Halakhah Study Group 019

2:
Paragraphs 6 and 7 are concerned with the way that the blessings are to be recited. The actual blessings themselves will be dealt with in subsequent paragraphs; here the subject is the prefaratory laudation in which the honoree invites the congregation to praise God, thus invoking their response.

The honoree says ברכו את ה' המבורך, which means "Praise God who is most praiseworthy". The congregation responds to this invitation by saying ברוך ה' המבורך לעולם ועד, which means "Praised be God who is ever praiseworthy". The honoree then repeats the response of the congregation out loud so as to include himself (or herself) in this praise of God. Only then does the honoree continue with the blessing before the reading (which is the subject of later paragraphs as I have already mentioned).

3:
The logic of the requirement that these passages be said out loud is clear: they are intended to involve the congregation in the reading and to invite their response. They can hardly be expected to respond to something that has been perfunctorily mumbled so that it is inaudible to them. All honorees should be encouraged to recite these passages in a loud, clear voice, so that the congregation can make their appropriate response. The Rema notes that when this is not the case and the congregation cannot hear what the honoree has said they should not respond. Indeed, to what could they respond? They have not heard the invitation. However, what is much more likely to be the situation is that they will not hear the invitation of the honoree, but they will hear the response of the cantor (who has heard the invitation because he (or she) is standing right next to the honoree. In such circumstances, says the Rema, the congregation should respond 'Amen' to the cantor's response. (One authority, Rabbenu Yonah, is even of the opinion that if the honoree cannot be heard by the congregation he (or she) must be required to repeat the whole passage out loud so that it can be heard: an invitation which cannot be heard is not only not an true invitation but is also a berakhah levatalah, using God's name to no purpose.

4:
Paragraph 7 deals with a situation which is sadly prevelant to this day. After having issued the invitation to praise God and heard the congregation's response to that invitation the honoree must repeat the response 'so as to include himself' in the general praise of God. All too often nowadays honorees omit this repetition; this must be corrected by those standing at his or her side even if they have to dictate the words to the honoree.

My understanding is that for a proselyte you would call him/her up as "ben/bat Avraham Avinu" – is there any concern that this might publicly embarrass the proselyte? It seems to make a clear distinction between them and other Jews, and in a very public way.

I respond:

While I certainly understand what prompts Josh's question the concern that underlies his query is not at all shared by general rabbinic tradition. Mainstream rabbinic tradition thoughout the centuries has seen the status of a proselyte as being something that should be known publicly and that this status should redound to the great credit of the proselyte. Perhaps the most eloquent expression of this attitude is to be found in a responsum that Rambam send to an enquirer. The enquirer was one Ovadya, a proselyte (perhaps Ovadya was a hebraization of Abdullah). As part of his learning his teacher told him that Moslems were idolaters. As an erstwhile Moslem himself he was sure that this was not the case and told his teacher so. Ovadya's teacher became angry, called him 'an ignorant and impudent idiot'… Ovadya wrote to Rambam asking which of them was correct. Here is part of Rambam's responsum: