Siman 53

Know that in ancient times, the shaliach tzibbur would not descend before the amud immediately at the beginning of the prayer as is the custom among us. Rather, everyone would say "Baruch She'amar" and all of Pesukei D'Zimra at his place, and the entire congregation would say "Yishtabach" until "Chai HaOlamim," and the shaliach tzibbur would descend before the teivah and begin "Yishtabach." Therefore, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch established the laws of the shaliach tzibbur in this siman after the laws of Pesukei D'Zimra. And all fifteen words in "Yishtabach" from "shir u'shvacha" until "berachot v'hoda'ot" – it is proper to say them in one breath (Magen Avraham) if he has the ability to say so, for it is not proper to interrupt the praises of Hashem, may He be blessed, even with a mere breath. And the shaliach tzibbur descends before the teivah, and says "Yishtabach" standing. And the standing is not because of "Yishtabach" but rather because of the Kaddish (Bach and Taz and Magen Avraham subsection 1). And it is simple that the shaliach tzibbur should not say "Yishtabach" unless he said "Baruch She'amar" and some of Pesukei D'Zimra, for if not so – it is forbidden for him to say "Yishtabach," which is the final beracha of Pesukei D'Zimra. And according to this, of necessity when the shaliach tzibbur comes to the beit knesset and needs to say "Yishtabach" at the amud – he is obligated to say "Baruch She'amar" and "Ashrei" at the very least, even if the congregation will wait a bit.

It is forbidden to interrupt between Pesukei D'Zimrah and "Yishtabach" even for a mitzvah matter, except that it is permitted to answer "Amen," as I wrote in siman 51, section 5. For "Amen" is also a praise, and it is of the same nature as Pesukei D'Zimrah. But for any other mitzvah matter—it is forbidden. Therefore, if they brought him the tallit and the tefillin at "Yishtabach"—he should finish Yishtabach and don the tallit and the tefillin with a blessing, for regarding this it is permitted to interrupt between "Yishtabach" and "Yotzer," as will be explained in siman 54. And know that this applies to an individual. But if they brought the tallit or the tefillin to the shaliach tzibbur at "Yishtabach"—he is compelled to don them before "Yishtabach," for afterwards he must say Kaddish and "Barchu," and that he should interrupt the congregation is obvious that it is impossible to do so. Therefore, of necessity he must interrupt between Pesukei D'Zimrah and "Yishtabach." And he shall recite the blessing over them, and it is like "out of fear" where it is permitted to interrupt even in the middle of a chapter, as I wrote in siman 66.

If there is no minyan in the beit knesset, and it is impossible to say Kaddish—the shaliach tzibbur should not say "Yishtabach" until a minyan arrives. And he shall say "Yishtabach" and Kaddish, for every Kaddish must necessarily be preceded by saying something. And he may wait even half an hour, for we hold: if one paused for a duration sufficient to complete the whole of it, if this was not due to a necessity where he was forced to interrupt—he does not return to the beginning, as I wrote in siman 65. And here he was not forced to this, for he could have said "Yishtabach" but did not want to until a minyan arrived. And according to this, if the place was not clean, such that he was forced to interrupt, and he paused for a duration sufficient to complete the whole of it—he returns to the beginning, as I wrote there. However, regarding Pesukei D'Zimrah which are rabbinic—one may rely on the words of those who are lenient there even in a case of accident.

And this applies to the shaliach tzibbur. However, every individual on his own should not interrupt with silence, and should say "Yishtabach" immediately after Pesukei D'Zimrah. And so too on Shabbat when the shaliach tzibbur draws out "Nishmat" or "Shochen Ad" – every individual should also finish the blessing of "Yishtabach" and not interrupt with silence, for certainly ab initio one should not interrupt at all. But the shaliach tzibbur is forced to interrupt when necessary, and this is not so for every single individual. And between "Yishtabach" and Kaddish one should not interrupt, neither the shaliach tzibbur nor every individual. And it appears to me that if the shaliach tzibbur draws out the melodies, and the individual finished the blessing of "Yishtabach" – he may look into a book and study until the shaliach tzibbur reaches Kaddish.

