Have Questions or Comments?
Leave us some feedback and we'll reply back!

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone Number)

    In Reference to

    Your Message


    CAN A BA’AL TESHUVAH SERVE AS CHAZZAN?

    I. Undistinguished
    Fathers
    A chazzan
    who leads the
    synagogue services
    represents the
    community before G-d, so halachah asks
    more of him than a good voice. Ideally he
    should be righteous, humble, acceptable to
    the congregation, well versed in Torah, in
    addition to having a good voice (Shulchan
    Aruch, Orach Chaim 53:4). However, his
    family background is also important. If
    a man is personally righteous but comes
    from a non-religious home, this might
    have bearing.
    Rashi (Gen. 25:21) asks why Yitzchak’s
    prayer for Rivkah’s infertility was
    accepted more than Rivkah’s own prayers.
    He quotes the Gemara (Yevamos 64a) that

    the prayer of a tzadik ben tzadik, a two-
    generational righteous person, is stronger

    than that of a tzadik ben rasha, a first-
    generational righteous person. Therefore,

    Yitzchak ben Avraham’s prayer was
    accepted over Rivkah bas Besuel’s. If
    so, perhaps a community should prefer
    a chazzan whose father is righteous over

    a ba’al teshuvah, someone who was not
    raised observant. Setting aside the issue of
    past personal behavior, is there a concern
    over the ba’al teshuvah’s father?
    Rav Asher ben Yechiel (Rosh; 14th
    cen., Germany-Spain) was asked about
    communities in Spain that appointed
    chazzanim from undistinguished families.
    The Rosh dismisses this concern. What
    good is distinguished lineage, he asks,
    if the man himself is wicked? And if
    someone comes from an undistinguished
    family but is righteous, all the better,
    since it is a mitzvah to draw close those
    who come from afar (Responsa 4:22).
    His son, Rav Ya’akov, quotes this ruling
    in his important work, the Tur (Orach
    Chaim 53). But it leaves open the
    question whether the same logic applies
    when the chazzan’s father was not only
    undistinguished but unobservant? Later
    authorities are divided on this point.
    II. Unobservant Fathers
    Rav Yoel Sirkes (Bach; 17th cen., Poland)
    cites Rav Shlomo Luria (Maharshal; 16th
    cen., Poland) as adding a qualification.
    Someone with an undistinguished father

    is acceptable but when two candidates
    are otherwise equal, the one whose
    father is righteous should be preferred
    (Bach, Orach Chaim 53, s.v. ve-kasav
    Maharshal).
    Rav Avraham Gombiner (17th cen.,
    Poland) follows this approach and writes
    that it is proper to look for a chazzan who
    is himself the son of a righteous man
    (Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 53:8).
    Rav Yisrael Kagan (Chafetz Chaim; 20th
    cen., Poland) rules likewise (Mishnah
    Berurah 53:13).
    Rav David Segal (17th cen., Poland)
    makes the Rosh’s logic more explicit.
    He notes that the Rosh does not
    merely tolerate a candidate from an
    undistinguished family; he says it is good
    to draw close those who come from afar.
    In other words, if there are two righteous
    candidates, one the son of a righteous man
    and the other the son of a wicked man, we
    should prefer the son of a wicked man
    (Taz, Orach Chaim 53:3).
    III. Middle Ground
    Between the Rav Gombiner’s preference
    for the son of the righteous father and the
    Rav Segal’s preference for the righteous
    man who overcame a deficient family
    background, Rav Shneur Zalman of
    Liadi (early 19th cen., Russia) stakes
    out a middle position. He first repeats
    that it is good to seek a chazzan who
    is the son of a righteous man. He then
    immediately cites the other view as
    well, that the prayer of a righteous son
    of a wicked man may actually be heard
    more readily. In practice, he concludes,
    the matter depends on the relative
    strengths of the two candidates: one
    man’s humility against the other’s
    ancestral righteousness (Shulchan
    Aruch Ha-Rav, Orach Chaim 53:7).
    This shifts the question away from a
    fixed rule about pedigree and toward
    a comparison of character. A religious
    upbringing gives someone something
    real: models, habits, inherited
    merit. Growing up without it can
    produce something else: humility,
    independence, and the achievement of
    having built a religious life rather than
    inherited one. The issue is less about
    who his father was than about what that
    background actually produced in the
    man standing before the congregation.
    More recently, Rav Moshe Sternbuch
    (cont., Israel) addresses this exact
    question. He explicitly points out
    something often implicit in previous
    discussions. There are many ways to

    measure the quality of a chazzan, among
    them his pedigree. But which qualities
    have higher priority than others? Rav
    Sternbuch argues that pedigree ranks
    last among them all. Only if the two
    candidates are equal in every other way,
    do we consider the righteousness of their
    fathers. Otherwise, we prioritize other
    considerations.
    Additionally, someone who exhibited
    self-sacrifice in leaving the non-religious
    ways of his upbringing holds a quality
    not found in someone who was raised
    religious. Moreover, it is not clear that
    a non-religious father who never had a
    proper Jewish education can be considered
    wicked.
    Rav Sternbuch concludes that if the two
    candidates are truly equal, the son of the
    righteous father should be preferred. But
    if the man from the non-religious home
    is more righteous or brings greater merit
    by spreading Torah, he should be chosen
    instead (Teshuvos Ve-Hanhagos, vol. 4,
    no. 9).
    It is worth noting that some codes, when
    discussing the qualifications of a chazzan,
    do not mention this issue at all. Rav
    Ephraim Margoliyos (19th cen., Ukraine)
    lists the qualifications for serving as
    a chazzan for Selichos and the High
    Holidays, and does not mention pedigree
    (Mateh Ephraim 581:26-28). Rav Shlomo
    Ganzfried (19th cen., Hungary does
    likewise (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 128:7).
    Rav Yitzchak Fuchs (cont., Israel) quotes
    the limitation of pedigree, as ruled in
    Mishnah Berurah, but concludes: “In
    practice, the one among the congregation
    who is greatest in wisdom and good deeds
    is the most appropriate one [to serve as
    chazzan]” (Tefillah Ke-Hilchasah 26:3).
    While acknowledging the pedigree rule,
    he effectively nullifies it by lowering
    its priority beneath the qualifications of
    personal wisdom and righteousness.
    In this way, recent authorities
    acknowledge that family background and
    childhood training matter. However, they
    emphasize that what a person does with
    his life matters even more.