit in the place where his father davens, unless his father gave him permission [or in a case where his father changed his place permanently, or passed away, Rachmana litzlan]; and likewise we have seen that in this din there is no difference between a son and a daughter, nor between the father and the mother.
--------------
Notes:
1 31b ↩
2 13a of the Rif's pages ↩
3 Toldos Adam v'Chavah nesiv 1 vol. 4, 15c ↩
4 YD siman 240 os 2 ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 240 se'if 2 ↩
6 In Shu"t Revavos Efraim (vol. 2 siman 48) *that this din applies even in a case where the father davens there only one tefillah* (Shacharis or Minchah or Maariv) regularly - it is forbidden for the son to stand there at the other tefillah ↩
7 YD ibid. s"k 2 ↩
8 YD ibid. se'if 2 ↩
9 Shanah 2, Shoftim se'if 2 ↩
10 YD siman 240 se'if 9 ↩
11 The Revavos Efraim (Shu"t vol. 2 siman 48) brought his words and wrote: 'But in any event it appears that one should be careful in this if possible'. And to note from what is written in Shu"t Mekor Chaim (Segalovitz) siman 15: 'Further it appears to me that even if we say that a father who is mochel on his mora, his mora is mochul, nevertheless it is forbidden here to stand in his father's place in the beis medrash because of maris ayin, for who knows that the father was mochel and gave him permission to stand - just as it is brought in YD (siman 87) that it is forbidden to cook meat in almond milk or in a woman's milk because of maris ayin; see there in the Shach. And private is not comparable to public, as is brought in the Rema (YD siman 240) that a rav who is mochel on his kavod - specifically in private and not in public; see there. And see in the Minchas Chinuch, parshas Kedoshim, that regarding his mora we compel him until his soul departs, since its reward is not stated alongside it. All this appears to me l'halacha' ↩
12 And see also Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer vol. 15 siman 41 ↩
13 vol. 8 siman 60 ↩
14 vol. 2 siman 291 ↩
[b] (Halacha 895)
In the previous halacha we saw that there are those who wrote that a father who permits his son to sit in his place - the son is permitted to sit there.
Question: Is there a hiddur not to sit there?
Answer: The Radbaz wrote1: 'You asked of me that I inform you of my opinion in that which we hold, that a father who is mochel on his kavod, his kavod is mochul - whether the son is exempt entirely from the mitzvah of כבד את אביך ואת אמך ("Honor your father and your mother"), and if he honors him it is as one who honors an ordinary person, or not. Answer: the son is exempt from the punishment if he did not honor him, but there is still a mitzvah. And so I saw in the name of the Ramah z"l in perek Eilu Metzios, that it was taught: from where do we know that if his father said to him "become tamei", or said to him "do not return it", that he should not listen to him? For it says איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמורו אני ה' ("Every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall keep My Shabbosos, I am Hashem") - you are all obligated in My honor. And the Gemara asks: the reason is that the Torah wrote את שבתותי תשמורו; were it not so, I would have said that he must obey him - and why? This is an aseh and that is a lo saaseh and an aseh, and the aseh of kibbud does not come and override a lo saaseh and an aseh. And they asked upon this: how could it enter your mind that the aseh of kibbud comes and overrides even a mere lav, for if his father said to him "I do not want this kibbud", is there an aseh at all? .. And in my opinion, on account of this question the Ramah z"l needed to answer that even when he says "I do not want", the aseh applies, for in any event he is commanded in every matter even if the father said "I do not want", ad kan. Behold you have it explicitly, according to this correct answer, that even if the father said "I do not want" there is still a mitzvah, and if so the mechilah will avail only to exempt him from the punishment, but there is a mitzvah'.
And on this basis Harav M. Eliyahu wrote2: 'A father and mother who were mochel on their kavod and permitted their children to sit in that place - their kavod is mochul (see further Rambam, Mamrim perek 6 halacha 8). And even if the father was mochel, the Radbaz wrote that although it is mochul and the son is not punished, still, if he fulfills the mitzvah of kavod av and mora av he has a mitzvah. That is to say, the mechilah of the father does not obligate the son, and the son should preserve the kavod of his father'.
If so, even when the father was mochel to his son, the son still fulfills a mitzvah to the extent that he does not sit in his place
★ ★ ★
Question: Is there a problem with sitting at his father's side?
Answer: The Orchos Chaim wrote3: 'And he is obligated to fear him. And Chazal said: what is yirah? He shall not sit in his place, and shall not [stand] in his place .. and even to sit at his side with nothing in between, for we also find [regarding] Yehonasan that he did not wish to sit at the side of Shaul his father, as it is written ויקם יהונתן ("and Yehonasan arose") - he explained, he rose from his place, since it is not the way of a son to recline beside his father; and Dovid was accustomed to sit between Shaul and Yehonasan, and now that Dovid was not there, Yehonasan did not recline until Avner sat at the side of Shaul, and afterwards Yehonasan sat at the side of Avner. And if you will say that Yehonasan did not sit - behold it says ויקם יהונתן מעם השולחן ("and Yehonasan arose from the table")'.
The Beis Yosef4 brought the Orchos Chaim, except that in Shulchan Aruch5 he did not mention this din.
However the Maharika"sh in Erech Lechem6 wrote: 'Designated for him to daven. And it is forbidden to sit at his side with nothing in between, Orchos Chaim'. And so the Knesses HaGedolah7 brought: 'It is written in the Orchos Chaim that it is forbidden to sit at his side with nothing in between, and he brought a proof for the matter. ב"ה'.
However, in practice the Acharonim testified that in actual fact people are not particular about this din, and they gave various reasons for this, as follows:
The Beis Lechem Yehudah8 brought the language of the Orchos Chaim and wrote: 'And nowadays it is not common to do so'.
Shu"t Binyan Olam9 writes that one must distinguish in this din between the shuls of the past, where the allocation of the places was according to importance, and the shuls of the present time, where the places are bought with money: 'And regarding what מע"ל wrote, whether it is permitted to sit at his father's side in the places of a shul, whether it is comparable to his place of sitting in the council of counsel - it appears certain that in the places of a shul in the present time, where each one does not sit according to his standing but only according to the value of the purchase of the places, whoever pays more for them - if so, the seating does not depend on the order of the honor of one over his fellow, and kibbud av is not relevant here at all; and this is not comparable to his place of sitting in counsel and deliberation, where every person sits according to his honor and his standing10, and so is the practice of the people'.
And Harav Y. S. Nasanson in Yad Shaul11 wrote: 'And go out and see what the people do, that the world is not careful in this; and perhaps the fathers are mochel on their kavod in this'.
The Yafeh LaLev12 wrote that this din applies only when they eat in the manner of reclining, and not when they sit in the ordinary way as in our times: 'And since in the present time it is not the way to recline, as I wrote above in OC siman 472 se'if 7, see there, it appears that there is no prohibition for the son to sit beside his father, as is the practice of the world, both in shul and at the table, that the son sits close beside his father ..'.
And the Aruch HaShulchan13 wrote: 'And in all our days we have not heard of it, and also in Shulchan Aruch they did not bring it .. and all the Acharonim did not bring this din, and learn from this that they were not concerned for it; and from there there is no proof, for the honor of a king is different and one does not learn from it; and also the minhag is not so [and also in the Tosefta perek 7 of Sanhedrin there is a contradiction to this din, see there ודו"ק]'.