In this siman, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote the laws of a shaliach tzibbur. And behold, in the days of the ancients, there was a permanent shaliach tzibbur for weekdays and for Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim. And it was very good, because he knew the order of the prayer well, and he did not prolong it nor did he snatch it away with haste. And he was a God-fearing man. But now, in our many sins, in all our regions there is no permanent shaliach tzibbur for weekdays at all; rather, everyone descends before the teivah, whoever so desires. And most especially, the custom has spread that whoever is a mourner for his father or his mother, or has a Yahrtzeit—he prays before the teivah even when he is an am ha'aretz, and does not know between his right and his left, and does not know the meaning of the words, and is not fit to descend before the teivah. And the prayers become confused, for this one snatches and that one skips. And it is a shadow of death without order. However, this has also spread from the generations before us, and it is not in our power to protest. Yet, regarding the essence of the prayer, we are not dependent upon the shaliach tzibbur, since we are all proficient, and we do not need the shaliach tzibbur to fulfill the obligation for us, and we pray each one for himself.

It is written: "She has raised her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her." Our sages, of blessed memory, expounded in Taanit (17b): This refers to a shliach tzibbur who is not fitting and descends before the ark. And who is a fitting shliach tzibbur? One who is empty of transgressions, and who did not have a bad reputation even in his youth, and is humble, and is acceptable to the people, and has a pleasant melody, and his voice is sweet, and he is accustomed to reading Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. And if they do not find someone who possesses all these qualities—they shall choose the best of the community in wisdom and in good deeds. And if there was here an unlearned elder, and his voice is pleasant and the people desire him, and a thirteen-year-old who understands what he is saying, but his voice is not pleasant—the minor takes precedence. However, in our many sins, in these times the hand of the masses is strong, and specifically in matters of chazzanut there is no power to protest against them. "And He, the Merciful One..."

That which has been explained, that a bad reputation should not have emerged regarding him, this is regarding appointing him ab initio. However, if a bad reputation emerged regarding a shaliach tzibbur—we do not remove him, for we do not remove a man from his appointment due to a mere rumor. This is unless it is a rumor that does not cease, and we know that enemies did not spread the rumor, in a manner that regarding such a rumor we would be concerned in the case of a married woman, as is explained in Even HaEzer siman 11, for then we remove him. And even an individual can object and remove him when we know that his intent is for the sake of Heaven. (Magen Avraham subsection 7. And it must be said that his intent is so, as I have written. Examine it and you will find it simple.) And whenever they have already removed him, and he remained so for a long time, and now they wish to return him—his law is like an appointment from the beginning (ibid.). And if there are leaders in the city upon whom they rely in all matters of the city, it follows that they are the primary stakeholders also regarding the matter of appointing the shaliach tzibbur (ibid.).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: One who committed a transgression unintentionally, such as one who killed a person unintentionally, and performed teshuva—it is permitted for him to be a shliach tzibbur. But if he did so intentionally—no, for in any event an evil name went out concerning him prior to the teshuva. Thus far his words. From this wording it is implied that regarding an intentional act, even one time, teshuva does not avail regarding his appointment as a shliach tzibbur, and regarding an unintentional act, it avails for one time. And it is a wonder: for an unintentional act, even several times, why should it disqualify? For regarding an unintentional act, an evil name is not applicable, obviously. And it must be said that his intention was not regarding one time, for regarding one time even for an intentional act, since he performed teshuva—it is permitted for him to be a shliach tzibbur, for since he performed teshuva, the evil name was immediately nullified. And his disqualification for an intentional act is only when he did so several times, and for an unintentional act even in such a case he is fit, and so it is implied from his words in his book Darchei Moshe, see there. And that which he wrote, "for in any event an evil name went out concerning him prior to the teshuva," this is its explanation: since he did so several times, even though he performed teshuva each time, in any event prior to the teshuva an evil name went out concerning him each time. And there are those who wrote that the disqualification of "an evil name went out concerning him" is only for fast days and not for the rest of the days of the year. And it seems to me that a permanent shliach tzibbur for the whole year is of greater weight than for a fast day. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 8. And be precise and you will find it easy.) And know that that which he wrote, "killed a person"—it is not specifically so, and the same law applies to another transgression (Eliyah Rabbah). And there is reason to doubt regarding rabbinic transgressions when he performed teshuva, whether it is called "an evil name went out concerning him" or not. And it seems that there is no difference between a Torah law and a rabbinic law.

