Tefillah 032

7:
As we have said, Bar^ekhu, being one of the D^evarim shebik^edushah, requires a minyan for its inclusion in the service. Some people, when compelled by circumstances to worship without the presence of a minyan feel that 'something is missing' when some of these D^evarim shebik^edushah are omitted. One suggestion that I can offer to such people is to substitute a biblical verse. Several apposite verses spring to mind:

• When locks go untrimmed in Israel, when people dedicate themselves – bless God! [Judges 5:2]
• O peoples, bless our God, celebrate His praises. [Psalm 66:8]
• Enter His gates with praise, His courts with acclamation. Praise Him! Bless His name! [Psalm 100:4]
• Bless God, O His angels, mighty creatures who do His bidding, ever obedient to His bidding; bless God, all His hosts, His servants who do His will; bless God, all His works, through the length and breadth of His realm; bless God, O my soul. [Psalm 103:20-22]
• O house of Israel, bless God; O house of Aaron, bless God; O house of Levi, bless God; you who fear God, bless God. Blessed is God from Zion, He who dwells in Jerusalem. Hallelujah. [Psalm 135:19-21]
• David said to the whole assemblage, “Now bless the Lord your God.” All the assemblage blessed the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads low to God and the king. [I Chronicles 29:20]

These verses sound more appropriate in the original Hebrew than they do in translation. However, it does seem more natural just to omit Bar^ekhu when halakhah determines that the circumstances are such that it should be omitted.

8:
In some congregations, certainly in days gone by, there was a custom that the cantor elaborate his or her rendition of Bar^ekhu with wordless melody; and that during this elaboration the congregation would recite a doxology in an undertone. Nowadays it is most rare for a cantor to elaborate Bar^ekhu, and the doxology, most appropriately, has been omitted in all Conservative prayerbooks.

9:
Israel Man has written to me asking:

Where is the source of the custom to bow for Barchu?

I respond:

There is no source for the custom to stand for Bar^ekhu because there is no such reqirement. It seems that the custom is one that has developed among the people. The origin of this popular custom may have been that it was confused with other D^evarim shebik^edushah where there is some halakhic basis for standing. Similarly, there is no requirement that people face the Ark or to bow when Bar^ekhu is recited. However, let me hasten to add that just as there is no halakhic requirement for these popular customs so there is no halakhic objection to them. If people feel comfortable with the custom to stand, bow and face the Ark they may certainly continue to do so.

10:
With the conclusion of Kaddish the cantor immediately calls out to the congregation: Bar^ekhu et Adonai ha-m^evorakh (Praise God who should be praised) and the congregation responds out loud Barukh Adonai ha-m^evorakh l^e'olam va'ed (Praised be God who should be praised for evermore). After the congregation has responded the cantor repeats their response out loud. This is so that the cantor includes himself (or herself) in this pious response, thus implying that he is a part of the congregation and not separate from it. In his commentary, Mishnah B^erurah, on the first part of the Shulĥan Arukh, Rabbi Israel Me'ir Kagan (Ĥafetz Ĥayyim) adds that if without the cantor there would be no minyan and the cantor does not include himself in the response the duty has not been fulfilled. He adds that even if there is a minyan without him he has not fulfilled his personal duty if he does not repeat the response.

In Avot 029 I wrote concerning Shokhen Ad: In recent centuries in some congregations the order of the last word of each stanza was reorganized. This change was introduced because someone (who is thankfully anonymous) noticed that the third Hebrew letter of each last word, if the words are rearranged, would spell out the name Rebecca! This rearrangement is not seen in any of the texts that have come down to us from the middle ages. Siddur Sim Shalom ignores it; Siddur Va'ani Tefillati follows it.

Yehuda Falk writes:

The "Rivka" (or "Rebecca") reordering of the last words is found more commonly in machzorim for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. For example, the year-round Rinat Yisrael has the order tithalal-titbarach-titromam-titkadash but their machzorim for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur have the order titromam-titbarach-titkadash-tithalal. Is there some reason that the "Rivka" order would be used on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur?

I respond:

There is no reason that I know of. The whole re-arrangement is baseless. Having said that, this re-arrangement has become customary in many Conservative congregations in order to emphasize female inclusivity (Rebecca – representing our womenfolk – as well as Isaac, representing our menfolk). For such a positive reason I think it would be churlish to complain and require the restoration of the original text.