The Ben Ish Chai14 brought the Beis Yosef and wrote: 'And it appears that this is specifically at a gathering where there are guests, like that which is written in Shmuel I ויקם יהונתן וישב אבנר מצד שאול ("and Yehonasan arose ... and Avner sat at the side of Shaul"); but when the father is in his home reclining at his table with the members of his household, there is no objection in this if the son sits close beside his father. And so the world is not careful except at a gathering of people; and this is specifically at a gathering, but in shul at the time of tefillah there is no objection; but if they gather to hold a meeting, there is an objection in this'.
If so, the poskim wrote various reasons to explain why in practice the minhag in shul is not to be particular about the din that a son should not sit at his father's side.
--------------
Notes:
1 vol. 1 siman 524. Rabbi Akiva Eiger brought it in his glosses to Shulchan Aruch YD siman 240 se'if 19, and the Pischei Teshuvah there s"k 16. But see Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Tur, YD there os 37, who wrote on the words of the Radbaz: 'And there you will see that according to the answer of the meforshim on that which it asks, "the reason is that it is written את שבתותי תשמרו, were it not so I would have said that he must obey him etc.", there is not even an aseh' ↩
2 Shu"t Ma'amar Mordechai vol. 3 YD siman 7 ↩
3 vol. 2 siman 5, din kibbud av v'em os 1 ↩
4 YD siman 240 ↩
5 ibid. se'if 2 ↩
6 Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD there os 2 ↩
7 YD there s"k 2 ↩
8 YD siman 49 ↩
9 In Yalkut Yosef, Kibbud Av v'Em perek 5 din 9, in the note on p. 208, he noted that according to his words, in a case where the father sits in shul in a place of honor - in the mizrach, on account of his honor and his standing, and not on account of payment - the son should not sit next to his father ↩
10 vol. 2 YD there at the end of the siman, from the mahadura basra ↩
11 vol. 3 YD there s"k 8 ↩
12 YD there se'if 10 ↩
13 Shanah 2, Shoftim se'if 20 ↩
[8] (Halacha 896)
Question: Is there significance to whom one sits beside when choosing a fixed place?
Answer: It is written in Sefer Chassidim1: 'A person who is a yerei shomayim must, when he davens, not stand and not sit in tefillah beside a rasha, because when he stands beside a rasha in tefillah he will have evil thoughts and the Shechinah distances itself from him. And it is written2 קרוב אתה בפיהם ורחוק מכליותיהם ("You are near in their mouths and far from their innards"), and it is written3 ועם נעלמים לא [אבוא] ("and with the concealed ones I will not come"), for the Holy One hides His eyes from them, as it says4 ובפרשכם כפיכם אעלים עיני מכם גם כי תרבו תפלה אינני שומע ("and when you spread forth your hands I will hide My eyes from you; even when you increase tefillah I do not listen"), and it is written5 לא ישבתי בסוד משחקים ואעלוז ("I did not sit in the company of merrymakers and rejoice"). Woe to the rasha, woe to his neighbor - for Yehoshua the Kohen Gadol was somewhat smitten when he went with Achav ben Kolayah and Tzidkiyahu ben Kena'anah, and his hair was singed'6.
This din was brought in the Knesses HaGedolah7, and in the Chida8.
In sefer Vavei HaAmudim9 he brought the Sefer Chassidim, and wrote: 'And therefore every proper person should see to establish for himself a place for his tefillah beside a tzaddik, and to this is the intent of the pasuk that Dovid HaMelech a"h said10 'ינחני במעגלי צדק' ("He leads me in the paths of righteousness"), meaning to say, in the paths of a tzaddik'.
And the Chasam Sofer11 wrote on this basis to explain the conduct of Chanah, who stood to daven within the four amos of Eli the Kohen, in the place where he was sitting, even though the Gemara says in Berachos 31b that it is forbidden to sit within four amos of one who is davening: 'Only that Chanah stood to daven within the four amos where Eli sat, as the Rav Beis Yosef wrote, for it is written ועלי יושב ("and Eli was sitting"), and behold she did so because this is a wondrous segulah, to daven at the side of a tzaddik; nevertheless it is not proper to stand within the four amos of one who is sitting, as the Beis Yosef wrote in the name of Mahari Abuhav, and all the more so to trouble the Kohen Gadol, that he would need to stand - [for if] he were to remain sitting he would appear as a denier, and therefore Eli considered her a drunkard. And she answered him fittingly: is not ruach hakodesh resting upon you always, and behold you are always reading krias shema and davening? And not as the Rav Beis Yosef was forced to say, that Eli was standing and did not think words of Torah in the Beis HaMikdash - chalilah for him - but rather as I wrote, that this was Chanah's answer to him: since you are a master of ruach hakodesh you do not need to stand on account of those who daven, and you should not have judged me unfavorably, for through this it is permitted to daven within four amos of where you sit ..'.
And he repeated his words in the Drashos for 27 Elul 557012: 'And indeed it appears to say that her reason in this is that it is a wondrous segulah that the tefillah be accepted the more when he stands close to a righteous man, and although Chanah did not want Eli to daven on her behalf, because his mazal was impaired regarding children, nevertheless when she davened herself she stood close by, to derive benefit from the radiance of his light; and it is good for the tzaddik and good for his neighbor'13.
However, we find among the Acharonim that they limited the concern written in Sefer Chassidim, as the Shelah wrote14 [and the Eliyah Rabbah brought it15]: ''A neighbor'. When a person's neighbors - meaning to say, those who sit beside him - daven with kavanah, it will be easier for him too to direct his heart. But when men of scoffing sit beside him, davening without kavanah, it will be hard for him to have kavanah. And on this it is said: woe to the rasha and woe to his neighbor. And Chazal said: distance yourself from a bad neighbor, and do not join with a rasha. And in Sefer Chassidim siman [770]: a person who is a yerei shomayim must, when he davens, not stand and not sit in tefillah beside a rasha .. And I say that when the tzaddik davens with kavanah, his tefillah will not become repugnant on account of the rasha who is beside him; and this is what the pasuk says16 'רחוק ה' מרשעים ותפילת צדיקים ישמע' ("Hashem is far from the resha'im, and He hears the tefillah of tzaddikim"). That is to say, even though Hashem is far from the resha'im, He hears the tefillah of tzaddikim, and this even though these are beside those'.
And in Shu"t Zecher Yehosef17 he wrote: 'And nevertheless it appears to me that when he is in the place fixed for him there is not so much to be concerned about, for he did not come into the rasha's neighborhood, as in Avodah Zarah 44b, "I did not come into her boundary, she came into my boundary" etc. And that which is said in Sanhedrin 93a, that there were resha'im with him and his garments were singed - that is, that a greater miracle was needed, to be cool at the place of the tzaddik and to be hot at the rasha; and in Pesachim 118b, "and I will cool from within and scorch from without and make a miracle within a miracle", see there well and in my glosses; and this is on account of his being the minister of fire, to burn those who threw him into the fire, and see there in the Rashbam [d"h V'akdiach] - but here the miracle was inside the furnace. And regarding the matter of the resting of the Shechinah, that it does not rest in the place of a rasha - behold all the matters of the resting of the Shechinah are on account of the concentrated hashgachah upon those who do His will and serve His service, and as in the matter that is said regarding the Mikdash והיו עיני ולבי שם כל הימים ("and My eyes and My heart shall be there all the days"), ועד"ש in Moreh Nevuchim vol. 1 perek 25; and see in the Noda BiYehudah tinyana, chelek OC siman 107, and in my explanation to the Haggadah, 'ובמוראים זו גילוי שכינה'; and it is not possible that the flow of holiness should be diminished from there when a rasha comes into their boundary. And I have elaborated further in the ma'amar Tahaluchos HaAggados perek 5, and this is not the place to elaborate'.