If one committed a transgression under duress—certainly there is no concern in the matter (Magen Avraham ibid.). A prayer leader who was also a shochet and bodek, and a treif animal was produced from under his hand—it is forbidden for him to be a prayer leader. The details of this law were explained in Yoreh Deah siman 2, as there is a distinction between one time and many times. The prayer of a tzaddik son of a tzaddik is more effective than the prayer of a tzaddik son of a rasha. They shall see to it that the prayer leader is not a fool, so that he understands the matters of the community (ibid.). A prayer leader who has physical defects, such as if his arms fell off, or he is lame in his legs, and the like, the Maharshal wrote that he may be a prayer leader. On the contrary, the Holy One, Blessed be He, uses broken vessels. But in the Zohar "Emor" it is forbidden, and "broken vessels" means that he should be of a contrite and humble spirit, and not a literal defect, see there. (Ibid. And in the Shelah it is permitted in the name of the Maharam of Rothenburg, for "a broken heart, O God, You will not despise." And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah.)

One may only appoint as a permanent shaliach tzibbur one whose beard has filled out, meaning that he has a beard, for such a person is called "a man in years." But not with less than this, for this is not the honor of the community. That is to say: it is not for the honor of Heaven that the messenger of the community should be a youth and tender in years. Therefore, even with the consent of the community—he is unable to be a permanent shaliach tzibbur (Bach and Taz, subsection 2, and see Magen Avraham, subsection 9). And on a public fast day, he must be truly old (ibid.). However, during the rest of the year we are not particular about old age; we only require that he reach the strength of a man. Therefore, even if he has no beard, such as if by nature he has no beard growth, since he has reached the age at which others like him have a full beard—he is permitted to be a permanent shaliach tzibbur. And even if there is another shaliach tzibbur, but he was appointed by the community or by the shaliach tzibbur to be his assistant to pray at known times, since they appoint him for a permanent matter—he specifically requires that his beard be filled out (see Taz, subsection 4).

And this is regarding a permanent appointment. However, occasionally to descend before the ark—it is permitted immediately once he has produced two hairs. And since he is thirteen years and one day old—he is permitted to descend before the ark occasionally, for we presume he has produced hairs, unless we know that he has not yet produced hairs, for then his law is like that of a minor. And before thirteen years, one should not have him descend before the pillar at all. And on a public fast day, we require that "his beard be full" even when he prays occasionally (ibid.). And a twenty-year-old, even when he does not have a beard, we appoint him, for it is common for his beard to be full when he is twenty. And if he had a beard, even a little, if he is from eighteen years and up—we read concerning him "his beard is full." But at less than eighteen, we require that he have many hairs in his beard. And a saris in whom the signs of a saris have appeared, some say that it is permitted to appoint him when he is twenty. And there is one who is meticulous regarding appointing a saris as a permanent shaliach tzibbur (Magen Avraham, subsection 11, in the name of the Rashal).

All of this is when it is possible to obtain a שליח ציבור whose beard has filled out. But if there is no one here who is fit to be a שליח ציבור except for one who is thirteen years and one day old, it is necessary to appoint him, for if not, everyone will be prevented from hearing קדושה and קדיש. And in this time, it is remote that this should occur. And it has already been explained that a קטן does not descend before the תיבה. Nevertheless, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10 that one should find merit for those places where they are accustomed that קטנים descend before the תיבה to pray the ערבית prayer on Saturday nights. Thus far his words – because in ערבית there is no repetition of the תפילה. And they established this custom because of the orphans, as it was explained in יורה דעה siman 376 that it is a rectification for the soul to pray before the עמוד on Saturday night. Nevertheless, the great authorities protested this, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book, see there. And also now, we have not seen this custom. This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: That in places where they were not accustomed to this – a קטן should not pass before the תיבה even for the ערבית prayer. Even if he reached thirteen years on the Sabbath day – he should not pray the ערבית of the Sabbath, for he is still not thirteen years old. Thus far his words. That is to say: that the ערבית of the Sabbath is prayed while it is still day, and he becomes בר מצוה at the beginning of the night. But when they pray after the emergence of the stars – it is permitted, for that which we say generally "thirteen years and one day," the intention is thirteen full years, that is to say: immediately after thirteen he becomes an adult (מגן אברהם sub-section 3 and ט"ז sub-section 6).

One whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, has graced with a pleasant voice—he should sing to the Holy One, Blessed be He, and with the joy of a mitzvah and not with matters of a voluntary nature, and all the more so not to sing lustful songs. And his sin is greater than can be borne. And a shliach tzibbur who lengthens his prayer so that they may hear his sweet voice, if it is because he rejoices in his heart over giving thanks to Hashem, Yitbarach, with melody—may a blessing come upon him. And this is provided that he prays with gravity, and stands in awe and in fear. But if he intends to make his voice heard, and rejoices in his voice—behold, this is disgraceful. And in any event, anyone who lengthens his prayer does not do well, because of the burden on the community. And there is much to speak regarding the matters of the chazzanim in this time, in our many iniquities, but just as it is a mitzvah to say... and it is forbidden to repeat the words.

One may not appoint as a shaliach tzibbur one who pronounces alephs as ayins, and ayins as alephs, for the pronunciation of the ayin is with more strength and depth than the aleph. However, in our lands, we are not experts in this. And likewise, he should not pronounce chets as heis, and heis as chets, and in our lands their pronunciation is not at all equal. And the poach—which is one whose clothes are torn and his arms are revealed—shall not descend before the teivah. And likewise when his feet are revealed—he shall not descend before the teivah. And it is proper that the shaliach tzibbur should have long garments, and he should enter the beit knesset first and leave last (Magen Avraham end of subsection 7 in the name of R.M.M.). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 14: A blind person may descend before the teivah. Provided that he does not read from the Torah, because of the rule: matters that are in writing—you are not permitted to say them by heart. And according to the words of the Zohar that we wrote in section 9, it is not correct for a blind person to descend before the teivah. And whether a blind person is permitted to go up to the Torah will be explained in siman 141. And it is difficult for a deaf person to be a shaliach tzibbur.

A permanent shaliach tzibbur descends before the ark on his own, and shall not wait until they tell him. But a shaliach tzibbur who is not permanent must refuse slightly before he descends before the ark. However, he shall not refuse excessively, for this is not the honor of the congregation. Rather, the first time he refuses, and when they tell him a second time, he prepares himself as if he wishes to stand. And on the third time, he shall stand. And if the one telling him to descend is a great man, he does not refuse him at all and descends immediately, for one does not refuse a great man. However, in a matter that involves authority, he shall refuse slightly even when a great man tells him, for the refusal is so that it appears that perhaps he is not worthy of it, and this is the proper conduct (see Tosafot Pesachim at the end of the seventh chapter). And sometimes even a shaliach tzibbur who is not permanent shall not refuse, such as if the shaliach tzibbur erred or became silent, and it is necessary to appoint another in his place—the one they appoint in his place shall not refuse at all, since it is in the middle of the prayer it is not proper to interrupt much. (The Gra, in subsection 24, raised a difficulty from Arachin 11b, which says there: Just as it is with a shaliach tzibbur who takes counsel, see there—behold it is explicit that even a permanent shaliach tzibbur requires taking counsel. And in my humble opinion it seems that it is not a difficulty, for Rashi explained: And he takes permission if he shall pray. Thus far his words. That is to say: if they do not tell him to pray, he must take permission, for perhaps the congregation does not wish to pray yet. But when they say to him "descend and pray," he is not to refuse at all. And proof for this: for it compares it there to "And Hezekiah spoke," see there. And he was moved on his own, not from others, and it is clear. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

