5

Shulchan Aruch, OC 236:3:

If someone discovered a group that had already read [the evening] "Sh'ma" and is about to say amida [of maariv], then he should say amida with them and then say "Sh'ma" with its blessings.

  • Is there any reason for him to say or hear "Bar'chu" before he says the blessings of "Sh'ma"? Any reason not to? Sourced answers only, please. (I know OC 69 discusses the somewhat similar rule of pores al "Sh'ma", for which one says "Bar'chu", but I'm looking for a source that explicitly says whether or not to say "Bar'chu" in the case discussed in OC 236:3.)
  • The community will be saying kadish and "Alenu", which under normal circumstances a bystander would respond to. But our latecomer is between sh'mone esre and the blessings of "Sh'ma". Must he reply? Must he avoid replying? In general, is there any reason for him to avoid interruptions between sh'mone esre and the subsequent blessings of "Sh'ma"? What, for example, about chatting with his friend? (I know there's a general rule of avoiding delay before saying "Sh'ma" (Mishna B'rura 235:17), but I'm asking about cases where the general rule permits delay but there may be some rule specific to our latecomer's situation that bars interruption/delay.)
Improve this question
12
  • 2
    Under normal circumstances, isn't the purpose of avoiding interruption to adjoin גאולה לתפילה?
    – Fred
    Feb 26, 2013 at 6:15
  • 1
    @Fred, ad 1, good idea (IMO), but I doubt there's such a thing as adjoining גאולה לתפילה in reverse order, because the commentaries on SA discuss the latecomer's case in contrast to the case of adjoining גאולה לתפילה. But maybe there's another reason to avoid interruption.
    – msh210 ♦
    Feb 26, 2013 at 18:41
  • 2
    @Fred There is the (rejected) Tannaitic opinion of תפילות באמצע תיקנום
    – Double AA ♦
    May 14, 2014 at 4:13
  • 1
    @Fred Perhaps, however, in this bedieved case one should at least fulfill that (generally rejected) opinion.
    – Double AA ♦
    May 14, 2014 at 4:59
  • 1
    @DoubleAA But in this case, one is fulfilling this mimeila anyway, right? Do you know of a source that says תפלות באמצע תקנום indicates a need for immediate juxtaposition?
    – Fred
    May 14, 2014 at 5:03

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
+50

See the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch in סימן ע - דיני תפלת מעריב, where he teaches us:

סעיף ג': מִי שֶׁבָּא לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת לִתְפִלַּת עַרְבִית וּמָצָא שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר עוֹמְדִין לְהִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, אֲפִלּוּ עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ לַיְלָה, אֶלָּא מִפְּלַג הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה, מִתְפַּלֵּל עִמָּהֶם שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לַיְלָה יֹאמַר קְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע עִם הַבְּרָכוֹת. וְאִם הַצִּבּוּר עוֹמְדִין בְּאֶמְצַע קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּבִרְכוֹתֶיהָ, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ שָׁהוּת לוֹמַר קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעוּ לִתְפִלַּת שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע עִם הַבְּרָכוֹת עַד שׁוֹמֵר עַמּוֹ יִשְֹרָאֵל לָעַד יַעֲשֶׂה כן, וִידַלֵּג בָּרוּךְ ה' לְעוֹלָם וְכוּ', וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאָמְרוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ לְאַחַר הַתְּפִלָּה (מהריעב"ץ), וְאִם הוּא לֹא הִתְפַּלֵּל עֲדַיִן מִנְחָה, יִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלַּת שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שֶל מִנְחָה, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר אוֹמְרִים קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע עִם הַבְּרָכוֹת, וְיִשְׁהֶה מְעַט לְכָל הַפָּחוֹת כְּדֵי הִלּוּךְ דּ' אַמּוֹת, וְיִתְפַּלֵּל אַחַר כָּךְ שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה עִם הַצִּבּוּר לְמַעֲרִיב. וְאַחַר כָּךְ כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לַיְלָה, יֹאמַר קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע עִם הַבְּרָכוֹת.‏

He clearly states (twice) that there's no need to connect the Amida to Birkat-Shma.

In the case if an early Maariv, he says to wait for night - and doesn't specify that one shouldn't talk during the time one has to wait.

From this one could infer that:

  • He may hear and answer בָּרְכוּ and קַדִּישׁ after his Amida. But the Kitzur doesn't say he should do so, so (in places where it's not the custom to repeat בָּרְכוּ after davening) he doesn't have to go out of his way to find a בָּרְכוּ .

  • He may interrupt - and even chat - between his Amida and his Birkat-Shma.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .