Tefillah 034

17:
The first b^erakhah of the two that precede the recitation of the Shema is 'long', according to the determination of the mishnah which we have quoted above. That is to say, it starts with the technical formula of a benediction, Barukh attah Adonai, and also concludes with the same formula (see Tefillah 033, #15). The sages also determined the general content of each b^erakhah. This determination is what is called in Hebrew matbe'a shel b^erakhah, the 'content' of the benediction. Unfortunately, this same term is often used by some to indicate the 'wording' of a benediction, but this is not its meaning. ('Wording' is indicated by the Hebrew word nusaĥ.) The sages never dictated the wording of a benediction, even when a certain wording had already become almost universal in their own time (see Shabbat 046, #5). They only stipulated what the general content or theme of a benediction should be. In his commentary on the Gemara which accompanies the mishnah that we have quoted above [Berakhot 11a], the great Rabbi Shelomo ben-Aderet, Rashba (Spain, 1235-1310), states this quite categorically:

Because this is a text that is most germane to our discussion I have made Rashba's original Hebrew available here.

18:
From the Talmudic age and right through to the end of the Middle Ages in Eretz-Israel (and elsewhere) this was the rule, and cantors were expected to make up the text of the benedictions extempore, as they went along. Of course, many of the cantors made 'cribs' for themselves on pieces of paper and many of these 'cribs' have survived in the treasure house that was the Cairo Genizah. (Those who do not know about this momentous find may find this link useful.) Here is one example of such a crib (with the cantor's abbreviations expanded) for the very benediction which is the subject of our present discussion:

For the benefit of those interested I have made the original Hebrew text available here.

19:
Compared with the (Babylonian) text that is to be found in our modern prayerbooks this 'long' benediction is very short. (We can assume that the original Babylonian text was also very short and that an exceedingly long passage was interpolated in the immediate post-Talmudic era: some time after 500 CE. This interpolation is called Kedushat Yotzer and it was originally the subject of considerable controversy, and in Eretz-Israel they only added the Kedushah on Sabbaths and Festivals.)

20:
The benediction is 'long', therefore, because it begins and ends with the benedictory formula; and the sages determined that the 'content' of this benediction must be concerned with light and the passage from darkness into light. We shall, God willing, examine the text of this benediction as it is now printed in our prayerbooks in our next shiur.

To be continued.

In Tefillah 031 we discussed the origin of the quorum for prayer and how the sages based their determination of the number ten upon a hermeneutic exposition of two biblical verses.

However, Al Sporer writes:

My own understanding of the origin of the requirement of ten for a minyan is the Sodom and Gomorrah story (Gen 18). In it Abraham stops arguing with God when he reaches the count of ten righteous people. The inference is that when there are less than ten people one no longer has a viable community of like minded people. I do not have a reference to where I learned of this story as the origin of the requirement of ten.

I respond:

I do not believe I have heard this explanation before. In my ignorance I know of no rabbinic source for this and I would like to know its source. So I did some homework. I surfed the net. I found this, but the author gives no source for his claim. I also found this, but here too there is no source given. So, for the time being, I must re-iterate the fact that the sages based the minyan of ten upon the exposition of biblical texts as I wrote in the original shiur.

In Tefillah 032 we discussed the rules surrounding Bar^eekhu. Among other things I wrote: After the congregation has responded the cantor repeats their response out loud.

Irene Stern Friedman writes:

I know of one cantor who recites the Barukh Adonai ha-mevorakh le'olam va'ed with the congregation rather than afterwards. Can you comment on this? Is it acceptable?

I respond:

I think this is rather dubious. The reason given for the repetition is, as I wrote, "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." At first blush it would seem that if the cantor makes the response together with the congregation s/he is definitely being inclusive. However, the codes and their commentators state quite clearly that first the congregation makes its response and only then does the cantor repeat the response. My guess is that in this manner the cantor makes it abundantly clear to the congregation that s/he too is part of the congregation and not 'just' a prayerleader. If the cantor makes the response at the same time as the rest of the congregation his (or her) voice is swallowed up in the general response. While this may sound like quibbling to some I see no reason to depart from the established custom that the cantor repeats the congregation's response rather than join it.