Siman 66

We learned at the beginning of the second chapter of Berakhot that in the middle of a section, one may greet out of fear and respond out of honor, and between sections, one may greet out of honor and respond with "shalom" to any person. That is to say: when one stands in the middle of the blessing of "Yotzer" or "Ahavah Rabbah," or in the middle of a paragraph of Keriat Shema, or in the middle of a blessing after Keriat Shema, and a man whom he is obligated to honor passes before him, nevertheless, he does not greet him. Rather, if this man greeted him—he responds with "shalom." But if a man whom it is appropriate to fear passes before him, then it is permitted even to greet him, and all the more so to respond. But between sections, such as between "Yotzer" and "Ahavah Rabbah," and between "Ahavah" and "Shema," and between "Shema" and "Vehayah Im Shamoa," and between "Vehayah" and "Vayomer"—he may greet even just a man whom he is obligated to honor, but to respond is permitted to any person. And there is a dispute as to who is called "out of honor" and who is "out of fear."

And behold, Rashi explained "out of respect" – a distinguished person to whom it is proper to initiate a greeting. And "out of fear" – this is a person of whom one is afraid lest they kill him. And the Rambam, in the Commentary on the Mishnah and in his work, explained "out of fear" like Rashi. However, regarding "out of respect," he explained: a man whom one is obligated to honor, such as his father or his teacher, see there. And the Rosh and the Rashba raised an objection against their explanation of "out of fear," for if there is a concern of killing, it is obvious, and what is this teaching us? For there is nothing that stands before the preservation of life. Therefore, regarding "out of fear," they explained it as, for example, his father or his teacher whom he is obligated to fear, and regarding "out of respect," they explained it as a distinguished person like Rashi. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 1, see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, added to include in "out of fear" one who is greater than him in wisdom, see there. And this is a puzzling matter, for the Rashba wrote explicitly that this is included in "out of respect," unless his intention was the preeminent leader of the generation. For so wrote the Terumat HaDeshen (siman 135) that one must fear a leader who is exceptionally great in wisdom (see Magen Avraham subsection 2).

And there are some of the great authorities who agreed specifically with Rashi and the Rambam in his explanation of "out of fear." And the intention is not that he will certainly kill him, and on the contrary, it is unlikely that he would kill him because of this. And as we find the incident of a certain pious man with the governor (32b), see there. Rather, there is some remote concern, and therefore they truly permitted him even to interrupt in the middle of the paragraph and even to inquire after his welfare. But for his father or his teacher, it is a wonder to interrupt in the middle of the paragraph, and as we find in the Midrash that Jacob did not interrupt when he encountered Joseph because he was reciting Kriat Shema, and Joseph was a king. And only to return a greeting is permitted (Bach and Taz, subsection 1). And in the explanation of "out of honor," everyone agreed with the explanation of Rashi. (And I wonder that the commentators did not notice that there is a difference between Rashi and the Rambam regarding "out of honor." And only the Eliyah Rabbah noticed this, see there. However, everyone agreed with the explanation of Rashi.)

And know that regarding this which was permitted to interrupt even in the middle of the chapter to inquire out of fear and to respond out of honor, however, in the middle of "Shema Yisrael" or in the middle of "Baruch shem..." – one may not interrupt under any circumstances unless he fears the concern of being killed. And some say further that in the middle of any verse one should not interrupt, as it is easy to finish it without objection. And if he did interrupt – he returns to the beginning of the verse (see Magen Avraham subsection 3). And it should also be known that in a place where it is permitted to interrupt – it is permitted even in a secular language. And in a place where it is forbidden – even in the holy tongue (ibid. subsection 1). And there are some of the great authorities who wrote further that nowadays we have not seen anyone who is particular about this at all, and therefore we do not even have to respond with a greeting. And this is not our way even to his father or his teacher, and even between the chapters one should not interrupt (ibid. in the name of the Chinuch), and on the contrary, now one who interrupts is considered light-minded. And behold, we see even a minister, when he comes to a Jewish home and finds him praying – he will not speak with him, and will wait until he finishes his prayer. Therefore, now every type of interruption is forbidden until the conclusion of the prayer, and such is the simple custom and it is not to be changed. And when they ask questions of forbidden and permitted to the teacher – he may answer between chapter and chapter. But when the questioner is a person of understanding – he waits until he finishes the prayer. And so it is proper to do unless the matter is urgent for the moment, for then it is a mitzvah to ask even in the middle of the prayer, and the teacher interrupts between chapter and chapter and responds to the questioner.

