[Avodah] Prayers That The Tzibbur Does Not Say -- Sources

[Jay F. Shachter]

>
>> 
>> ... Thus, if there is a local glut of unmarried people, and the
>> tzibbur needs shiddukhim, the shliax tzibbur may not insert a
>> prayer for shiddukhim in the repetition of the `Amidah....
>>
>
> Perhaps such a halacha exists, but I have not heard of it.  Do you
> have a source?  I wonder what the reason would be for such a
> prohibition.
> 
> To keep the conversation going, I'll suggest another scenario,
> similar to those you've mentioned.  Suppose a great leader (a Rosh
> Yeshiva, or a chassidic Rebbe, for example) is very ill.  The
> community arranges a big event, to encourage great throngs to come
> and pray for the leader's health.  There are many tehillim recited,
> many speeches given, and many tears shed.  Then the entire crowd
> unites to daven mincha together.  When the shliax tzibbur recites
> Xazaras Hashatz, can he add a tefila for the leader's health, either
> in Refa'einu or in Shema Kolenu?  If not, why not?
> 

This is not going to be a satisfactory answer, but one reason for
thinking that it cannot be done, is that it is not done.  The scenario
that you described above happens frequently: the community arranges a
big event, many Psalms are recited, many speeches are given, there is
communal prayer -- and the shliax tzibbur adds nothing to the
repetition of the `Amida.  I have seen it happen, you have seen it
happen.

This is not an entirely satisfactory answer, because there are plenty
of explicitly permitted practices, that are not practiced.  Thus, that
something is not done, does not necessarily imply that it cannot be
done.  For example, there is an undisputed halakha of "pores mappah
umqaddesh", which would have been the ideal way to fulfil the mitzva
of s`udath Purim last week, but I have never seen it done, or ever
heard of it done, outside of Jerusalem, which is allowed to have her
own customs.  The alternative of having a s`udath Purim without wine,
early in the day, is not the ideal way of fulfilling the mitzva.  The
other alternative of having a s`udath Purim with wine, either before
or during working hours, is allowed only if you are unemployed, or
self-employed, or if Purim does not fall on a working day; otherwise
it is theft, and it is a serious sin.  The alternative of having a
s`udath Purim after working hours is not permitted on a Friday, even
if you live in the Diego Ramirez Islands where sunset is late, unless
you are pores mappah umqaddesh, because otherwise you are having your
s`udath Purim too close to your s`udath Shabbath.  And yet, I have
never heard of anyone doing it, outside of Jerusalem.  So, the fact
that something is never done -- even when you think that it would and
should be done, if it were permissible -- does not necessary mean that
it is not permissible.

So, let us look for an answer in the Shulxan `Arukh.  Orax Xayyim
119:1 is the first place where it explicitly says that an individual
(even when not offering a tefillath n'dava, vide infra) is allowed to
insert personal requests in the silent `Amida, although there are
earlier allusions to this halakha in 90:15 and 101:4.  The halakha
makes a point of mentioning, incidentally, that you must phrase your
request in the singular, because it is a personal request.  Now, let
us assume, arguendo, that the shliax tzibbur is permitted to insert
communal requests, in the repetition of the `Amida.  One would think,
that just as there is a halakha in 119:1 explicitly permitting an
individual to do such a thing, there would be a parallel halakha a few
simanim later, permitting the shliax tzibbur to do such a thing, but
there is no such a halakha.  Now, of course, the absence of a halakha
permitting something does not, in general, mean that it is forbidden;
but the author of the Shulxan `Arukh did think, for some reason, that
there was a need, in this case, for a halakha permitting it to an
individual; I would expect, therefore, that for the same reason --
whatever that reason might be -- there would be a need for a parallel
halakha permitting it to the shliax tzibbur, if it were permitted.
Moreover, the halakha in 107:2 is that an individual who offers an
entirely voluntary prayer, which we call a tefillath n'dava, is
obliged to add a personal request in his or her `Amida; and I assume
that this is the reason why you are not allowed to offer a tefillath
n'dava on Shabbath or Yom Tov, because you are not allowed to add
personal requests to the `Amida on Shabbath or Yom Tov.  107:3 states
that the tzibbur is not allowed -- is never allowed -- to offer a
tefillath n'dava, and I assume that it is for the same reason, that
the tzibbur is not allowed to add additional requests to the `Amida.

A more thorough answer would discuss other sources -- or at least the
Beyth Yosef, since I am making inferences from what is not mentioned
in the Shulxan `Arukh -- but I presently lack the time (and perhaps
the skill, although that may just be my saintly modesty speaking), to
put any more time into a more thorough and better-researched answer.
Hopefully, someone who has time to research this question more
properly will find it interesting -- because I think it is -- and
continue the conversation.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                jay at m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"