[Avodah] Tefila Over Loudspeakers At a Big Gatherings

[Chana Luntz]

RYL writes:

>  From http://revach.net/article.php?id=2181
> 
> Rav Shlomo Zalman says that hearing something through an electronic
> device such as loudspeaker or telephone is not considered hearing in
> Halacha.  The reason is that you are not hearing a person's voice
> rather you are listening to an electronic simulation of it.
> Technically you cannot be yotzei any bracha or even answer amen.
> 
> If so during large gatherings where a microphone is used by the
> Chazan, how could people answer amen?  Rav Shlomo Zalman explains
> that the shul in Alexandria, Mitzrayim was so large that people could
> not hear the Chazan.  They set up a flag system where people would
> answer upon seeing the different flags being waived and this way
> would be able to participate in the tefila and they answered amen
> even if they didn't actually hear.
> 
> Similarly he says if you are standing in a minyan and cannot hear the
> chazzan, but only know that amen is being said because you hear it on
> the speaker system, then you may answer amen together with the
> Tzibbur.  Not because you are answering to the loudspeaker but rather
> because you are part of a minyan.  Although you do not technically
> hear what they are saying, the loudspeaker indicates this to
> you.  However if you are not standing in the presence of the minyan
> you may not answer. (Halichos Shlomo, Tefila 22:15)

Assuming that this teshuva is quoted correctly, then Rav Ovadiah Yosef would
seem to disagree with RSZA in various respects (the reason why I say would
seem, is that Rav Ovadiah seems to understand RSZA as agreeing with him (see
the end of Yachave Daat chelek 2 siman 68 - although it is possible that
this reference is only to the part about not fulfilling ones' obligation via
gramphone)).

In Yachave Daat chelek 2 siman 68 ROY has a teshuva as to whether, if you
hear slichos and the 13 midos over the radio "live" ie in real time, you
should answer amen and say the 13 midos with the tzibbur.  He holds that you
should, and that this is different from hearing them on a "gramophone" (or
CD), as in the latter case the koach of the person making and who is
obligated in the bracha has already ceased.  Similarly one should answer
amen to a bracha heard of the telephone, since again it is in real time.

On the other hand, he holds that one cannot fulfil one's obligation to hear
megila or be patur from a bracha by way of shomea k'oneh by hearing it over
the telephone or radio (even if live).

Note however that the Yalkut Yosef (chelek 5 dinei kriyat megila oit 11)
adds that if one is in a shul where there is a great gathering to hear the
megilla, they can hear the megilla by way of microphone (ram kol) if and
only if, if they took away the microphone, everybody would still be able to
hear the shaliach tzibur.  But if, without the microphone, it would not be
possible for everybody to hear the megilla, then they cannot hear the
megilla using a microphone.  In oit 9 the Yalkut Yosef discusses somebody
who need a hearing aid to hear the megilla, ruling that such a person does
not fall within the category of cheresh (ie he is obligated in hearing the
megilla), that he can hear the megila by means of his hearing aid and fulfil
his obligation, and indeed that such a person can read and exempt others.

Going back to the teshuva in Yachave Daat, ROY provides as the basis for
this position the statement in Sukkah 38b that even if there is a mechitza
shel barzel it does not create a hefsek between Yisrael and Hashem and the
Tosphos in Rosh Hashana 27b and Pesachim 85b that this means even a mechitza
shel barzel does not prevent one from answering amen and to kaddish and
kedusha with the tzibur.  He then quotes the Shulchan Aruch in siman 55
si'if 2 that if there are ten men in one place and they say kaddish and
kedusha even one who does not stand with them is able to answer amen, and
there are those who say (yesh omrim) that there needs to be that there is no
hefsek of a substance that is not clean or avodah zara.

ROY then discusses whether this yesh omrim can be understood to be arguing
with the stam, or adding to it (if arguing, then the stam will prevail as
the halacha, if adding, then this caveat applies).  He then discusses the
argument that, if somebody hears a bracha over the telephone, there must be
somewhere between the person talking and the person answering a substance
that is not clean, and therefore a person cannot answer amen, but concludes
that so long as this substance cannot be seen, the fact that the telephone
wire or radio wave might go over something that is not clean does not
matter.

He does bring the case of the flag waiving in Alexandria (Sukkah 51b) and
the Tosphos there and in Brochos 47a that this was only not considered an
orphan amen because the bracha which was being answered was known (and the
Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 124 si'if 8)- but points out that over any
telephone or radio, the bracha being answered is known.  He brings, inter
alia, Rav Ya'akov Moshe Toledano, in Shut HaYam HaGadol who holds that if
the one making the bracha intends to exempt the listener, the listener can
be exempt via the telephone or radio (although not via a gramophone, as that
is not in real time), but ROY himself disagrees, holding only that one is
required to answer amen to a telephone or live radio bracha, but cannot
thereby be exempt himself, as the listener does not in fact hear the bracha
from the mouth of the bar chiyuva, but only via the vibrations or radio
waves.

There is no requirement in the teshuva for there to be a minyan present to
answer amen, kaddish and kedusha (indeed ROY seems to be contemplating
somebody listening to a radio broadcast from the privacy of his house),
disagreeing with the position set out in the name of RYZA, although the
teshuva above does seem consistent with the position brought in the Yachave
Daat and the Yalkut Yosef regarding being exempt from obligation (as against
that of Rav Toledano).

Regards

Chana