05 May UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE SIDDUR’S PUBLICATION

The prayers were
originally taught
orally, like all Jewish
texts other than
the Bible. Their
publication involved
a process that took
place over time and had certain unexpected
impacts on Jewish practice.
The earliest written source about the prayers,
what we consider the first written siddur,
was sent by Rav Avram Gaon to Spain as
a responsum in the ninth century (see Rav
Moshe Walter, The Making of the Siddur,
ch. 1). However, it was not until the late
15th century that the siddur became more
widely available. With the advent of the
printing press, the prayers became even more
standardized in printed siddurim. Of course,
that did not remove regional differences in
the many different practices and texts. But it
froze the various texts to some extent, with
some notable exceptions, and made the prayer
texts more widely accessible. This change
in circumstances led to some interesting
halachic developments.
I. The Evolution of the Chazzan
In medieval times, the chazzan (cantor) often
added original liturgical poems (piyyutim)

into the prayer service. He needed to be a
great Torah scholar in order to compose new
poems. With the printing and standardization
of the prayer texts, the chazzan no longer
wrote new piyyutim. Therefore, the
community did not need to hire a great Torah
scholar as a chazzan and instead focused on
his musical ability, leading to an increase
in the number of chazzanim who were not
particularly learned.
Rabbi Nisson Shulman (cont., US) explains:
“In fulfilling his major function, vocal art,
skill, and talent had not previously been
as important as knowledge of the words,
understanding the meaning of the prayer,
Torah learning, and piety. Indeed, beauty of
voice had been considered incidental. In the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, however, this
situation changed. Voice and talent became
paramount, and other qualities were sacrificed
for them. Although the rabbis considered this
a problem in earlier times,… we can perceive
an aggravation of the issue and a growing
concern by fifteenth and sixteenth century
Polish sages which indicates that in those
communities and at that time the problem had
grown to severe proportions.” (Authority &
Community: Polish Jewry in the Sixteenth
Century, p. 76)

II. The Chazzan and Birkas Kohanim
The Mishnah (Berachos 34a) says that when
the kohanim recite the priestly blessings
during the repetition of the prayer, the
chazzan should not answer “amen” because
he might get confused. The chazzan calls out
the verses for the kohanim to repeat and may
get confused about which verse comes next
after saying “amen.” Commentators debate
what to do if the chazzan is certain that he
will not get confused.
Rav Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (17th cen.,
Czech) initially ruled that a chazzan who is
confident that he will not get confused should
answer “amen” based on an explicit statement
to that effect in Midrash Rabbah (Divrei
Chamudos, Berachos, ch. 5 no. 52). He later
retracted in his Tosefos Yom Tov (Berachos
5:4), saying that we do not learn halachic
practice from Midrash Rabbah. (Interestingly,
in a gloss to that retraction, Rav Akiva Eiger
(19th cen., Poland) quotes the Pri Chadash as
saying that this only applies to a midrash that
decides between Talmudic opinions and not
to an additional law that is not mentioned in
the Talmud.) Rav Avraham Gombiner (17th
cen., Poland) agrees with Rav Heller’s earlier
ruling that the widespread availability of a
siddur allows a chazzan to recite “amen”
(Magen Avraham 128:29). Later authorities,
including Mishnah Berurah (128:71) agree
with this lenient impact of the siddur.
In theory, this should also apply to a
chazzan who is a kohen. The Mishnah (loc.
cit.) says that a chazzan who is a kohen
should not say birkas kohanim because
he might get confused in his prayers.
However, if there are no other kohanim
and he is certain he will not get confused,
he may say it. Nowadays that we have
siddurim, it is relatively straightforward
for a chazzan to find his place and continue
the prayers after saying birkas kohanim.
However, Rav Avraham Gombiner quotes
a number of authorities who maintain the
Mishnah’s ruling that a chazzan who is a
kohen may only say birkas kohanim if he is
the only kohen (Magen Avraham 128:71).
However, Rav Simcha Rabinowitz (cont.,
Israel) reports that many Ashkenazim
in Israel today follow this logic to its
conclusion and allow a chazzan to say
birkas kohanim even if he is not the only
kohen. (Piskei Teshuvos 128:51).
III. Praying Out Loud
The Gemara (Berachos 24b) states that
someone who prays (shemoneh esreh)
loudly is lacking in faith, which Rashi
explains is because he implies that G-d
can’t hear a silent prayer. The Gemara
qualifies this that if someone can only
concentrate when praying loudly then
he may do so, but not in synagogues
because that will disturb others. In other
words, there are two concerns: showing

a lack of faith and disturbing others. Your
personal lack of concentration can override
the implication of a lack of faith but cannot
override disturbing others. What qualifies as
disturbing others?
Rav Yosef Karo (16th cen., Israel) struggles
with a common practice to pray the silent
Amidah out loud on the High Holidays (Beis
Yosef, Orach Chaim 101). He explains,
as I understand him, that the second issue
mentioned above is that other people will
become confused and make mistakes in the
words of the prayer. Since people pray on the
High Holidays from prayer books, there is
no concern that they will become confused.
Therefore, someone who concentrates better
by praying out loud may do so on the High
Holidays (see Shulchan Aruch, ad loc. 3).
Today, people pray from a siddur throughout
the year, as well. It should follow logically
that one may therefore pray the silent Amidah
out loud any day of the year. However, there
seems to be a post-Shulchan Aruch hesitance
to permit prayer out loud for kabbalistic
reasons (see the commentaries to Shulchan
Aruch, Orach Chaim 101:3, 582:9). However,
Rav Avraham Gombiner rules that you should
pray quietly (but not completely silently) if
possible but if you need to pray out loud in
order to have proper intent, you may (Magen
Avraham 101:4). Mishnah Berurah (ad loc.,
11) rules likewise. Even though they are
discussing the High Holidays, the mention
of prayer books implies that the permission
applies throughout the year. Indeed, Rav
Hershel Schachter (cont., US) writes about
praying loud enough to hear your own words,
“This was the practice of the Chofetz Chaim,
Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, and the Brisker
Rav, who all davened in a way that their
words were audible even to others standing
nearby” (Rav Schachter on Orach Chaim, vol.
2, 101:2, p. 273). Note that they prayed the
silent Amidah so loud that “others standing
nearby” could hear.
These examples reflect a broader principle in
halachah: the law responds to the conditions
in which it is lived. The publication of the
siddur changed those conditions and, with
them, the practical application of earlier
rulings. A chazzan can recover his place and
a worshipper could pray out loud without
confusing others. In such cases, the halachah
itself did not change. Rather, its application
follows the logic of the original concerns.
This dynamic of adapting practice to preserve
the intent of the law remains a defining feature
of halachic thought.