If one did not have a tallit and tefillin when he began to pray or forgot to don them, and in the middle of the prayer the tallit and tefillin arrived or he remembered them, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 2 that he may interrupt between the sections to don them, and he shall recite the blessing over them. The reason is simple: since he is obligated to don them, it follows that he recites the blessing over them. For it is no worse than one who greets out of respect, and the blessing is the respect of the mitzvah. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And some say that he should not recite the blessing over them until after the prayer, and such is the custom regarding the tallit. Thus far his words. That is to say: those who hold "some say" reason that since he can recite the blessing afterward, why should he interrupt? But this is not a correct reason, and the author of this opinion himself recanted (see Beit Yosef in Bedek HaBayit) for the reason we explained. And only regarding the tallit should this opinion be upheld, for since a tallit is not an obligation for prayer, it is not proper that its blessing should override the prohibition of interruption. But tefillin, which are an obligation—certainly their blessing overrides, for it is like "out of respect." (See Magen Avraham subsection 4. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

For Kaddish, Kedushah, and Barechu, one interrupts even in the middle of a verse. For if one interrupts for the honor of flesh and blood, how much more so for the honor of Heaven. And this is like one who responds rather than one who asks, for since everyone is responding to the sheliach tzibbur the praise of the Holy One, Blessed be He—he is also compelled to respond. Therefore, even if he heard the sound of thunder or saw lightning, he is obligated to recite the blessing even in the middle of a verse for the reason that has been explained (Magen Avraham, subsection 5), for this is also like one who responds and not like one who asks. And similarly, one interrupts for Modim, but he should only say "Modim anachnu lach" and no more. For the rest is nothing but supplications, and one does not interrupt for them. And similarly in Kaddish, he should only answer "Amen! Yehei shmei raba" until "yitbarak." And the other amens in Kaddish he should not answer, as they are not of the essence of the Kaddish. Only the amen after "da'amiran be'alma" should he answer, as this is of the essence of the Kaddish. And also in Kedushah, some say that he should only answer "Kadosh" and "Baruch," and not "Yimloch," as this is not of the essence of the Kedushah. And so it implies in the Tosefta. And some say that he should also answer "Yimloch." And there is no definitive ruling on this, and he may do as he wishes. However, it is certain that he should not say "Nekadesh" or "Nakdishach" or "Keter" at all, and should only begin from "Kadosh." And similarly on Shabbat and Yom Tov when they add "Az bekol," "Mimmekomcha," and in Musaf "Kevodo malei olam," "Mimmekomo...", and "Shema Yisrael"—he should not answer, as they are not of the essence of the Kedushah. But "Shema Yisrael" seems to me that he should answer, since everyone is accepting upon themselves the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. And he should answer until "Echad." However, according to the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, which we cited in siman 65, section 1, he should not interrupt; see there.

And so too regarding the reading of the Torah, when the one called up says "Barchu," he should answer "Baruch Hashem ha-mevorach le-olam va-ed," but "Amen" he should not answer. And so too, any type of "Amen" is forbidden to answer. And even though it is the honor of Heaven to answer "Amen," nevertheless, he too is occupied with the honor of Heaven. And only for matters that contain the sanctity of the Name which are not said except in a minyan, such as Kaddish and Kedushah, and "Barchu" and "Modim," is he obligated to interrupt and sanctify Him, may He be blessed, with everyone, but not for Amens. And nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3, and this is his wording: And so too for "Barchu," he should not say "Yitbarach ve-yishtabach…". And there are those who say that the "Amen" answered after the blessing of "ha-El ha-kadosh" and after "Shome'a tefillah" has the status of Kedushah, and he may answer them during Kriat Shema. And such is the primary view. And for all these matters, one interrupts even more so when saying Tachanunim. Thus far his words, meaning: the Tachanunim after Shemoneh Esreh.