That is to say, according to the words of the Zecher Yehosef, a person who davens in the place fixed for tefillah, and afterwards a rasha came to sit beside him - the concern of Sefer Chassidim does not apply
If so, we have seen that there is importance to whom one davens beside, and there is benefit in this for the kavanah of the tefillah; however, there are those who wrote that for a person who davens in a fixed place there is no concern.
--------------
Notes:
1 siman 770 ↩
2 Yirmiyahu 12:2 ↩
3 Tehillim 26:4 ↩
4 Yeshaya 1:15 ↩
5 Yirmiyahu 15:17 ↩
6 And this is the language of the Kav HaYashar perek 3: 'And he should see to choose for himself a designated place to daven in shul beside a good neighbor, kosher and upright, and he should distance himself from a bad neighbor, so that he not cause him to stumble to go in his ways, chas v'shalom. And if it is impossible to distance himself from a bad neighbor, since he has no other place, he should see to rebuke him with words day by day; perhaps he will find an eis ratzon that he will accept the rebuke, and perhaps he will bring merit to his fellow through him. And if the person sees that he is an evil man and a scoundrel who persists in his wickedness, he should leave his place and go'. And he further wrote in perek 11: 'And one further thing is beneficial for tefillah: that he not sit in shul close to a rasha, as I wrote above in perek 3, for in the place of the rasha, there is the spear of the sitra achra, and it is a place of danger to be harmed by it, chas v'shalom' ↩
7 Hagahos Tur, OC siman 90 os 13 ↩
8 Kesher Gudal siman 12, 6 ↩
9 Amud HaAvodah perek 10 ↩
10 Tehillim 23:3 ↩
11 Glosses on Shulchan Aruch OC siman 102 se'if 1 ↩
12 vol. 2 p. 357 ↩
13 And see Toldos Rabbi Shimon Sofer p. 29, that before his wedding his father the Chasam Sofer sent him to receive a bracha from the Yismach Moshe: 'And early in the morning Rabbeinu went to daven in his beis medrash; over the course of the tefillah he fixed his place within his four amos'. And see Chashukei Chemed, Berachos 30a, who wrote to bring a support for this: 'It is said in maseches Berachos 30a: Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says, the tefillah of Musaf is only b'chever ir. And the Rambam explained in his commentary on the Mishnah: chaver is a term for a talmid chochom, and the meaning of chever ir is the chochom of the district; and it is a designation for the tefillah of the congregation, that they not gather except before the chochom among them, end of his words. And so it is also written in the Aruch, entry 'chever ir': the meaning is the great one of the city, of whom all the elders testify, as it says כל אלה חברים; and in Megillah daf 27b Rashi explained (d"h chever ir): the talmid chochom of the city who occupies himself with the needs of the tzibbur. And it appears that it is a segulah to daven beside him. And see the Tiferes Yisroel (Tamid, end of perek 3, os 63) who wrote that this is why the anshei ma'amad davened in the Lishkas HaGazis, since from there hora'ah goes out to Klal Yisroel, therefore the tefillos there are a segulah that they be accepted. And if so, the same din applies beside an outstanding talmid chochom, from whom hora'ah goes out to Klal Yisroel' ↩
14 Maseches Tamid, perek Ner Mitzvah, d"h HaTeshi'i ↩
15 OC siman 90 s"k 10 ↩
16 Mishlei 15:28 ↩
17 siman 240 os 3 ↩
[9] (Halacha 898)
In the previous halachos we learned about the need to establish a fixed place for tefillah.
Question: In a place where there are several shuls, is there a preference in which of them to establish the place of tefillah1?
Answer: When one comes to choose a shul in which to establish the place of tefillah, there are several details, as follows.
a) B'rov am: The Mechaber wrote2: 'A person should endeavor to daven in shul with the tzibbur'.
[And the Kadmonim explained that there is importance to tefillah in a place designated specifically for tefillah, and in addition] the Magen Avraham wrote3: 'Even though he can daven in his home with ten, nevertheless ברוב עם הדרת מלך ("in the multitude of the people is the glory of the King"), see siman 8 and the end of siman 690'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe4: 'A person should always endeavor to daven in shul with the tzibbur; and even though he can daven in his home with ten, nevertheless ברוב עם הדרת מלך'.
And from their words it appears that their intent is that although there is a possibility of davening in a private minyan, nevertheless, since in a shul there are more people, it is preferable to daven in a shul, also because the more people there are, the more there is in this of ברוב עם.
And so it is already explained in the Radbaz5: 'We say that the praise of the king and his glory when he is praised by many people is not comparable to the praise with which he is praised by few people; and so we say regarding the Megillah and Hallel and brochos, and regarding tefillah. And the pasuk is written ברוב עם הדרת מלך, and it is also written הן אל כביר לא ימאס ("behold, Kel is mighty and does not despise"). And granted, an individual who goes to daven in another shul - behold, he is added to that congregation, and there is thereby ברוב עם; but a tzibbur that divides itself, even though they are permitted, since there is a congregation in each of them, nevertheless they do not act well, for ברוב עם הדרת מלך, and as we have written'.
If so, we have seen that when there are more people together it is superior, and is considered more 'ברוב עם הדרת מלך', even though in the second place there is also a minyan6, 7.
And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan8: 'And in a place where there are more people it is a greater mitzvah, for ברוב עם הדרת מלך'.
And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah9: 'If he has two shuls, and in one of them there is ברוב עם, it is a mitzvah to daven in that one rather.
[This advantage of ברוב עם applies even though among those who daven there are sinners, as the Knesses HaGedolah wrote10: 'The Rambam wrote at the beginning of perek 8 of Hilchos Tefillah [halacha 1]: the tefillah of the tzibbur is always heard, and even if there were sinners among them, the Holy One does not despise the tefillah of the many; therefore a person must join himself with the tzibbur .. ad kan. And I found written on this language: the explanation is, even though among the many there are found sinners, he should not refrain from davening with them, for the Holy One does not despise the tefillah of the many, a proof from the chelbenah11; and it therefore follows that he must join himself with the tzibbur, since there is no harm on account of the sinners, and certainly there is benefit in the merit of the many, which is preferable'. And in Shalmei Tzibbur12 he wrote so in the name of the Rivash].
However, this preference is on condition that it does not impair the quality of the tefillah, as the Radbaz wrote13: 'And the same din applies, that if there is a beis medrash and the students gather there to daven, that they say it there, for you have no greater kevius than this, and a person's tefillah is heard there the more; for although one could say that a shul is better, these words apply when he davens in the beis medrash alone, but with ten, the beis medrash is better. And although we say ברוב עם הדרת מלך, these words apply at a time when all the people hear and direct themselves to the tefillah; but now that I see among a multitude of people great confusion, and no one hears either the tefillah or the reading of the Torah, the beis medrash is preferable for me, with the students, even though there is no multitude of people there'.
And so wrote the Acharonim l'ma'aseh, as the Aruch HaShulchan wrote there: 'However, if they talk there during the tefillah, it is better to daven in a small minyan in a place where they do not talk'.
And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah there: 'The Acharonim wrote that if in a shul of ברוב עם there is great confusion, and no one hears either the tefillah or krias haTorah, it is better to daven in his home with ten'.
If so, we have seen that one must daven in a shul, and when there are more mispallelim there is a greater fulfillment of ברוב עם; however, to the extent that this causes him a disturbance in kavanah and the like, he is permitted to daven in the smaller minyan. [In the next halacha we will see further cases in which one may prefer a smaller minyan].
