A Sheli’ah Tzibur Repeating Words

The following responsum is reprinted from Tomeikh KaHalakhah volume 3.  Tomeikh KaHalakhah is UTJ’s series of volumes of responsa (teshuvot) promulgated by the Union For Traditional Judaism’s Panel of Halakhic Inquiry.

The Mishnah in Berakhot (5:3) discusses the case of a person reciting the blessing of Modim (Thanksgiving – the penultimate blessing of the Shemoneh Esrei). It says, “One who says…‘We give thanks, we give thanks’ (Modim, Modim), we silence him.” The Gemara (Berakhot 33b) explains, “It is understandable [why] we silence him [for saying]: ‘We give thanks, we give thanks,’ because it appears as if [he were thanking] two deities. [thus, denying God’s unity]…Rabbi Zeira [applying this same ruling to the recitation of the Shema] said: One who says, ‘Hear [O Israel], hear [O Israel]’ (Shema, Shema), is like one who says, ‘We give thanks, we give thanks’ [and should be silenced]. They challenge [Rabbi Zeira from a baraita], if one reads the Shema and repeats it, it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful [not blasphemous], but we do not silence him. This is no difficulty. [The case brought in the baraita is] where he says each word [of the Shema] and repeats it, whereas [the case taught by Rabbi Zeira is] where he says the entire verse and repeats it.” Rashi (s.v. milta milta ve-tanei la) explains that in the case in which he says each word twice, he is not silenced since while his actions are not commendable – for they reduce the recitation of the Shema to a farce – they are not indicative of heretical beliefs. Rabbi Zeira, however, discussing the case when one repeats the entire verse, says that since he appears to blaspheme by accepting two deities, he should be silenced. Therefore, according to Rashi, it is only forbidden to repeat an entire verse and this prohibition is limited to Modim and Shema.

Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi (Berakhot 23b in the pages of the Rif), however, quotes the Gemara as saying, “…but when one recites the entire verse [of the Shema] and repeats it, it is disgraceful [not blasphemous], but we do not silence him.’ Rabbenu Yonah (ibid. s.v. kol) points out that “the Rabbis of France” [namely Rashi and his colleagues] and Rabbi Alfasi quote the Gemara as giving the exact opposite ruling regarding Modim and Shema. Rashi rules that it is forbidden to repeat an entire verse, and undesirable to repeat words, while Rabbi Alfasi rules that is it prohibited to repeat words, and undesirable to repeat verses.

The Talmud in Berakhot (33b-34a) continues, “Rav Papa said to Abaye: [What is disgraceful about repeating the words of the verse twice?] Perhaps initially he did not have proper intention, and subsequently he did have proper intention [and that is why he is repeating them!]. Abaye answered him: [That itself would be disgraceful; after all,] May one [act] toward Heaven with familiarity?” Rashi (s.v. hevruta kalpai Shemaya) explains that Abaye is saying, “Does one treat God like a friend, not taking sufficient care to have proper intention while praying and then having to repeat oneself, thereby making the initial lack of intention obvious?” (See also Rashi to Megillah 25a s.v. hevruta kalpai Shemaya.) It seems that Rav Papa understands that the essence of prayer is to arouse the proper intention of the one praying. Abaye, however, holds that the essence of prayer is to honor God in a manner that is different from the usual conversation among people. Therefore, one who permits the repetition of words (as opposed to full verses), like Rashi, is relying on Rav Papa’s view.

Rabbi Ya’akov ben Asher (Arba’ah Turim Orah Hayyim, ch. 61) rules that one should be strict to follow both the opinions of Rashi and Rabbi Alfasi, and not repeat verses or words of the Shema. It thus appears that the position of Rabbi Alfasi, and all the more so Rabbi Ya’akov ben Asher, flows from the opinion of Abaye in the Talmud (cited above).

