Question: I recently returned from a trip abroad and wanted to say Ha’Gomel. When I mentioned this to the officers of my synagogue, however, they told me that I would have to wait until Shabbos to do so. I was not given any reason for this and did not wish to display my ignorance, so I quietly acquiesced. Can you please explain why I had to wait?
Name Withheld
Via E-mail
Synopsis: We discussed the concept of requiring a minimum of ten men for synagogue services and other related mitzvot that are davar she’b’kedusha – matters of sanctity. The requirement of a minyan is derived through the hermeneutic principle of gezerah shava, one of the exegetical rules by which halachot are derived from the Biblical text. Gezerah shava is the principle according to which a law is inferred via verbal analogy. If the same word or phrase appears in two separate verses in the Torah, and a certain halacha is explicitly stated in one of them, we may infer that the same halacha applies in the second case as well.
In our case, the first verse is found in Leviticus 22:32, where we are instructed not to violate any of G-d’s commands, resulting in a diminution of G-d’s honor. The word “betoch” is used. In Numbers 16:21, G-d instructs Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the rebellious Korach and his followers, using the word “mitoch.”
This gezerah shava comes up in a discussion between R. Huna and R. Yehoshua b. Levi regarding a person who enters the synagogue while the congregation is already in the midst of the Shemoneh Esrei (Berachot 21b). If this person wishes to catch up and join the congregation, R. Huna permits him to recite the kedusha by himself, while R. Yehoshua rules that it can be said only with a quorum of ten – a conclusion he comes to by applying a series of analogies stemming from the verse mentioned above, Leviticus 22:32, that implies that there have to be at least ten people present for any manifestation of sanctification.
Although the drawing of analogies is often quite intricate because the Sages differ as to which verses are considered to be the source of the ruling, the ruling itself – that any davar she’b’kedusha requires a minyan – is unanimous.
But why did your rabbi instruct you to wait until the Sabbath to recite Birkat Ha’Gomel?
Last week, we looked at the Mechaber’s ruling on who is required to offer hoda’ah:
those who have survived crossing the sea, those who survived traveling the wilderness, one who recovered from a serious illness, and one who was set free after being imprisoned. The Mechaber further specifies that the blessing of the hoda’ah must be recited before a quorum of ten. The custom has become that the blessing is recited after the reading of the Torah, because at that time a quorum is already assembled.
* * * * *
Answer: Last week, we cited the Mechaber (Orach Chayyim 219:3), who noted the blessing (“Mi she’gemal’cha kol tov, yigmal’cha kol tov, selah” – He who has bestowed goodness upon you, may He continue to bestow every goodly kindness upon you, Selah) that the assembled quorum are to recite in response to the blessing recited by the individual offering thanksgiving.
This presents a difficulty: Nowhere in the Gemara (Berachot 54b, the source of this discussion) do we find such a response recorded, other than the obvious response – “Amen.” Yet we do find in the earlier works of the Rambam (Hilchot Berachot 10:8) and Tur (Orach Chayyim 219) such a formulation as a fuller response. It is possible that they encountered a different text than that found currently in our Vilna Shas. Alternatively, they felt some need to amend the text. What could have prompted such a textual emendation?
On first thought, it might be easier to accept the former explanation – that simply put, they had an earlier edition of the Talmud with slightly different text. Yet, if I may, I would surmise that their reasoning was as follows: This situation is analogous to the repetition of the Amidah, when the chazzan reaches the blessing of Modim (the blessing of thanksgiving), and a congregational response of Amen alone is not a sufficient response, as there is a requirement for all present to recite the Modim D’rabbanan (lit., the Modim of the Sages) and bow, lest one appear to be a kofer – a denier of G-d. (For a fuller discussion of Modim, see our discussion in this column in the June 22, 2012 issue of The Jewish Press.)
I would add yet another reason, based on Abudarham (Seder Shacharit shel Chol, p.115), that when it comes to a blessing of thanks, it is not sufficient to “ride on the coattails” of another. Instead, one must be proactive in his own thanksgiving as well. Abudarham is actually addressing why Modim – the benediction of thanksgiving in the chazzan’s repetition of the Amidah – evokes a congregational response that is uniquely different than that of the other benedictions. The other benedictions require a simple congregational response of Amen, whereas Modim requires a full text that parallels, somewhat, the chazzan’s text.
He resolves this difficulty as follows: “And when the chazzan reaches Modim [in his repetition] and bows, all the congregation [also] bow and they recite their ‘hoda’ah ketanah’ (small thanks, i.e., Modim D’Rabbanan), which begins similarly to Modim [of the chazzan]; it is not proper for a servant to praise his [human] master and tell him ‘You are my lord’ by means of a shaliach, a messenger. [All the more so when the recipient of the praise is Hashem.] Rather, every person has to express with his own voice his acceptance of the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom upon himself. However, if he accepts it via a messenger, it is not a complete acceptance, as he can always deny that acceptance and say ‘I never sent him as my agent.’”
It is obvious that here, too, the blessing of the Gomel is a blessing of thanksgiving, albeit in a different context: Whereas Modim is part and parcel of the Amidah text, as ordained by our Sages, and responds to our daily need to thank Hashem for all that He provides us in this world, the thanksgiving of Gomel responds to the special need of one who has been delivered from [life-threatening] danger.
One might ask, however, when confronted with any of the specific situations that require an individual to recite Gomel: What connection have I to that person’s deliverance that requires a response beyond a simple Amen? We will counter that it is arvut – the connectivity that is at the core of our peoplehood. Just as we are required to pray for our fellow in the time of his or her distress, so are we each required to give thanks for the good fortune of his or her deliverance from danger or distress. Therefore, in this situation, simply answering Amen was not seen as an option, and hence the amended text to reflect this need.
To be continued.
