Q & A: Selichot Restrictions (Part II)

Question: The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch states that an individual praying without a minyan is not allowed to recite the Thirteen Middot in Selichot. Additionally, the Selichot prayers that were composed in Aramaic may only be recited with a minyan as well. What is the reason for these restrictions?

Moshe Jakobowitz

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Synopsis: Last week we discussed the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch’s requirement for a minyan when reciting the Thirteen Middot as a prayer or supplication (Topic 128:9 Hilchot Chodesh Elul). The Beit Yosef on the Tur (Orach Chayyim 565) explains that the Thirteen Middot is a communal prayer and thus is a davar she’b’kedusha, a matter involving great holiness. The Mishna in Tractate Megilla (23b) enumerates the situations that incorporate a davar she’b’kedusha, and thus require a minyan, including communal prayer. Now we turn to the matter of the prayers in the Aramaic language.

* * * * *

Answer: The halacha that the Selichot prayers composed in Aramaic may only be recited with a minyan is based on a discussion in the Gemara (Shabbos 12b), as follows:

Rabba b. Bar Hana said: When we would follow Rabbi Elazar to inquire after [the health of] a sick person, sometimes he would say [in Hebrew], “Hamakom yifkod’cha l’shalom” – May the Omnipresent remember you with peace [and good health], whereas at other times, he would say [the same prayer in Aramaic], “Rachmana yidkerinach lishlam.” The Gemara asks: How could he do thus – i.e., pray in Aramaic? Did not Rabbi Yehuda say that one should never petition for his needs [make a request] in Aramaic? And did not Rabbi Yohanan say, “When one petitions for his needs in Aramaic, the Ministering Angels do not come to his aid, for they do not understand Aramaic?”

The Gemara answers that a prayer for a sick person is different, for the Divine Presence is with him. Rabbi Anan said in Rab’s name: “How do we know that the Divine Presence supports a sick person? Because it is written (Psalms 41:4), ‘Hashem yis’adenu al eres devai’ – G-d supports him on the sickbed.” Rava quotes an alternate explanation of that pasuk in the name of Rabbin: How do we know that G-d provides sustenance for the sick person? It is written, “Hashem yis’adenu...” – yis’adenu can be understood both as help and as provision of food.

The commentary Shiltei HaGibborim (ad loc.), quoting the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 335), states that when one is in the presence of a sick person, he follows that practice and pleads on his behalf in any language. However, when not in the presence of the sick person, the request should be made in Hebrew (Lashon HaKodesh) only. This raises the question: Is not the Divine Presence with the ailing person, whether the one praying is in his presence or not? Tosafot (Shabbos ad loc., s.v. “She’ein Mal’achei HaSharet”) ask another question [for which they do not provide an answer]: If we posit that the Ministering Angels are privy to the innermost thoughts of man (“that which is in the heart”), how is it possible that they do not understand Aramaic?

Furthermore, as Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Edels (the Maharsha) points out in the late edition (“mahadura batra”) of his Chiddushei Halachot on Tractate Shabbos (found at the back of the Vilna Shas), we cannot assume that every person whose life is in danger will be helped by G-d, as evidenced by the verse in Parshat Korach (Numbers 16:29), “Im ke’mot kol ha’adam yemutun eileh u’pekudat kol ha’adam yipakeid aleihem”– [Said Moses,] If these die like other men, and the destiny of all men is visited upon them, then it is not G-d who has sent me. Korach and his followers were about to be punished for their rebelliousness against Moses. The manner of their death would serve as proof that their rebelliousness was not intended just against Moses, as Korach contended, but ultimately was directed also against G-d. They would not die after an illness, like other mortals whom the Divine Presence visits on their sickbed, but would be swallowed alive by the Earth, without any recourse against the decree of death. This is because by rebelling against Moses, they were, in fact, rebelling against G-d, on whose mission Moses had been sent. It is also from this verse that Resh Lakish derives the mitzvah of visiting the sick, as detailed in Tractate Nedarim (39b).

With this in mind, we might also wonder how we are to know when to beseech G-d on behalf of a sick person. How do we define “choleh?” When is a person in mortal danger from other causes? Since we do not know the extent of the danger and have to utilize every means at our disposal – including the help of the Ministering Angels who understand only Hebrew – we resort to prayer in Hebrew when we are not in the presence of the sick person.

This, in turn, raises an additional question. Why would we invoke angels as mediators? Do we not address our prayers directly to G-d? Rashi (Shabbos 12b; also, Sotah 33a, where our sugya is tangentially repeated) describes the angels as “bringing our prayers behind the curtain,” or “delivering our prayers,” which offers us but a glimmer of understanding of this phenomenon.

We should note here that there is a clear difference between individual prayer (tefillat yachid) and communal prayer (tefillat hatzibbur), as stated by the Gemara (Berachot 8a), quoting a verse from Job (36:5), “Hen Kel kabbir lo yim’as” – G-d does not despise the prayer of a congregation. The Gemara seems to indicate, based on this verse, that the prayer of a congregation is assured of delivery On High. Why is an individual’s prayer not treated likewise? (Tractate Berachot ad loc. also cites other verses to prove that point, but Rashi, when discussing the matter (Sotah 33a), sees fit to quote only this reference.)

Discussing whether the Ministering Angels indeed know the innermost thoughts of man, Noam Elimelech (Parshat Be’ha’alotecha) suggests that the angels in charge of bringing our prayers to G-d have been given the ability to discern between prayers that are pure and those that are tainted with improper thoughts. How are they able to do that if they do not know the innermost thoughts of man? A man’s actions create an aura around him. While bad deeds produce a negative, repelling aura, good deeds create a fragrant emanation, similar to incense. Likewise, pure prayers create a good aura, and improper prayers produce a negative aura, enabling the angels to recognize which prayers are worthy to be brought up to G-d. Thus, it is through man’s prayers that the angels are capable of discerning whether his thoughts are good or bad.

While this clarifies for us somewhat the extent of comprehension of the Ministering Angels, there still is no explanation as to why this ability does not extend to prayers in Aramaic. The various interpretations offered have resulted in different rulings among the poskim. The Rif is of the opinion that tefillat yachid is permitted only in Hebrew, whereas Chachmei Tzorfat (the Sages of France) allow an individual to pray in any language, except when he is praying for his own needs. The Rosh opines that even personal requests can be made in languages other than Hebrew – with the sole exception of Aramaic.

Rabbenu Yona’s commentary on R. Alfasi (Rif p. 7a) on the beginning of the second chapter of Berachot – parallel to the topic discussed in Tractate Shabbos 12b and Sotah 33a – furnishes us with the Scriptural source of the angels’ role in the purveyance of our prayers to G-d. It is written (Job 33:23), “Im yesh alav mal’ach meilitz echad mini alef” – If there be for him an interceding angel, one of a thousand. Rabbenu Yona notes, however, that it is only the individual, not the congregation, who is in need of an interceding angel. This approach also offers us a better understanding of Noam Elimelech’s interpretation of the angels’ role in regard to prayer, for they judge the validity of prayers on an individual basis and not in a congregational situation.

To be continued.