The articles in this column are transcriptions and adaptations of shiurim by Rav Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, zt”l. The Rav’s unique perspective on Chumash permeated many of the shiurim and lectures he presented at various venues over a 40-plus-year period. His words add an important perspective that makes the Chumash in particular, and our tradition in general, vibrant and relevant to our generation.
Mazal Tov to the extended Singer family on the birth of Yehudis Eita.
The Mishna (Berachos 34b) says a Shaliach Tzibbur who errs in his prayer is a bad omen for him and his congregation that appointed him. The Mishna says Rabbi Chanina Ben Dosa would pray for the sick and would [immediately] say who would live and who would die. He said if his prayer flows smoothly he was assured that the prayer was accepted (or another interpretation by Rashi is that the sick person is accepted by Hashem) otherwise the prayer was rejected (or the sick person was rejected).
Rashi comments on Rabbi Chanina’s statement, “If the prayer is well organized and I can recite it fluently without stumbling over the words and my prayer flows from my heart to my mouth as long as I wish to extend my supplications.” Why was Rashi, who is well known for terseness, so verbose here? Why didn’t he stop after the first part of his explanation (the well organized prayer that he recites without stumbling)?
While the concept of Shlucho Shel Adam K’moso appears throughout Shas, this is the only Mishnaic reference. We have a concept that an agent, Shaliach, whose mission results in an undesirable outcome to the principal, M’shaleach, is no longer considered his Shaliach. The M’shaleach can claim he sent the Shaliach for his benefit not his detriment, L’tekuni Shdarticha V’Lo Lavati.
This concept is consistent across Halacha, from Choshen Mishpat to Even HaEzer. Why do we say that a Shatz who erred in his prayer portends a bad omen for his congregation? Why can’t they disavow his services based on L’tekuni Shdarticha, they appointed the Shatz to help and not hinder?
There are two different types of Shlichus. Regular Shlichus implies representation but not replacement (i.e., power of attorney). If a Shaliach summons a litigant to court on behalf of his M’shaleach, the litigant may refuse to appear and claim Lav Baal Devarim Didi At, you are not my legal protagonist, I wish to deal directly and only with him. However, if the Shaliach is appointed with a Harshaah, power of attorney, the M’shaleach grants the Shaliach all rights and privileges that he would have enjoyed in the case. The defendant can no longer claim Lav Baal Devarim Didi At.
If a Shaliach with a Harshaah errs, the M’shaleach cannot claim L’tekuni Shdarticha. If I appoint someone as Shatz, he is supposed to pray for me, as if I was praying.
The Rav noted the importance of the Teffilas Shatz, to listen to every word the Shatz utters, since the Shatz is mouthing my prayer. I can’t fulfill the mitzvah of prayer without listening to each word. In essence, the Shatz is viewed as a Shaliach with Harshaah. His errors ascribe to those who appointed him.
Rabbi Chanina was not the first great person to pray for the sick. In Parshas Vayeira, Hashem tells Avimelech to ask Avraham to pray for him. If Hashem wanted to heal Avimelech why was it necessary to ask Avraham to pray, why not accept Avimelech’s supplication? If Hashem did not want to heal Avimelech, why ask Avraham to pray at all? Hashem informed Avimelech that He has no need for him. However, if Avraham can be motivated to pray on Avimelech’s behalf because he would personally be upset at the prospect of Avimelech’s death, Hashem will accept Avraham’s prayer on Avimelech’s behalf.