The sages taught in the Mishnah in Megillah (24b): One who says, "I will not pass before the ark in colored garments" – even in white garments he shall not pass. "In a sandal I will not pass" – even barefoot he shall not pass. And the reason: for we fear lest heresy was cast into him (Gemara), as the heretics were particular about this. Therefore, even though it is possible that he said this for another reason, nevertheless we are concerned. And it is not only necessary to say when he retracts and says, "Behold, I will descend in colored garments" or "in a sandal," where there is reason to fear that originally he spoke because of heresy, and afterwards because of fear of people he retracted. Rather, even if he does not retract, and it could be said that his intention was for the sake of modesty or cleanliness, nevertheless he shall not pass (Taz, subsection 8). And since it is merely a concern – we are only concerned for that prayer alone. And even if he afterwards gives an excuse for his words as to why he said so, nevertheless he shall not descend for that prayer. But if he said the excuse together with what he said, "I will not pass in colored garments" or "in a sandal" – there is no concern in this, and he may descend for this prayer. (And see Magen Avraham, subsection 18, who wrote: Nevertheless, since the congregation requests… Thus far his words. It requires further study why the request of the congregation is needed for this, for even without this an excuse afterwards is not effective. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

A convert (in ancient times) is permitted to be a sheliach tzibbur. There are those who prevent him from this, because he cannot say "the God of our fathers." Their words were rejected, for Abraham is a father to converts, "for I have made you a father of a multitude of nations." And so it is explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi Bikkurim, first chapter, that such is the halacha; see there. A mamzer is not worthy to be a sheliach tzibbur. It also appears to me that a challal should not be a sheliach tzibbur, for anyone born from a prohibition is not fitting to be a defender, as is understood. And all the more so if the sheliach tzibbur himself commits a transgression, it is forbidden to place him before the amud. Anyone who supports such a sheliach tzibbur is a sinner and causes the public to sin, and his punishment is great in this world and the next. An accuser cannot become a defender (Or Zarua, siman 112).

Every shaliach tzibbur must stand before the amud like one standing before the King, with the tallit upon his head and not upon his shoulders. He should not make strange movements, nor should he look to the sides and certainly not behind him. He should not belch, nor yawn, nor spit, not with the mouth and certainly not with the nose. And if it is necessary for him to do so – he should do so quietly and under his tallit, and he should wipe his mouth and his nose and afterwards pray. He should see to it that he does not need to relieve himself in the middle of the prayer, for this is not the honor of the congregation. He should prepare himself beforehand for all of this. However, if despite all this he is forced to leave – he should place another in his stead and leave. And just as the law is before the amud, so too it is during the reading of the Torah.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 19 that even an individual can object and say, "I do not want so-and-so to be the chazzan," unless he had already agreed to him from the beginning. And specifically, that the individual must have a proper reason according to the seven elders of the city. But otherwise—he cannot protest against the shaliach tzibbur. And if he hates him—he can protest against him before he has agreed to him. And one who hates the shaliach tzibbur—shall not go up to the Sefer Torah when he reads the Admonition. Thus far their words. And their words require clarification: Where have we found that one can object? And even a minority, why can they object? For in the entire Torah we follow the majority.