It is not known to us how these two amens are different. Some say because they are the conclusion of a matter: the end of the first three and the end of the middle blessings (Magen Avraham and Taz). And in truth, one should also answer "amen" to "Who blesses His people..." (ibid.). But it is not understood: what of it? For this is not a matter of kedushah such that we would say it is specifically in ten. And granted that the "amen" of "the holy God" we can say is included in the kedushah, however, the "amen" of "Who hears prayer" certainly has no connection to kedushah. And regarding that which they brought from the Yerushalmi, chapter "Tefillat HaShachar," that these two amens are more of an obligation to answer, nevertheless, this is no reason for an interruption in a place where it is forbidden to interrupt. And from the words of our teacher, the Rema, it is clear that these have the law of kedushah, and it is not understood at all. And in truth, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, disagrees on this, see there. And it appears that his reason is because this is a general praise—that He is holy and hears the prayer of every mouth—it somewhat resembles the sanctification of the Name, and is not similar to all the amens of the private blessings. (And know that the Magen Avraham in subsection 6 wrote: And for the blessing of the Torah he answers "Blessed is Hashem..." and also "amen." Thus far his words. And the Levushei Serad explained that this refers to the "amen" after "Blessed is Hashem...". And I wonder: for it is not explained anywhere that one should answer "amen" after "Blessed is Hashem Who is blessed." And I recall that I saw this explicitly in some early authority, and also we do not answer this "amen" at all. Therefore, it appears that the intention of the Magen Avraham is the "amen" after "Giver of the Torah." And the reason: since he interrupted for "Blessed is Hashem Who is blessed," he may interrupt at the same time also for this "amen." And there is a support for this from Zevachim 32b: since it was permitted for his tzara'at, it was permitted for his nocturnal emission, see there. And nevertheless, even this requires further study.)

A kohen who was reciting Keriat Shema and they called him to ascend to the Torah, there is one who says that he interrupts and ascends. And there is one who says that he does not interrupt, and another shall ascend in his place. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4 decided according to this opinion, which is the opinion of the Rashba, and he does not interrupt. However, some of the great Acharonim wrote that the custom is to interrupt (Levush and Magen Avraham, subsection 8). Only he should not read along with the reader, and certainly he should not say to perform a "Mi Shebeirach" (ibid.). And there is one who decided that during Keriat Shema he should not ascend, but during the blessings of Keriat Shema he should ascend (Taz, subsection 5). And know that it is not specifically a kohen, for the same law applies to a Levi and a Yisrael (see Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 7). And it appears to me that if there is no other kohen in the beit knesset, it is simple that he should ascend, and likewise a Levi if there is no other Levi. And it is simple that all of this is when he stands in the middle of a section. But between sections—he certainly ascends. Therefore, if it is in his power to finish the section while walking—he should do so. And between Geulah and Tefillah he should not ascend in any manner. And we are accustomed to interrupt and ascend according to the opinion of the great Acharonim. And it appears he should descend immediately after the second blessing. And even though the one who ascends is accustomed to wait until after the reading of the one who ascends after him, here, where he stands in the middle of a section, he should descend immediately. And it has already been explained in siman 65 that even if he interrupted a great interruption such that he could have finished all of it, nevertheless he does not return to the beginning but rather to the place where he stands, for this is not called "ones," see there (Magen Avraham ibid.).

We have already explained what are "between the sections." And these are they: between the blessing of "Yotzer" and "Ahava," between "Ahava" and "Shema," between "Shema" and "Ve-haya im shamoa," between "Ve-haya" and "Vayomer." But between "Vayomer" and "Emet Ve-yatziv" one may not interrupt, so as not to interrupt between "Hashem [your God]" and "Emet," as it is written: "And Hashem God is Truth." Rather, he should finish "Emet," and then its law will be as if he is in the middle of the section. And we wonder why the poskim did not mention that in "Yotzer" after the Kedusha it is like the beginning of the blessing, as I wrote at the end of siman 59 regarding the matter that the second person only begins from there, based on the reasoning of the Yerushalmi that here it is like the beginning of the blessing; and if so, its law should be like between one section and another. And it must be said that only regarding the law there is it considered like the beginning of the blessing, but not regarding interruption. And the proof: for behold, we learned in the Mishnah: "And these are between the sections: between the first blessing and the second" – which implies explicitly that before this there is no "between the sections." However, from the wording of the Yerushalmi in the chapter "Ein Omdin," it implies explicitly that from "La-el Baruch" it is literally like the beginning of the blessing, see there. And it requires further study.

An individual, when he has finished "emet" and waited for the chazzan until he finishes, even if he lingered for a long time, nevertheless he should not begin afterward from "emet" but rather from "veyatziv." And similarly, when he interrupts after "emet" for matters that one may interrupt for in the middle of a section, as has been explained, he should not begin afterward with "emet" but rather "veyatziv." For it is forbidden to say "emet" twice one after the other. And there is one who wishes to say that he should also say "veyatziv" with "emet," because it is also a term for "emet" in Aramaic. But the custom is not so. (See Magen Avraham, katan 9. And know that in "Ezrat" we say "emet" twice: "Emet atah hu adon...", "Emet atah hu rishon...". And this is not like saying "emet" twice since there is an interruption of other words. And according to Zohar Vayakhel page 217a, one should say "emet" four times, and such is the custom of the Sephardim. And the chazzanim who sing "emet emet" several times—it is a great sin.)