--------------
Notes:
1 What follows is with respect to existing shuls, and not with regard to splitting off and opening a new shul, which is not the place here — a matter for another time ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 90 se'if 9 ↩
3 ibid. s"k 15 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch OC there se'if 10 ↩
5 vol. 3 siman 472 (910) ↩
6 However, to note from Shu"t Tzvi Tiferes siman 53, who ruled that when there is a minyan there is no preference for a larger number (for this was said only regarding the reading of the Megillah), and especially since in the shul with the large number there were empty and reckless men there. And in Shulchan HaTahor (Komarna) siman 90, in the gloss Zer Zahav os 4, he brought from the words of the Zohar, who wrote: 'And even if there are gathered in the shul only ten, the supernal camps present themselves to be companions with them. What is the reason? Because all the tikkunim of Him who is King are in ten, and therefore ten suffices'. And he learned from this there: 'From this it is proven that with ten there is הדרת מלך, and this suffices, and one need not seek after a multitude of people but rather after the place and people who daven word by word with kavanah, and with love and with fear and with holy sweetness; even if these be exactly ten, this suffices' ↩
7 Except that with regard to the question there, the Radbaz wrote that this advantage of ברוב עם does not override his case, 'that since they are divided hearts their praise does not ascend well; and therefore they were accustomed in all the regions of Yisroel that all the people of one city and one language make for themselves a congregation of their own, and do not mix with the people of another city and language; and there was not one of the rabbonim who protested against them, for through the division of places and languages the hearts become divided and their praise does not ascend'. And see there ↩
8 OC there se'if 15 ↩
9 ibid. s"k 28 ↩
10 Hagahos Tur, OC siman 90 os 4 ↩
11 Kerisos 6b ↩
12 24b ↩
13 vol. 4 siman 18 (1092) ↩
[10] (Halacha 899)
In the previous halacha we saw that there is a superiority in tefillah in a place where there are many mispallelim, on account of 'ברוב עם'.
b) Tefillah in the place fixed for learning Torah.
The Gemara in maseches Berachos1 says: 'And Abaye said: at first I would learn in my house and daven in the shul; once I heard that which Rabbi Chiya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla - from the day the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, the Holy One has nothing in His world except the four amos of halacha alone - I would daven only where I learned. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi, although they had thirteen shuls in Teveria, would daven only between the pillars, where they learned'.
And the Rishonim disagreed regarding the words of the Gemara, for the talmidim of Rabbeinu Yonah2 wrote: 'The rabbonim of Tzarfas z"l explained that even without ten they would do so, because it is more correct to daven alone in a place where there is the kevius of Torah day and night than to daven in shul with a tzibbur, as we say: the Holy One loves the gates that are distinguished in halacha more than shuls'.
But the Rambam3 wrote: 'A beis medrash is greater than a shul, and great chachomim, even though they had many shuls in their city, would daven only in the place where they were occupied there in Torah - and this is when he davens there the tefillah of the tzibbur'.
And the talmidim of Rabbeinu Yonah wrote there: 'And my teacher the Rav נר"ו says that even according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Moshe z"l ten are not required, except for one whose way it is to go from his house to learn in another place; for since it is his way to be batel from his learning at the time that he goes to learn, he should daven with ten or go to shul. But one who learns in his house all day in a fixed place, and his Torah is his umnus, should not go to shul if he will not find ten, because he is then found to be batel from his learning at the time of going; and it is better for him to daven alone than to be batel at all. Know this, for the great chachomim would set aside tefillah itself on account of learning, as we find that Rashbi would daven only from year to year, and Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi from month to month, so that they would not be batel from their Torah. And since they would not set aside learning on account of tefillah itself, all the more so should he not set it aside on account of the going; for it is better that he daven in his house without ten than that he be batel by going to shul or to another place. From the mouth of my teacher the Rav נר"ו'.
And the Rosh4 wrote in a teshuvah, and the Tur brought it5: 'And it is good to daven with the tzibbur with ten; the time of Torah is one thing and the time of tefillah is another. And also, our Torah is not so much our umnus, and we are batel many hours in the day; let us be batel from our Torah at the time of tefillah, and make up that hour from the idle hours of the day, and fulfill our obligation in Torah and in tefillah. And also, if a talmid chochom does not daven with the tzibbur, others will learn a kal vachomer from him and will not be concerned about tefillah at all, and the shuls will be found empty - for they will not judge him favorably to say that he is occupied in his learning'.
If so, we have seen that according to the opinion of the rabbonim of Tzarfas, tefillah in the place of learning is preferable to a minyan; and according to the opinion of the Rambam, the preference of the beis medrash is on condition that there is a minyan there (and the novelty is that this overrides the superiority of ברוב עם6). However, the rebbi of Rabbeinu Yonah wrote that the Rambam spoke only of one who in any case goes and learns in other places; but one who learns only in his house, and is not batel from his learning at all, does not need a minyan. And the Rosh wrote that in general, since those who learn Torah are also batel many hours in the day, therefore it is good that they daven with a minyan, and also in order to prevent a mishap, that others learn from him to forgo a minyan.
And as halacha the Mechaber7 wrote like the words of the Rambam: 'A fixed beis medrash is holier than a shul, and it is a mitzvah to daven in it rather than in a shul - and this is when he davens with ten'.
And the Rema in his gloss brought the words of the talmidim of Rabbeinu Yonah, and the Rosh: 'And there are those who say that even without ten it is preferable to daven in the beis medrash fixed for him; and this is specifically one whose Torah is his umnus and who is not otherwise batel. And even so, he should not accustom himself to do so, so that the amei ha'aretz not learn from him and become batel from the shul'.
And the Magen Avraham8 wrote on the language of the Mechaber: 'And although in a shul there is רוב עם הדרת מלך, nevertheless the beis medrash is preferable, for one should not set aside his learning on account of the tefillah; for we find R' Yehudah HaNasi, who would daven only from year to year, as the talmidim of Rabbeinu Yonah wrote ..'.
And the Alter Rebbe wrote9: 'And nevertheless talmud Torah is greater than them all (for behold, they counted iyun tefillah among many things whose fruits a person eats in this world while the principal remains for the World to Come, and even so they said that talmud Torah is equivalent to them all). Therefore one whose Torah is his umnus and who is not batel at all (except for matters necessary for the needs of his body and his learning) should not be batel from his learning and go to shul; rather he should daven in his house with ten. And if he will not find ten, it is better for him to daven alone than to be batel from his learning at the time of going to shul. And even so he should not accustom himself to this, so that the amei ha'aretz not learn from him and become batel from the shul, for they will not judge him favorably that it is on account of his learning that he does not come to shul .. But if he can gather ten to him in his house, it is more of a mitzvah that he daven in his place of learning that is fixed for him in his house than that he set aside his learning and go to shul, even though there is a multitude of people there, which is הדרת מלך. And it goes without saying regarding a beis medrash fixed for the public, whose kedushah is greater than a shul (as is written in siman [153]), and it is a mitzvah (even for one whose Torah is not his umnus, to daven there rather than in a shul, even if there is not a multitude of people in it as there is in a shul - and this is when he davens in it with ten)'.
If so, according to the opinion of the Alter Rebbe, one whose Torah is his umnus should daven with a minyan in his place of learning, [and also when he does not have a minyan, tefillah there is preferable so that he not be batel from his learning; and even so he should not accustom himself to this]; however10, a beis medrash fixed for the public has greater kedushah than a shul even though there is a multitude of people there; and therefore even one whose Torah is not his umnus, it is preferable that he daven in a beis medrash in which there is a minyan.
