What is the exact meaning of amen and where does the word come from?
David H.
(Via E-Mail)
Last week we mentioned that Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef, the Rishon LeZion (Yalkut Yosef), rules that hearing a blessing over the phone, live broadcast, or loudspeaker obligates one to respond amen; however, one does not discharge one’s own obligation via shome’a k’oneh. He referred to the Gemara (Sukka 51b) that discusses the large synagogue in Alexandria, Egypt where the assemblage was so enormous that people could not hear the chazzan and had to watch a man in the center wave a flag to know when to say amen. We discussed the problem with this arrangement and cited Tosafot who explained that it was only used for keriat haTorah, which some maintain is a congregational obligation, not an individual one.
* * * * *
Rabbi Yosef, citing a view cited by the Mechaber (Orach Chayim 51:20), introduces a difficulty regarding saying amen to a blessing heard live over the radio or telephone. There are restrooms and other physically (and/or ritually) unclean places in between the point of broadcast and the home of the listener, which constitute a hefsek, and thus one shouldn’t be allowed to say amen. Machatzit HaShekel (ad loc.) adds that a place of idol worship between one’s house and the place from where a blessing is recited also constitutes a hefsek.
However, he cites Rabbi Moshe Sofer (Responsa Pnei Meivin, Orach Chayim 103), grandson of the Chatam Sofer, whom we quoted earlier, who rules that in extreme need (where no other option exists), we may rely on the lenient view. He is referring to Tosafot’s ruling (Pesachim 85b s.v. “v’chein l’tefillah”) that where there is a duly-constituted minyan, an individual in another room or house adjacent may respond amen, but he cannot discharge his own obligation (if there are only nine on the inside his presence on the outside does not make up the minyan). Regarding shofar (and megillah), however, which does not involve the requirement of a minyan – one’s sole requirement is to hear – there is room for leniency. This, he notes, is the view of Rabbi Yaakov Breisch as well (Responsa Chelkat Yaakov Vol I:59).
Rabbi Yosef thus reiterates that as long as a person hears the blessing recited by another in his house, all are of the view that physically (and/or ritually) unclean places do not constitute a hefsek as regards to the requirement to respond amen; however, if he has a personal obligation, the general rule is that such an obligation will not be discharged by responding amen.
Interestingly, the obligation of megillah possesses two components: reading it and publicizing the miracle (pirsumei nisa). It is this second component that explains why Rabbi Yosef’s father, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Da’at 38) notes an authority, Rabbi Mordechai Fogelman (Beit Mordechai 40), who permits someone passing near a synagogue displaying an electric menorah on its roof to recite the blessing of “she’asah nissim” if the menorah is located less than 20 amot above the ground and he cannot light at home for some reason. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, himself, though, disagrees, arguing that saying “she’asah nissim” in such a case would constitute a berachah levatalah (a blessing in vain).
Perhaps one could satisfy the opinion of Rabbi Yosef by reciting the blessing sans Shem u’Malchut – without Hashem’s Name – just like fathers of bar mitzvah boys do. The Rema (Orach Chayim 225:2) writes: “There are those [Maharil in the name of the Mordechai] who say that one whose son becomes bar mitzvah says, ‘Boruch Ata Hashem Elokenu melech ha’olam she’patrani me’onsho shel zeh – Blessed are You Hashem King of the universe who has absolved me of the transgressions of this one.’” (The Midrash [Bereishit Rabbah 63:14] explains that the father no longer bears responsibility for his son’s transgressions after his bar mitzvah.)
The Rema dissents: Better to say the blessing without Shem u’Malchut. To understand his reasoning we turn to Machtzit Hashekel (and others) who cites the view of Levush (ad loc.) that if a son dies in his father’s lifetime it is seen as a punishment for the father, which he carries with him all of his remaining days. The blessing refers to this reality with the father thanking Hashem for not having to bear such a punishment. Since this blessing implies that the father is a sinner, Hashem’s name is not mentioned.
Another possibility is that Hashem’s name isn’t mentioned since this blessing derives from the Midrash and we don’t issue rulings from Midrashic sources. Saying Hashem’s name, therefore, would be a berachah levatalah. Nevertheless, we see that the father discharges his obligation even without mentioning the Divine Name and that is because he said “Boruch Ata… – Blessed are You…,” a clear reference to Hashem.
In light of this fact, it would seem proper to say “Boruch she’asa nissim… – Blessed is He who has performed miracles…’ upon seeing a public electric menorah and in response to hearing the megillah via live broadcast or audio hookup.
(To be continued)