It is stated in Pesachim (117b): In Keriat Shema "ga'al Yisrael," which is in the past tense, and in the prayer "go'el Yisrael," which is for the future. And the great authorities have already wondered why the sheliach tzibbur concludes in the Maariv of Yom Tov "King, Rock of Israel and its Redeemer [ve-go'alo]," which is against the Gemara (Taz subsection 6, and Bach and Magen Avraham at the beginning of siman 236). And there is one who answered that specifically the redemption of Shacharit refers only to the past, but that of Maariv refers also to the future (Magen Avraham ibid.). And there is one who answered that "go'el" is also a present tense, and every present tense serves also for the past (Taz ibid.). And there is one who says that it is good to say "ve-ga'alo" without a vav after the gimmel, and it is a past tense (Bach ibid.). And all of them are forced. And there are some of the great authorities who established the practice that the sheliach tzibbur concludes "ga'al Yisrael" as in the rest of the year, and so we practice. And why should we enter into forced breaches?

Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote at the beginning of the second chapter of Berakhot that our teacher, Tam, was accustomed to wait at "Oseh Feleh" in order to answer Kaddish and Kedushah with the congregation; see there. It is evident that he holds that between Geulah and Tefillah is more stringent than in the middle of a chapter, and it is like the Tefillah itself, where one may not interrupt for anything. So too wrote the Mordekhai there in the name of the Raviah, that it is forbidden to interrupt for Kaddish and Kedushah after "Ga'al Yisrael" of Shacharit; see there. So too wrote the Maharik (Shoresh 42), and so too wrote the author of Terumat HaDeshen (Siman 12). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled accordingly in his great work; see there. Even though the Rokeach wrote that one should answer Kaddish, Kedushah, and "Barchu" after "Ga'al Yisrael" (Rokeach Siman 321), nevertheless, the halacha follows the many. Therefore, one standing there in prayer who sees that the congregation will immediately say Kaddish, Kedushah, or "Barchu" should wait at "Shirah Chadashah" or at "Tzur Yisrael." It is better to wait at "Tehillot Le'El Elyon," for there they stand according to the Zohar. And know that one must say "Lamelekh El Chai VeKayyam" with a kamatz, and likewise "Tehillot La'El Elyon," the lamed is with a kamatz (Pri Etz Chaim).

And regarding the matter of answering "amen" to "ga'al Yisrael," there is a dispute: For the Tur wrote that even when one prays by himself he answers "amen," see there. For he holds that one must answer "amen" after his own blessing when it is at the end of a subject. But our custom is not so, except after the blessing of "boneh Yerushalayim" in birkat hamazon. And according to this, it would seem not to answer "amen" after the shaliach tzibbur finishes "ga'al Yisrael." And it is an a fortiori argument from kedushah, that one does not interrupt, as I have written. And such is the opinion of the Zohar, not to answer "amen," and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled accordingly in section 7. But our teacher, the Rema, wrote there that some say one answers "amen" after the shaliach tzibbur and not after his own blessing. And it must be said that he holds that this is preferable to kedushah, because it is an obligation of the blessing itself, for just as he says the blessing, so too he answers "amen" to the blessing of the shaliach tzibbur as with all blessings, and this is not called an interruption. Nevertheless, our custom is not so. (And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 10, that the Re'em disagrees in this. And so wrote the Shelah, that one should not answer "amen" after the shaliach tzibbur. And the Maggid warned the Beit Yosef not to answer.)