Notes:
1 8a ↩
2 there, 4a of the Rif's pages ↩
3 Hilchos Tefillah perek 8 halacha 3 ↩
4 klal 4 siman 11 ↩
5 OC siman 90 ↩
6 See Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah there, and it will be brought in the Magen Avraham below ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 90 se'if 18 ↩
8 ibid. s"k 32 ↩
9 ibid. se'if 17 ↩
10 There are those who wrote (Ohr HaHalacha, Chidushim os 19, and Biurim 17 and 18) that although the Magen Avraham in siman 153 s"k 1 learned from the Mechaber here that even a beis medrash of an individual overrides a shul (and see the Machatzis HaShekel there), nevertheless from the words of the Alter Rebbe here, the permission of tefillah in a private beis medrash is only so that he not be batel from his learning; and only a beis medrash fixed for the public has greater kedushah than a shul, and therefore for everyone there is a superiority in davening in it ↩
[11] (Halacha 900)
In the previous halachos we saw that with regard to establishing the place of tefillah there is a superiority in: 1) ברוב עם, 2) in the place of learning.
c) Distance
The Gemara in maseches Bava Metzia1 says: 'And behold, Rabbi Abba found the talmidim of Rav. He said to them: what did Rav say concerning these pesukim, ברוך אתה בעיר וברוך אתה בשדה. ברוך אתה בבאך וברוך אתה בצאתך ("Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall you be in your coming and blessed shall you be in your going")? And they said to him: so said Rav: ברוך אתה בעיר - that your house should be close to the shul .. And he said to them: Rabbi Yochanan did not say so, but rather: ברוך אתה בעיר - that your privy should be close to your table, but a shul, no. And Rabbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning, for he said: there is reward for the steps'.
And regarding the words of Rabbi Yochanan, Rashi wrote that they are what is said in maseches Sotah2: 'the receiving of reward, from a widow - for there was a certain widow who had a shul in her neighborhood, and every day she would come and daven in the beis medrash of R' Yochanan. He said to her: my daughter, is there not a shul in your neighborhood? She said to him: Rebbi, and do I not have reward for the steps?'.
If so, we see in the words of Rabbi Yochanan that there is a matter that the shul should be far from the house, and thereby one gains reward for the steps.
The Mahara"l of Prague3 explained the superiority of going to shul: 'The Holy One said: if you went to daven in a shul, do not stand for yourself at the outer entrance, but rather intend to enter a door within a door; לשקוד על דלת is not written here, but rather דלתותי, two doors. And why so? Because the Holy One counts your steps and gives you reward. It has already been explained before this that going to a shul is complete life. And what he said regarding this matter in particular - that is, tefillah - is that the Holy One counts your steps. And so they said in the Gemara, that one should go to the shul that is farther from the person, because he receives reward for the steps. And it appears4 that this din does not apply regarding a succah - that if he has two succos, one near and one far, that he should go to the far succah in order to receive reward for the steps - but rather it was said only regarding a shul, and as the pasuk says אשרי אדם שומע לי לשקוד על דלתותי וגו' מזוזות פתחי ("Fortunate is the man who listens to Me, to watch at My doors day by day, to guard the posts of My entrances"). And this is because Hashem yisborach is found in a shul, as Chazal said (Megillah 29a), that a shul is a mikdash me'at, and therefore Hashem yisborach is found in a shul; and therefore, when he goes to a shul he is drawn to Hashem yisborach, to have deveikus with Him yisborach. And it is known that one who moves toward a thing has complete deveikus with that toward which he moves, more than one who is already close to it; for one who moves toward a thing is indeed not with it, and nevertheless he goes toward it, and this is complete deveikus and connection - and this matter we have also explained above. And therefore he said that the Holy One counts your steps, for even one step farther the Holy One counts; for it is all according to the movement that he has deveikus with Him yisborach, for if he goes from afar, this indicates complete deveikus with Him yisborach, and therefore he goes from afar'.
This din was indeed not brought in the Rambam and in Shulchan Aruch, but it is mentioned in several Rishonim5.
And so the Magen Avraham ruled l'ma'aseh6: 'And if there are two shuls, it is a mitzvah to go to the farther one, for there is reward for the steps7 [BM daf 107]'8. And the Acharonim brought his words9 as halacha10.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe11: 'And if there are two shuls in his city, it is good to go to the farther one, for there is reward for the steps'.
If so, a person who has two shuls in his city, one near and one farther, it is good to go to the farther one, for he will receive reward for the steps12.
--------------
Notes:
1 107a ↩
2 22a ↩
3 Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah perek 5 ↩
4 However, see what is written in Derech Chaim perek 5 mishnah 14. And it will be explained b'ezras Hashem in a halacha of its own ↩
5 And see Shu"t B'Tzel HaChochmah vol. 4 siman 19 os 2: 'Nevertheless, behold, they copied it in Sefer HaAgudah (Sotah siman 12), who wrote: אר"י, I learned yiras cheit from a virgin, and the receiving of reward from a widow, etc., end of his words. And the receiving of reward from a widow is this matter of reward for the steps. It is also alluded to in Sefer Ravyah (Berachos siman 11), who wrote: it was taught, Abba Binyamin says, a person's tefillah is heard only in a shul; and in maseches Sotah we likewise learn: אר"י, we learned the receiving of reward from a widow, etc., see there' ↩
6 OC siman 90 s"k 22 ↩
7 And see in Shu"t B'Tzel HaChochmah there os 1, who wrote to prove that the superiority of a distant place overrides the superiority of the place itself ↩
8 The Eshel Avraham (Butchatch) siman 90 wrote: 'And perhaps the intent is like the implication in the Shas there, BM [107a], that there is reward for the steps in that his house is far from the holy shul. And nevertheless, in Sotah 22 [a], the widow had an intent in her walking on account of the important tefillah of R' Yochanan z"l; whereas when there is no decisive factor between the two holy shuls - not on account of a multitude of people and not on account of an important person who is in the farther one - perhaps reward for the steps does not apply in this, since the steps are not on account of a mitzvah. And where his house is far from the holy shul, one could say that since tefillah is in place of a korban [Berachos 26a], just as the holachah is an avodah even though it is possible to nullify it, so too the steps are a mitzvah. And there, when he received it from afar, it is impossible to nullify the holachah, and so it is when his house is far. But one could say that just as the holachah is an avodah even when he distanced himself deliberately only so that there be a holachah, and there is no other reason there - nevertheless the holachah is an avodah - so it is with one who goes only so that there be many steps. And from that which Chazal said at the beginning of Chagigah [3a], "in order to give reward to those who bring them", this is implied: that although there is benefit in the hearing of the children, as Chazal said [Yerushalmi perek 1 halacha 6] regarding R' Yehoshua ben Chananya z"l, "fortunate is she who bore him", and it is also relevant to a multitude of people etc. - nevertheless this is not sufficient to bring the children, except on account of the reward for their steps, which belongs to their father, by whose word they go. And perhaps they could have had them hear in their home for their children; and on their own account perhaps a multitude of people is not so relevant, since they are not in the group to be joined with the adults. And nevertheless there is reward - and this is well like the Magen Avraham z"l' ↩
9 See the references in Halacha Berurah siman 90, Sha'ar HaTziyun os 66 ↩
10 In Shu"t Maharsha"g OC siman 27 he wrote to take issue with the Magen Avraham; however, see what is written in Shu"t B'Tzel HaChochmah there siman 20, and in Shu"t Mishneh Halachos vol. 5 siman 24 ↩
11 OC there se'if 12 ↩
12 And see the Eshel Avraham (Butchatch) there, who was in doubt whether this din applies on Shabbos: 'Reward for the steps, to go to a place of tefillah at a distance - whether it applies on Shabbos kodesh, it requires further study at present, well'. But from the plain language of the poskim it is implied that this din applies always ↩
[12] (Halacha 901)
Question: Is the reward for steps only for walking to the beis haknesses?