And I found a response to this in the Or Zarua HaGadol (siman 114), who wrote: My teacher, the Rash, instructed that an individual can obstruct the appointment of a chazzan. And it is simple throughout the Rhineland that the minority obstructs the majority from appointing a sheliach tzibbur... for anyone who is appointed to be a sheliach tzibbur without a unified association—the spirit of the sages is not pleased with him... and how shall he fulfill their obligation for them when they do not consent to his prayer...? And even though he possesses all good qualities, we require that the people be consenting... and know that if an Israelite set aside his obligatory sacrifice, and a kohen came and offered it for him, and the owner of the sacrifice does not desire him, would it enter your mind that he has attained atonement...? And here too, the sheliach tzibbur must not pray except with the will of everyone... Thus far his words. And from this it has been explained that this was in the ancient times when the congregation did not pray at all, and the sheliach tzibbur would fulfill their obligation for them. Therefore, he compared it to a sacrifice, and according to this, it is well that one can obstruct and say, "It is not my will to make him an agent for me." And nevertheless, he must state a proper reason, for if not so, there is no end to the matter and he must accept him against his will. And likewise, if he already consented to him—he cannot retract it for this same reason, for if so, there is no end to the matter. And likewise, if he is his enemy—he can obstruct him beforehand but not afterward. And the sheliach tzibbur is obligated to include him in his prayer and to remove the hatred from his heart. And nevertheless, when he reads the Tochachah, if he wishes, he need not ascend. And this is the explanation of the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch.

But in this time when everyone prays by himself, and on weekdays the city's shliach tzibbur does not descend before the ark at all, and even on Shabbatot the shliach tzibbur prays only occasionally, and only on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and the festivals does the shliach tzibbur pray and his primary purpose is for melody; and many of the city's residents do not pray at all in the beit knesset where the shliach tzibbur prays; and the chazzan is obligated to sing for the groom and bride before the chuppah, and to sing "Romemut" at a brit milah, and other appointments like these—it is obvious that the individual cannot object, and even a minority of the community does not have the power to object. And when the majority of the city wants to hire a certain shliach tzibbur—the minority cannot protest against them. And they pay him from the community fund, and these individuals are also obligated to bear the burden, unless the minority clarifies that he is an unfit shliach tzibbur, for then the law is with them. (And with this you will understand the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 20. And what he wrote at the beginning of this subsection: and also in all appointments he can protest, see there—this is not according to his conclusion, and we do not rule so. And such is the opinion of the Levush. And also what he wrote in subsection 21 that the majority of the community can protest even after they agreed, see there—it is simple that this is specifically when a disqualification is found in him, or they have not yet made a contract with him, or it is after the time of the contract, or they want to pay him off until his time, as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote there. And an individual cannot protest in any case. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

One may not appoint a shaliach tzibbur through intimidation by the city leaders, even if the majority of the community desires him (see Beit Yosef for an incident regarding this). It is forbidden for a person to pray without the consent of the community. Anyone who prays by force and through intimidation – one does not answer "Amen" after his blessings. If he possesses fear of Heaven – he should flee from the amud if he sees even only individuals who do not want him. Any mitzvah that is involved in dispute – is not a mitzvah. One should not quarrel to perform a mitzvah that is not incumbent upon him, for behold, the eating of kodashim is certainly a great mitzvah, and nevertheless we learned regarding the lechem hapanim that the modest ones would withdraw their hands from the distribution if people were quarreling over it, as it is brought in Yoma (39a). And regarding this they said (Moed Katan 5a): Anyone who evaluates his ways – merits and sees the salvation of God.

If there is a choice to hire a shaliach tzibbur for a wage, and there is one for free—it is better for a wage than for free, for every mitzvah is better when one spends money on it. Furthermore: when he is for a wage, he will guard his service more. Furthermore: then another who is not fit to pray will not dare to descend before the teivah, but for free it is not so recognizable that the matter belongs to him alone. And the wage of a shaliach tzibbur is paid from the community fund. And even though in the fund there is much more from the wealthy person than from the poor person, and the shaliach tzibbur fulfills the obligation for both of them equally, and they should have also paid equally, nevertheless, the hand of the poor person does not reach as far as the hand of the wealthy person, and of necessity this one pays more and this one less. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 23: And some say that they collect half according to wealth and half according to souls. And such is the custom of the communities. Thus far his words, and this is the way of compromise. And among us this custom does not exist, and they pay permanent wages from the community fund, and the income is automatically according to wealth as is known (see Magen Avraham, subsection 27). And so it is among us in all appointments of rabbis, and dayaním, and shamashim—they pay wages from the fund, and the income is according to the value of each and every one.