And know that there is one who wrote in this wording: And those who are meticulous wait at "Tzur Yisrael" in order to answer "amen." And in section 9 it implies that one should wait at "Shira Chadasha." And it seems to me that if he wishes, he can intend to finish together with the shliach tzibbur, and then he is not obligated to answer "amen." Thus far his words (Magen Avraham subsection 11). And behold, that which he wrote to finish together with the shliach tzibbur is well-settled, for even though in siman 59 there is one who disagrees regarding this, and holds that if he finished together with the shliach tzibbur simultaneously he answers "amen," nevertheless regarding the "amen" of "Ga'al Yisrael" he certainly should not answer. And also regarding all "amens" we hold thus as the law, as I wrote there. However, that which he wrote to wait at "Tzur Yisrael" or at "Shira Chadasha" in order to answer "amen" – these are puzzling words, for behold, in the middle of the section it is forbidden to answer "amen" except for the "amen" of "Ha-El HaKadosh" and "Shome'a Tefilla," as has been explained. And that which he brought from section 9 – that is regarding Kaddish and Kedusha as is explained in the Shulchan Aruch there, and not for the answering of "amen." Therefore, this law is not so. (And also the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 13 and the Pri Megadim wondered about him, see there.) And perhaps on Shabbat and Yom Tov, where there is an opinion that holds that one does not need to join geulah to tefilla, as I wrote below in siman 111, it is possible there is room to permit answering "amen" after "Ga'al Yisrael" if he finished the beracha before the shliach tzibbur. But in the middle, it is certainly forbidden. And know that there is one who says that the waiting to answer Kedusha is only before "Shira Chadasha" and not afterward (Eliyah Rabbah). And I do not know the distinction in this. And perhaps according to Nusach Sefard, where they do not say "Tzur Yisrael" but rather "Venemar Go'alenu..." it is well-settled, because afterward there is no further continuation, as is understood. But for Nusach Ashkenaz, where they say "Tzur Yisrael," behold there is more prayer, and there is no distinction between before "Shira Chadasha" and afterward.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: One must join redemption to prayer. One should not interrupt after saying "Ga'al Yisrael" unless an unavoidable circumstance occurred, such as if he had not donned tefillin and they became available to him between redemption and prayer—he dons them then, but shall not recite the blessing over them until after he prays. However, he should not don a tallit then. And if before he said "Ga'al Yisrael" a tallit and tefillin became available to him—he dons them, but shall not recite the blessing over them until after prayer. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And there are those who say that before "Ga'al Yisrael" he should recite the blessing over the tefillin, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And his words are perplexing: for in section 2 regarding "between the sections" he brought those who say not to recite the blessing over the tefillin. And here, in the middle of the section before "Ga'al Yisrael," he brought those who say he should recite the blessing. The Levush indeed omitted this gloss. However, the custom that he wrote fits well, for there he wrote the custom that over the tallit one should not recite the blessing but over the tefillin he should recite the blessing, and here it concerns tefillin. And it appears that he holds that any absolute obligation that comes at the time of the act as an obligation from its own side, such as the "Amen" of "Ga'al Yisrael," and the blessing of tefillin that comes to him in its time—he is permitted to interrupt. But nevertheless, our custom is not so, and we do not recite the blessing over the tefillin, nor "Amen" of "Ga'al Yisrael."

And how is it found that one would pray without tefillin? For example, if an unavoidable circumstance occurred and the time for the recitation of Shema will pass—he is compelled to recite without tefillin. And when he sees that the time for prayer will pass—he should pray even without tefillin (Magen Avraham subsection 12). And one who does not have tefillin at the time the congregation is praying—it is better that he pray in private when he will have tefillin, for prayer with tefillin is preferable to prayer with a congregation (ibid.), provided that the time does not pass. But for a tallit, one should not wait at all, and he should pray with the congregation without a tallit. And it has already been explained in siman 62 that anyone who did not say "Emet Veyatziv" in the morning and "Emet Ve'emunah" in the evening—has not fulfilled the obligation of the blessings. And also the recitation of Shema is not with the splendor of the enactment of the sages, see there. And the Tur wrote in the name of the Yerushalmi: One must mention in "Emet Veyatziv" the Exodus from Egypt, and Sovereignty, and the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, and the plague of the firstborn. And it appears that this is indispensable, and so it is implied from the Rashba (11, see there). And also in the evening service we mention all of this. And one should deliberate on this, whether all of these are indispensable post facto.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 10: One who is under duress and pressed, and does not have time to pray immediately after the recitation of Shema – he should recite the recitation of Shema until "emet," and wait to say the rest of the blessing until he prays, at which time he shall say "veyatziv venachon..." and pray, so that he may join redemption to prayer. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: For example, if he stood to pray with the intention of finishing the entire prayer, and upon reaching the recitation of Shema a matter of duress occurred where he is forced to interrupt – he should interrupt at "veyatziv," and not afterward. But if he knows beforehand that he will not be able to pray the entire prayer, and he fears that the time for the recitation of Shema will pass – he should recite the recitation of Shema without blessings, and afterward he should recite the recitation of Shema with the blessings and pray. (And with this, the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 15, is settled well, and so wrote the Pri Megadim.)