R' Danny Schoemann wrote:
> The Be'er Heitev brings the SKNH"K (who's that?) in the name of
> the Rokeach that "if there are other seforim they have the din
> of a ST, and that's what we rely on nowadays."

I suggested that a siddur should suffice for this, since it includes 
Shema, laining, lots of mishnayos, and other items which one might 
learn. (I had meant to add that if a siddur really does suffice, then 
davening by heart would be a situation where the nefilas apayim is 
omitted.)

R' Zev Sero responded:
> And yet the Baer Hetev, by whose time printed siddurim were
> already ubiquitous, didn't draw this obvious conclusion. Nor
> did any of the later authorities who quoted him. Therefore
> it seems obvious that even according to the Shirei Knesset
> Hagedolah one needs something more than a siddur. Just what,
> isn't clear.

History is not my strong point, so for the sake of argument, I'll 
accept your point that "printed siddurim were already ubiquitous". 
But for this to make sense in context, you'd have to say that printed 
*Chumashim* were not similarly ubiquitous. Or at least, it would not 
be ubiquitous for one to have a siddur in his hand, but not a chumash 
in the same room.

Anyone want to comment? How common might it have been to have a shul 
with siddurim, but no Torah and no Chumashim? Or let's talk about 
someone davening at home. I know that the typical person of a few 
centuries ago did not have as many seforim as we have today, but was 
it nothing more than a siddur? No Chumash?

(For this discussion, I'm willing to put a Tehillim in the same 
category as a Siddur, but I have great difficulty accepting the 
suggestion which was made on these pages, that only a Gemara would 
count, as if to say that a Gemara has more Kedusha than a Chumash.)

Akiva Miller