Answer: Rabbeinu Bachya wrote1: 'And it further includes עון עקבי יסובני ("the sin of my heels encompasses me"), that it comes to warn concerning those mitzvos for which he is obligated to take steps, and they are steps of a mitzvah, such as going to the beis haknesses and to the beis midrash, and to visit the sick, and to escort the dead, and to comfort mourners — all these are mitzvos of steps, and their reward is great, and Chazal have already said2 that even on Shabbos it is permitted for him to run to the beis haknesses, as it says3 'אחרי ה' ילכו כאריה ישאג' ("they shall go after Hashem; He shall roar like a lion"), and if he does not fulfill the mitzvos of steps, that sin will encompass him on the day of judgment — this is 'עון עקבי יסובני'. And likewise, if he takes steps toward a matter of transgression, that sin will encompass him on the day of judgment as well; for so we find4 concerning the daughter of R' Chanina ben Teradyon, upon whom it was decreed that she sit in a house of harlots, on account of the sin that she was particular about her steps before the great ones of Rome; and she justified the judgment upon herself and said5 'גדול העצה ורב העליליה אשר עיניך פקוחות על כל דרכי בני אדם' ("great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men"), that is to say, even in the exactness of steps. From this you have learned that a person receives reward for his steps according to the way in which he walks — this is, והיה עקב תשמעון'.
From his words we see that the reward for steps is not only for one who goes to tefillah, but also for mitzvos that involve walking.
And in Shu"t Halachos Ketanos6 he wrote that this virtue exists in every walking for a matter of mitzvah7: 'And the explanation is that a person tramples with his heels upon piskei halacha and writings — you will find it, if the students copied it, that the intent is the steps of a man when he goes for a matter of mitzvah, that they are reckoned for him, as we say: there is reward for steps. And as to what he further asked: why were wings not created for man, whereas Chazal8 said that in the time to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will make wings for the tzaddikim? Answer: so that it should not be easy for him to go to a matter of transgression, and so that he should have the reward for steps; and while he goes to sin his feet will delay him, and his yetzer will turn back the steps of his strength, and his counsel will cast him down, also on the way when the fool walks'.
And so too wrote the Pele Yoetz9: 'Walking contains "turn from evil", in the manner of what is written אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך בעצת רשעים וגו' ("Fortunate is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked", etc.), and as they said, that when one goes for a matter of mitzvah there is reward for steps, and they said that from each and every step one angel is created; and also this corresponding to that, when he goes for a matter of transgression — and the knowledge of opposites is one'. And he further wrote10: 'And they said of Moreinu HaRav A. HaLevi z"l that he would increase his steps, to purchase and to prepare the needs of Shabbos one by one, for there is reward for steps'.
On the other hand, the Mahara"l of Prague11 wrote that this applies only to walking to daven: 'And it appears that this law does not apply with regard to sukkah — that if he has two sukkos, one near and one far, he should not go to the far sukkah in order to receive the reward for steps — for it was only with regard to the beis haknesses that they said it, and as the verse says אשרי אדם שומע לי לשקוד על דלתותי וגו' מזוזות פתחי ("Fortunate is the man who hearkens to Me, to watch at My doors" etc., "the doorposts of My entrances"). And this is because Hashem yisborach is found in the beis haknesses, as Chazal said12, for the beis haknesses is a mikdash me'at, and therefore Hashem yisborach is found in the beis haknesses; and therefore, when he goes to the beis haknesses he is drawn to Hashem yisborach, to have attachment to Him, may He be blessed. And it is known that one who moves toward a thing has complete attachment with that toward which he moves, more than one who is already close to it; for one who moves toward a thing is indeed not with it, and nevertheless he goes to it — and this is complete attachment and connection. And this matter we have explained above as well'.
However, in Derech Chaim13 the Mahara"l wrote that so it is also with regard to walking to the beis midrash: 'One must ask: what is different, that with regard to walking to the beis midrash the reward of the walking is in his hand, more than with the other mitzvos — for it should have said likewise that if he went to give tzedakah and did not do it, the reward of the walking is in his hand; and further, since he did not do the mitzvah, certainly it is not applicable to say concerning this that the reward of the walking is in his hand; and further it is difficult, that it said the reward of the deed is in his hand — and in what way is his strength lessened, since he learned in his house? What is the difference between learning in his house and learning in the beis midrash? And the explanation of this matter is that the other mitzvos are not like Torah, for he goes to hear the Torah from another, who teaches it to him; for the Torah is not with him, but with the one who teaches Torah, and he goes to receive the Torah; and therefore here the mitzvah is more in the walking, for the walking is a complete preparation when he goes to the beis midrash; whereas with the other mitzvos it does not appear that it is applicable to say concerning this that the reward of the walking is in his hand, for even if he goes to buy a lulav, when he has no lulav, in any case it is possible that the mitzvah will come into his hand; but the Torah is not so, for the essential beginning of Torah he must receive from another. And so too with regard to the beis haknesses they said that if he goes to the beis haknesses there is reward for steps, because this matter is itself the mitzvah — that he should go from his place to the beis haknesses, which is for the many together; and in this too the reward of the walking is applicable. And therefore it says: he goes and does not do — the reward of the walking is in his hand; since he prepared himself to learn Torah, the reward of the walking, which is a preparation, is in his hand, for a preparation for a mitzvah such as this cannot but be a mitzvah in its own right. And further, because the walking in the matter of Torah [does] something with his body, whereas the one who learns is not with his body; and behold, when he goes to learn Torah he is engaged in a mitzvah with his body and with his intellect, for the walking is with his body and the learning is with his intellect, and each one is a thing in its own right; and not so one who goes to do a mitzvah — this is not a thing in its own right, for it is all by means of his body; only with walking for Torah is there in this the reward of the walking and the reward of the learning, each one on its own. And therefore in the beraisa14, 'these are the things whose fruits a person eats in this world', it says 'and rising early to the beis midrash and Talmud Torah' — that is to say, the walking is a thing in its own right and the learning is likewise a thing in its own right; for these two things, the walking and the learning, are for two separate matters, as we have explained, and therefore there is reward for each one; and this matter is not applicable to a mitzvah, and all is correct'.
If so, we have seen that the commentators are divided as to whether the reward of the walking is specifically in walking to a beis haknesses and a beis midrash, or in all the mitzvos.
In the next halacha we will see further details in this law of the virtue of walking to daven in a distant place.
Notes:
1 Eikev 7:12 ↩
2 Berachos 6b ↩
3 Hoshea 11:10 ↩
4 Avodah Zarah 18a ↩
5 Yirmiyahu 32:19 ↩
6 Vol. 1 siman 223 ↩
7 And see Shoshanim, in Shoshanim L'Dovid, Bikkurim ch. 3 mishnah 3 ↩
8 Sanhedrin 92b ↩
9 Erech Halicha ↩
10 Erech Hachanah ↩
11 Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaAvodah perek 5 ↩
12 Megillah 29a ↩
13 Ch. 5 mishnah 14 ↩
14 Shabbos 127a ↩
[13] (Halacha 902)
Question: Is the mitzvah of going to the beis haknesses specifically by walking on foot, or, since one who rides is like one who walks, is the mitzvah fulfilled also by traveling in a means of transport?