In a place where there is no permanent shaliach tzibbur, or among us on weekdays when the shaliach tzibbur does not pray and whoever wishes to may pray—only one who is acceptable to the people shall pray. Therefore, even though regarding the kaddish, one whose father or mother died takes precedence, nevertheless, regarding praying before the amud, even though it is customary for mourners and those with a yahrzeit to pray before the amud, and it is a great rectification for the soul of the deceased when one prays properly, nevertheless, he has no right of precedence regarding this. This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 20: If one wishes to say the prayer for his father, and another wishes to say it for someone else, whoever the congregation wishes to say the prayer—he shall say it. Thus far his words. And so too in places where the mohel displaces the mourner from praying, if the congregation prefers the mourner—the mourner shall pray. And a yahrzeit takes precedence over a mohel if they are both equal in the eyes of the congregation (Magen Avraham, subsection 24). And among us, the custom is not that the mohel prays, but only that he chants "Vechatrot" verse by verse.

A community that cannot pray by themselves, and is forced to hire for themselves a shaliach tzibbur who will pray every day to fulfill their obligation for them – they are obligated to hire one. And they compel one another to hire a shaliach tzibbur, and even the minority compels the majority. And so too they compel one another to hire for themselves a rabbi to issue for them rulings of issur v'heter and other matters. And if they require both of these, and their hand can only reach one thing, if the rabbi is great in Torah and he is a distinguished rabbi and expert in ruling – the rabbi takes precedence. And if not – the shaliach tzibbur takes precedence, since they cannot pray by themselves. And they hire a shaliach tzibbur who will pray on their behalf every day. And among us this law is not relevant at all, and the rabbi always takes precedence (and this is the intention of the Shulchan Aruch in section 24).

One does not remove a chazzan from his profession unless a disqualification is found in him. And then he is disqualified until he returns in repentance, and it is evident to all that he has repented. And one does not remove him because of a mere rumor, such as if a report went out that he informed, or was caught with a gentile woman, and for similar things one does not concern oneself with the report until witnesses come and testify. And if the report is very strong—the beit din shall sit regarding this to ascertain the source of the report (see Magen Avraham subsection 29). And a shaliach tzibbur who is a shochet and bodek—he shall not pray in soiled and foul-smelling garments as is the way of the shochetim. And if he does not want to change his garments at the time of the prayer—they remove him. And even among people he should not walk in soiled garments. And so too a shaliach tzibbur who uses foul language or sings lewd songs—they protest against him so that he does not do so. And if he does not listen—they remove him.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 25: A shaliach tzibbur who has grown old and wishes to appoint his son to assist him occasionally, even if his son's voice is not as pleasant as his own, if he fulfills his place in other matters—his son precedes any other person, and the congregation cannot protest against him. Thus far his words. And it is brought in the Sifrei on Parashat Shoftim: "So that he may prolong his days... he and his sons in the midst of Israel"—"he and his sons," that if he dies, his son stands in his place. And I only have this alone; from where do we know regarding all leaders of Israel that their sons stand in their place? The verse teaches: "in the midst of Israel," anyone who is "in the midst of Israel"—his son stands in his place. Thus far his words. And the intention is: when his son fulfills his place. And behold, this law of our teacher, the Rema, is from a responsum of the Rashba (siman 300), and he brought at the end of his words the Sifrei that we brought as support for this. And the essence of his responsum was because the custom in those places was such that the son would fulfill the place of his father. And that they stipulated with him thus in this question there, that whomever he wishes he may take to help him, and they accepted him as the shaliach tzibbur for all the days of his life, see there. And our teacher, the Rema, did not mention anything of this, and it requires a reason.