Rabbenu Yonah (Berakhot 23b-24a in the pages of the Rif s.v. kol) questions (according to the view of Rashi) the custom to repeat the first verse of the Shema during Selihot. He resolves this difficulty by suggesting that since “we have the custom of our ancestors in our hands” for many years now (see Beitzah 4b), and the entire congregation repeats the verse, it is clear that we are not accepting two deities. (See also Rabbi Yoel Sirkis, Bet Hadash, Orah Hayyim 61 s.v. ha-omer, who explains this custom in the same way. However, see Magen Avraham, Orah Hayyim 61:9, as well as Be’er Heitev ibid. and Hokhmat Shlomo, ibid., who disagree.) Tosafot (Berakhot 34a s.v. amar pesuka pesuka ve-kaflei) discuss the custom to repeat the Shema and other verses at the end of Yom Kippur. While they recommend canceling the custom of repeating the Shema, they say that the prohibition of repeating may apply only at the time of its recital during the prayers when one is accepting the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom and it may appear as it one is a dualist if he or she repeats it. However, the repetition of other verses, such as ‘The Lord is God’ (I Kings 18:39) seven times, which symbolizes the seven heavens above which God “dwells,” is an acceptable custom (minhag kasher). In fact, the Tosafot point out that the Jewish people themselves repeat this verse after Elijah defeats the prophets of Ba’al (see ibid. ch. 18). It should also be noted that Psalms 150:6 is repeated each morning during Shaharit to indicate that it constitutes the final verse of Pesukei De-zimra. While Tosafot may have given permission to repeat the Shema only at certain times, it is clear that other prayers may, in fact, be repeated.

This permission is even more explicit in a comment of Rabbi Yosef Karo (Kesef Mishnah on Maimonides, Hilkhot Keri’at Shema 2:11). He writes, “[Rava’ad?] wrote that even though repeating sections is disgraceful it is better to do so in order that one have proper intention and say Shema in its correct fashion and so one should repeat it and we are not concerned if it is disgraceful.” That is to say, the essence of prayer is the proper intention, as in the position of Rav Papa (cited above). In fact, in the Bet Yosef (Orah Hayyim ch. 61 s.v. katav), Rabbi Karo quotes opinions that with the exception of the first verse of the Shema, the other verses of the Shema may be repeated without the seeming concern of heresy.

Furthermore, there are other times in which one may repeat without concern. The Mishnah in Sukkah (3:11, 38a) says, “In a place where they are accustomed to repeat [verses in the Hallel prayer], he may repeat; [where the custom is] to recite as is, he recites as is…everything [must be done] in accordance with the local custom” (see Rashi and Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura on this mishnah as to whether this ruling refers to repeating all of the verses or only some of them). In the Gemara (39a), we find, “It was taught, Rabbi used to repeat words in it [Rashi, Pesahim 119b s.v. kofel devarim, explains that he would repeat some of it, i.e., from ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of God’ (Psalms 118:26) until the end of Hallel], Rabbi Eleazar ben Perata used to add words in it. What did he add? Abaye said, he augmented the repetition beginning with ‘I will give thanks to you’ (ibid. verse 21) to the end of Hallel.” Rashi (Sukkah 39a s.v. mosif ba) says that Rabbi Eleazar ben Perata added to the part that Rabbi repeated. Maimonides (Hilkhot Hanukah 3:11) writes, “There are those places that have the custom…repeating each verse twice.” He then explains (Halakhah 14) that the prayer leader should recite a verse and the congregation should repeat it and “this is the original custom and it is proper to follow it. However, in these times I have seen in every place different customs in its recitation and the congregation’s response and none are the same.” It is clear that a variety of customs arose regarding the repetition of verses without concern of heresy or any other problem.

Based on the above sources, there is no explicit prohibition forbidding the repetition of words or verses by the sheli’ah tzibur (except for Modim and Shema) and even by inference there is no foundation on which to forbid it (see Berakhot 9a and parallels).

Nonetheless, various authorities of the last two generations have ruled that repeating words or verses is prohibited. While Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Responsa Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 2 #22) rules that it is forbidden to repeat words only in the cases mentioned in the Talmud, he does state that in other cases, one who repeats words is acting “not according to the will of the Sages” (ain ru’ah hakhamim nohah mimenu). Rabbi Feinstein introduces the concept that repeating words causes an interruption (hefsek), which has the ability to invalidate the prayer. He rules, however, that if the repetition results in prayers that either can be translated validly without compromising their meaning or are rendered nonsensical, then the person need not repeat the prayer (unless the tune was devised specifically for repetition and was used knowingly). But, if the repetition causes the meaning of the prayer to be false or heretical, then the prayer is invalid and must be repeated. (For example, there is a popular tune for Yismehu in Musaf for Shabbat. In this tune, the word “Shabbat” is repeated at the end of each line although it does not appear in the text. Rabbi Feinstein points out that by adding the word “Shabbat” at the end of “Ve-yit’angu mituvekha” (“[they will all be…] delighted from your goodness”), the meaning of the sentence is changed. Instead of referring to delighting in God’s goodness, it becomes delighting in Shabbat’s goodness.) Rabbi Feinstein does not offer a source for why one who repeats words or verses that do not change the meaning of the prayer, and are therefore not considered an interruption, is “not according to the will of the Sages.” We do not find this idea stated or hinted at in the Talmud or the Rishonim.

Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef (Responsa Yehaveh Da’at 2:5) seems to understand the cases discussed in the Gemara (i.e., “Modim, Modim” and “Shema, Shema”) as prototypes that one may never repeat words. He says that repeating words is “similar to” (ke-ain) the cases found in the Gemara. This does not seem to be the case, however, since the Talmud, as well as Rashi, Rabbi Alfasi, and others, are concerned about the theological implications of repeating those particular prayers in a specific fashion (see also Rosh Hashanah 28b, where there is a similar concern regarding the priestly blessing). He also mentions the problem of causing an interruption (hefsek) as reason for this prohibition and quotes Rabbi Feinstein, among a few others, as concurring. He fails to mention, however, that Rabbi Feinstein does not call repetition a prohibition, but rather something that is “not according to the will of the Sages,” nor does he mention that Rabbi Feinstein distinguishes regarding when repeating is indeed a hefsek (see also Responsa Maharam Shick, Orah Hayyim #31).

Therefore, while these authorities have frowned on repeating words and verses, the sources themselves do not explicitly or implicitly state this and it is, indeed, permissible. Nonetheless, there are three issues with which to be concerned if one chooses to repeat words and verses (which would also seem to mitigate the problems mentioned by Rabbi Feinstein and Rabbi Yosef).

The first issue involves tirha de-tzibura, unduly burdening the congregation (for example, see Berakhot 12b). In the Responsa Ha-Rashba (vol. 1, #215), Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet was asked about a sheli’ah tzibur who had a pleasant and beautiful voice and lengthened the prayers in order to exhibit his musical talents to the community. As such, his intent was to gladden his heart during prayers and he claimed it was proper to do so. Rashba answered that this question is all based on intention. If his rejoicing was because he was able to praise and thank God with a beautiful voice and he was rejoicing with awe, a blessing should come upon him. However, if his intention was to perform so that others would praise him, his actions would be disgraceful. Rashba rules, however, that “in any event, anyone who lengthens his prayers is not acting appropriately since we find in various places [in halakhic literature] that things should not be elongated because of not unduly burdening the congregation.” He concludes by quoting the Gemara (Berakhot 31a) in which Rabbi Yehudah reports that it was the custom of Rabbi Akiva to shorten his prayers when praying with the community because of the prohibition of unduly burdening the congregation, but when he prayed on his own he would lengthen his prayers, beginning in one corner of the room and ending in the opposite corner because of his bowing and prostrating (Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet’s ruling is quoted in Bet Yosef and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 53:11).

The second issue is the prohibition of taking God’s Name in vain (see Temurah 4a). Therefore, it is forbidden to repeat any of God’s Names during the prayers (see Berakhot 33a). This concern was raised in the early struggle between the Hasidim and Mitnagdim, where among the list of charges against the Hasidim we see accusations that in their ecstatic prayers, they repeated God’s Name many times (see, e.g., Mordecai Wilensky, Hasidim U’Mitnagdim [Jerusalem, 1970], vol. 1, p. 126).

The final problem is distorting the meaning of the words of the liturgy. There are many unlearned cantors who repeat words or verses and seriously distort the proper meaning of the prayers. Therefore, only a person who understands the meaning of the words should be appointed as sheli’ah tzibur and his repetition will not confuse the meaning. Mordekhai (Hullin, first chapter, siman #597) writes, “It is written in the responsa of the Ge’onim that it was asked when there is an unlearned person with a pleasant voice and a learned person with an unpleasant voice, which one should be appointed sheli’ah tzibur? They responded that the learned person takes precedence, because he understands what he is saying.” (Many authorities stress that if one lengthens a word it distorts the meaning or simply becomes meaningless sounds in place of actual words. For example, see Tosafot, Berakhot 47a s.v. kol; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 61:6; ibid. 124:8; Noda Bi-Yehudah, Mehadura Kamma, Orah Hayyim #2.)

All this discussion, however, is theoretical and not a halakhic ruling for synagogue practice since each community has a mara de-atra (local halakhic authority) on whom it relies and his ruling must be followed. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that one may be in a community or visit a community in which the rabbi allows the repetition of words and verses. Therefore, it is clear that it is permissible to do so within the guidelines mentioned above.

Rabbi David Novak for the Panel of Halakhic Inquiry