Answer: The Ben Ish Chai wrote in Torah Lishmah1: 'Behold, in the Gemara of Sotah daf 22a they said: we have learned the receiving of reward from the widow — the one who had a beis haknesses near her and would go to the distant one on account of the reward for steps. It is implied from this that the reward for steps applies only to one who goes on his feet, who troubles his feet with more steps. And so they said in Chagigah daf 3: מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב ("How beautiful are your footsteps in sandals, O daughter of the noble") — how pleasant are the feet of Yisroel at the time when they go up for the regel; see there. It is implied that even the aliyah la'regel, which is to a distant place and much trouble, even so they were particular to go on their feet; and although certainly those who were very much farther away would ride, even so it appears that when they were near Yerushalayim they would go on their feet .. And if you would seek out its secret, see, please, what our great Rabbeinu the Arizal zt"l wrote in Shaar Maamarei Chazal, which we have in manuscript, on the maamar of Bereishis Rabbah concerning the matter of aliyah la'regel; and these are his words: And this is the secret of the obligation of re'iyah with the feet. And the matter is that the mitzvah of re'iyah is that every man should go up to the Ezras Yisroel to be seen there on the festivals, and the obligation of this mitzvah is only upon males. And the matter is to go up with their feet and to draw down the power of the supernal feet, which are Netzach, Hod and Yesod, on the three regalim; and therefore it does not say 'three moadim' but 'three regalim', to hint that the matter of the illumination of these three festivals is by means of the supernal feet, Netzach, Hod and Yesod, which shine in Malchus, which is the Ezras Yisroel, etc.; end quote, see there .. And therefore certainly with the mitzvah of going to the beis haknesses too one must be particular that it be specifically with the feet, whenever he is able to go on his feet; and he should not be concerned in this for his honor in the eyes of onlookers, even though he is a wealthy and honored man'.
And the Tzitz Eliezer2 wrote: 'And this matter of the reward for steps, it stands to reason that certainly it is not fulfilled by traveling in a vehicle, for although the law is that one who rides is considered like one who walks, there is nevertheless no trouble in this as there is for one who walks; and therefore it is not applicable to apply here this rule of 'one who rides is like one who walks', and one does not fulfill through this that which a person must trouble himself in a mitzvah in order to receive the reward for steps'.
[However, there are among the poskim of our generation who apparently did not see the words of the Torah Lishmah mentioned above, and wrote of their own view that even in traveling there is reward for steps, as is written in Shu"t Shraga HaMeir3, who wrote: 'And as to his question concerning one who goes by car and goes to the beis midrash which is a distant place, whether there is significance to receive reward — it stands to reason that even one who goes with a car to a distant place to the beis midrash receives more reward'.
And so too it is written in Rivevos Efraim4: 'And I was asked by several: what is the law if one travels by car to the beis haknesses — does he receive the reward for steps? And I said that it stands to reason that he does. And my friend, HaRav HaGaon Rav Sariah Deblitzky שליט"א, wrote to me, and these are his words: distant batei knesses, by car — it stands to reason that one who rides is like one who walks; end quote. And behold, the law of the reward for steps is brought in Sotah daf 22 and in Bava Metzia 107, and I have not found among the poskim, apart from the Magen Avraham, that they bring this law .. And in practical halacha it stands to reason that there is no difference in this, for with a car too he adds to the way, and he has, understandably, the reward for steps'].
And it is written in Shu"t B'tzel HaChochmah5: 'It is stated in the mishnah6: and the elders of Yisroel would go ahead on their feet to Har HaMishchah; end quote. And see the Tosafos Yom Tov7, who wrote: on account of chibuv mitzvah they would not ride. And he did not say on account of the reward for steps, even though certainly the reward for steps applies to all the mitzvos and not to going to the beis haknesses alone — see below (os 3) in the name of the Chasam Sofer z"l — rather it appears that since one who rides is like one who walks, in riding too there is reward for steps; only that in any case there is a preference in going on foot, on account of chibuv mitzvah. Now, according to what is explained in the Taz8, that even one who travels in a boat or in a wagon, even if he stands on his feet, is considered like one who walks — see there — if so, so it is also in our case, that one who travels by car is considered like one who walks, and there is reward for steps. And see further the Taz9 and Sefer HaMikneh10. But one may say that the essence of the reward for steps is for troubling himself to go a distant way for the sake of the fulfillment of the mitzvah, and if so, one who travels by car — although by law he is considered like one who walks, in any case there is no trouble here, and consequently there is no reward for steps here. Similar to what the Taz wrote (there), that even if he stands in a boat or a wagon his law is like one who walks, in any case with regard to tefillah he is considered like one who stands, since after all, through his standing the awe of the Shechinah is upon him — see there; and from this, in our case, the reverse: that although one who travels by car is like one who walks, since there is no trouble and exertion here — and even when he himself drives his car — there is no reward for steps here11 .. It is stated in the Gemara12: they were exiled to Bavel, the Shechinah was with them, etc.; in Bavel, where? Abaye said: in the beis haknesses of Hutzal and in the beis haknesses of Shaf V'Yasiv, etc. Abaye said: may it come to me, that when I was distant a parsah I would go and daven there; end quote. It is explained that even though it was a parsah distant, Abaye troubled himself to daven there on account of the importance of that particular beis haknesses .. We also learn from this that although, when there are two batei knesses in the city, it is a mitzvah to go to the distant one on account of the reward for steps, as in the Gemara13 and in the Magen Avraham14, that is specifically up to a parsah, but more than a parsah, no; for behold, even to the beis haknesses of Shaf V'Yasiv, of which Abaye himself said that the Shechinah rests there, Abaye did not trouble himself to go and daven there when it was more than a parsah distant from him'.
[The Rebbe related on Yud Shevat 571715: 'My father-in-law the Rebbe (the baal hahilula) once related concerning one of the elder chassidim of the Tzemach Tzedek, who was particular about his minhag to go by foot to Lubavitch, to such an extent that when he no longer had the strength to go every year (as had been his way in his youth), he would go only once in two years. He once said to his sons and grandsons, in answer to their claim as to why he insists on going specifically on foot and not on traveling, that when he will come to the World of Truth (or in the time to come) he will add to the scale of his merits his going to Lubavitch such and such a number of times, for which the reward for steps, the reward of the walking, is due to him (in addition to the 'reward of the deed'). And he concluded that as long as he goes to Lubavitch on foot, he alone will be lying upon the line of the scales; but if he travels to Lubavitch with a horse (or an ox), then the horse (or the ox) will also come and cast itself upon the line of the scales, and will claim its portion... and consequently 'וויל ער מיט קיין פערד ניט האָבן צו טאָן... אפילו דאָרטן אויך ניט' (=he does not want to have dealings with a horse, not even there)!].
If so, we have seen that the reward for steps is principally when one goes to the beis haknesses on his feet, and not in a means of transport
Notes:
1 Shu"t siman 40 ↩
2 Vol. 12 siman 17 ↩
3 Vol. 7 siman 17 ↩
4 Shu"t vol. 1 siman 68 ↩
5 Shu"t vol. 4 siman 21 os 1 ↩
6 Perek 3 of Maseches Parah mishnah 4 ↩
7 There, d"h b'ragleihem ↩
8 OC siman 94 s"k 4 ↩
9 YD siman 242 s"k 11 ↩
10 Kiddushin 33b d"h ibaya lehu rachuv ↩
11 However, in the continuation of his words he holds that there is no reward for steps when the two batei knesses are equal in their virtue, (like the words of the Maharsha"g brought in halacha 899 note 10), and he writes in his conclusion: 'What emerges in halacha: a) The reward for steps applies only to one who goes on foot, and not to one who rides or travels in a vehicle. b) Two batei knesses in a city — there is no reward for steps for one who goes to the distant one, only if the distant one is more important. c) Two batei knesses in a city — there is no mitzvah to go to the distant one a way of more than a parsah. d) With the other mitzvos, such as aliyah la'regel, there is a mitzvah of reward for steps even on a way of more than a parsah. e) When he is on the road there is no mitzvah to go to the more distant beis haknesses. f) When the beis haknesses in his city is more than a parsah from his house, there is no obligation to go to daven there; nevertheless it is fitting that he go at least from time to time, even when he must go on foot, and the matter is an obligation upon him when he is able to travel in a vehicle. g) On account of chibuv mitzvah it is fitting that the going for a matter of mitzvah be on foot, and not by riding and a vehicle ↩
12 Megillah 29a ↩
13 Sotah 22a ↩
14 Siman 90 s"k 22 ↩
15 Toras Menachem vol. 19 p. 46 ↩
[14] (Halacha 903)
In the previous halachos we saw various advantages that must be taken into account when one wishes to fix a place for tefillah: a) b'rov am. b) the place of learning. c) distance.