And it appears to me that, in truth, the words of the Sifrei are not relevant at all to the hiring of a shaliach tzibbur or a rav, for the Sifrei only spoke of leaders who are appointed for honor alone. But when a community hires a shaliach tzibbur for a wage, what relevance is there to saying that his son takes precedence? For they can say: "To you we wish to give money, but not to your son." And does money have a chazakah? For behold, regarding one who pledges money to his son-in-law, and his son-in-law dies and she falls before the yavam, where the Torah decreed thus, and nevertheless we learned at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Ketubot that he can say, "To your brother I wanted to give, but to you I do not wish to give"? All the more so regarding those who make a contract with a shaliach tzibbur or a rav that they will pay him such and such per year, how can we force them to pay his son, even if he fills the place of his father? And certainly if the contract is for such and such years. Therefore, the Rashba only granted this to the shaliach tzibbur by virtue of their custom, as I have written. And as a mere support, he cited from the Sifrei.

Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, did not write this law, that his son takes precedence when the father dies. And only in this did he rule: when they appointed him for all the days of his life, or even if they appointed him for a time but such is the custom of the world that they do not remove him at the conclusion of the time, and it is like a permanent hiring. And automatically it is as if they stipulated that when he requires assistance, in the manner of people who age or become ill occasionally, that he may take for himself help according to his will. And now, automatically, his son takes precedence when he is fit for it. But when he dies—certainly the public is not obligated to accept the son, unless they desire and choose him now, and not because of inheritance. (See Magen Avraham subsection 33. And examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And regarding the appointment of a rabbinate, aside from the reason that has been explained, inheritance does not apply to the Torah. Therefore, we find among our sages, of blessed memory, that one who was an Exilarch—his son did not inherit from him, as we find with the Pairs in the first chapter of Avot. And so too with the sages of the Gemara, such as Rav Huna who was Exilarch and after him was Rav Hisda, even though Rav Huna had a son, Rabbah bar Rav Huna, and many similar cases. And that which from Hillel onwards they inherited the Nasi-ship—they did so as an enactment for the establishment of the Torah because of Herod and his faction (see Magen Avraham ibid.). However, if the son truly fills the place of his father—it is proper for the people of the city to establish him in the place of his father, and so it is proper for the seed of Abraham.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 26: A community that has the custom to appoint people over the needs of the public for a set time, and when the time arrives these depart and others enter in their place; whether for a chazzan, or for the charity fund, or for other appointments necessary for the public; whether they receive a wage for them or whether they do not receive; even if they did not set a time for them—their unspecified status is like their explicit status, since they have conducted themselves thus. Thus far his words, and it is simple. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there is one who wrote that a shaliach tzibbur should pray from a book designated for the public, for it was certainly written for his sake. Thus far his words. And now that they pray from printed siddurim—this is not applicable.

And know that the shaliach tzibbur mentioned in the Gemara was appointed for all the needs of the city, as Rashi wrote in Chullin (24b). And he would pray every day Shacharit, Mincha, and Arvit to fulfill the obligation of the many. And the title "chazzan" we find in the Mishnayot regarding several matters: In the Mishnah in the first chapter of Shabbat (Mishnah 3), the Bartenura explained "chazzan" – a teacher of children. And in Makkot, the third chapter (Mishnah 12), he explained: an attendant, a shaliach beit din. And in Tamid, the fifth chapter (Mishnah 3), he also explained attendants, see there. And the Aruch, in the entry "chazzan," explained: "chazzan" – a shaliach tzibbur, and it is an expression of "chozeh" (one who sees), for he must see how he will read from the Torah. And now the title "chazzan" and shaliach tzibbur are one and the same, and he is only appointed to pray and to sing on certain Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim, and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. And all the people pray each one for himself, and we do not require that they fulfill our obligations for us. Therefore, the precision regarding them is not so great. Nevertheless, it is an obligation that he be God-fearing, and if not – his prayer is an abomination and arouses accusations, may the Merciful One save us.