d) In a place where the tefillah is with more kavanah
The Radbaz wrote1: 'We learn in perek Ein Omdin: one does not stand to daven out of laughter, nor out of levity, nor out of conversation, nor out of quarrel, nor out of anger. And further we learn: R' Chanina, on a day of vexation, would not daven — that is to say, on a day when he was angry. Further we learn: whoever is not settled in his mind should not daven. Further we learn: Shmuel would not daven in a house in which there was beer, on account of the smell, which would preoccupy him and prevent him from having kavanah. You have learned from all these that a person should not daven, neither in a place that preoccupies his thought, nor at a time that nullifies his kavanah. And now, the individual or the many who have enmity or hatred or anger or quarrel with the tzibbur — their tefillah is not desirable, and it is forbidden for them to daven there, for his thought is preoccupied and he will not be able to have kavanah in their tefillah; and all the more so if they anger him to his face constantly, and all the more so if the anger is with the leaders of the congregation. And were it not that I fear, I would say that it is better for him to daven alone than to daven in the company of people with whom he is not at ease. There is furthermore another reason: that it is not fitting for a person to daven except in a place that his heart desires, just as we say that a person learns Torah only in a place that his heart desires. And the reason for the matter is that when a person looks upon one with whom he is at ease, his soul is aroused to the complete kavanah, and his mind expands, and his heart rejoices, and then the spirit of Hashem rests upon him, in the manner of what they said concerning prophecy'.
That is to say, the importance of a place in which it is possible to daven with kavanah overrides other advantages.
And more than this the Pischei Teshuvah wrote2 in the name of the Chamudei Daniel: 'And it is further written: one who wished to daven in a beis haknesses where they daven with more kavanah, and his mother protests against this — he need not listen to her'.
It is explained in his words that the virtue of kavanah in tefillah overrides the mother's protest, and he need not heed her in this; and if so, all the more so does the kavanah override the advantages of b'rov am or the reward for steps and the like, and as in the words of the Radbaz.
And see also what the Pri Megadim wrote3: 'And see os 32 [in the Magen Avraham]: a talmid chochom — it is a mitzvah for him to daven in the beis midrash where he learns, even though in the beis haknesses there is b'rov am; but if he learns in his house, or one who is not a ben Torah, if there is in the beis midrash a tzibbur as in the beis haknesses, it is a mitzvah in the beis midrash, in the place of the song of Torah; and if not, b'rov am is better. And it appears that in the winter, when the time is cold and it is impossible to have kavanah, it is better in the beis midrash, and in any case in small settlements he should see to it that the minyan in the beis haknesses not be nullified in the winter days, and to urge concerning this'.
And it is written in Teshuvos V'Hanhagos4: 'In the Mishnah Berurah5 he wrote that if there are before him two batei knesses and in one of them there is b'rov am, he must daven specifically there. And it appears simple that this is when the tefillah itself is equal in both of them; but if in one of them they daven slowly and he is able to daven there with more kavanah than in the second, certainly he davens specifically there, and likewise if the mispallelim in one of them are more G-d-fearing, he should daven in it even though there is not there b'rov am as in the second. And likewise, if in one of them they converse about idle matters at the time of the tefillah more than in the second, he should go to the place where they do not converse; or if in one of them there davens an outstanding talmid chochom who arouses to kavanah, it is obvious that he should daven there, for the tefillah is more heard and the tefillos of the tzibbur ascend with his tefillah. And b'rov am is decisive only when both of them are specifically equal, and as was written. And this is explained in Rosh Hashanah 32b, that b'rov am does not override even the virtue of zerizin makdimin, and a kal vachomer that it does not override the virtue in the very doing of the mitzvah; and the kavanah in tefillah is among the essentials of the mitzvah of tefillah, as is explained in the Rambam, beginning of perek 5 of Hilchos Tefillah. And in our times, in every city there are many batei knesses and batei midrash, of an individual and of the many, and each one chooses for himself the place that binds him more to a life of Torah, or to daven more properly together with his sons after him; and b'rov am does not override even the mitzvah of zerizin, as above, and all the more so when he feels that through this he is brought closer to a life of Torah, it is preferable'.
Added kavanah in the merit of davening near a tzaddik
In halacha no. 896 we saw the very virtue of tefillah in proximity to a tzaddik6, but in addition to that there is also an advantage for the kavanah in tefillah, and as the Radbaz wrote7: 'They further said in the sifrei hachochmah that when a person directs himself toward his rav and gives his heart to him, his soul becomes bound with his soul, and there rests upon him of the influence that is upon him, and he will have an additional soul; and this is called by them the sod ha'ibbur in the lifetime of them both. And this is what is said: והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך ("and your eyes shall behold your teacher"); and this is: והתיצבו שם עמך ואצלתי מן הרוח וכו' ("and they shall stand there with you, and I shall draw from the spirit", etc.). And so Rabbeinu HaKadosh praised himself, that if he would see the face of a rav he would reach a lofty level; and all the more so if the rav too directs himself, and this one calls to that one, this one to bestow and that one to receive. And on account of this R' Yosi said: not from everyone does a person merit to learn Torah; and from here they permitted that a person go to another place to learn Torah, even though his father says to him that he should not go, and he transgresses the mitzvah of his father — for not from everyone does a person merit to learn Torah. And this reason itself applies to tefillah, for when a person looks upon those who love him, or upon his relatives, or upon his rav, or upon one with whom he is at ease, his soul will be aroused to the complete kavanah, and there is added upon him a spirit from on high — and this is a matter that reason indicates, and the reverse is the reverse'.
If so, we have seen that tefillah in a place where his tefillah will be with more kavanah8 is a virtue that overrides the other virtues.
--------------
Notes:
1 Vol. 3 siman 472 (910) ↩
2 YD siman 240 s"k 22 ↩
3 OC, Eishel Avraham, siman 90 s"k 22. And concerning the difficulty on account of the cold, see also Eishel Avraham (Butchatch) siman 90 ↩
4 Vol. 1 siman 160 ↩
5 There, s"k 28 ↩
6 However, with regard to what is explained there, there are those who wrote that it is only within four amos of the tzaddik; and see Piskei Teshuvos siman 90 s"k 32. [And as is proven from the words of the Chasam Sofer, for if proximity to a tzaddik is effective even outside of four amos, Chana would not have needed to stand within four amos and to trouble Eli to stand] But the words of the Radbaz are said also with regard to one who davens farther away, from the aspect that this can add to the kavanah in tefillah ↩
7 Vol. 3 siman 472 (910) ↩
8 In halacha 897 we saw that when there are disturbances to the tefillah in the beis haknesses in which there is the majority of the people, there is no obligation to daven there. In this halacha we have seen that even when it is not a case of a disturbance to the course of the tefillah, rather a place where there is added kavanah in tefillah is the preferred place, [and seemingly the matter is said also with regard to choosing a place where the nusach of the tefillah and the melodies are those of the mispallel, and thus his tefillah is with more kavanah] ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group