The Ashkenazi nusach of V'lamalshinim omits explicit mention of heretics. Therefore, recitation or omission of this blessing by the prayer leader seems to no longer serve as a signal for whether he is a heretic (or does it? If so, please explain).

Further, it seems likely that a large class of modern heretics would even be willing to recite variants of the blessing that explicitly refer to heretics.

So why do modern poskim still rule that a prayer leader must be removed for omitting the blessing of V'lamalshinim in the amida?

(Note: Answers that can sufficiently rebut any assumptions made in this post are welcome).

The Talmud (B'rachos 29a) teaches:

Rav Y'huda said in the name of Rav: If [a prayer leader] erred in any of the blessings [of the amida], we do not remove him. [The exception to this is] if he erred in the blessing of the Sadducees (alternatively, the blessing of the heretics). We remove him because we suspect he may be a heretic.

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 126:1) codifies as halacha that we remove a prayer leader who entirely omitted the blessing of V'lamalshinim. The L'vush (126) explains that we are concerned that the reason he omitted V'lamalshinim is that he is actually a heretic and "he does not want to curse himself." This is based on the commentary of Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah on the Rif (B'rachos 19b in dapei haRif):

טעה בברכת המינין מעלין אותו דחיישי' שמא מין הוא ומה שלא אמרו שאם טעה ולא הזכיר תחיית המתים שמעלין אותו ג"כ מפני שברכת המינין יש בה קללה למינין וכשאינו אומר אותה אנו חוששין שמפני שהוא מין אינו רוצה לקלל את עצמו אבל בברכת תחיית המתים כיון שאין בה קללה אין בזה היכר אם הוא מין או לא שאפשר שאפי' שלא יאמין הוא בתחיית המתים עכ"ז יאמר הברכה דמאי איכפת ליה אם יאמר מחיה המתים כיון שאינו מקלל עצמו הלכך כיון שאיפשר שיאמר אותה ויהיה מין ולא נוכל להכיר אותו אפי' כשלא אמר אותה אין מעלין אותו

עוד נוכל לומר שבתחיית המתים כשטעה אין מעלין אותו מפני שאפשר שהוא מין ומאמין בתחיית המתים

The above commentary suggests that a heretic does not want to curse himself, but he is willing to recite other blessings that are at odds with his beliefs.


  • According to nusach Ashkenaz, which doesn't mention heretics explicitly in the blessing, why would a heretic avoid reciting this blessing?

  • Even the other variants of the prayer that mention minim (heretics) do not specify particular beliefs or groups (e.g. Sadducees, Boethusians, or Therapeutae). A particular heretic might therefore not read V'lamalshinim as being applicable to him; he might not consider himself a heretic. Why, then, would he balk at using the generic term for heretic in the prayer? Is it possible that the term "minim" was so well understood to mean sects other than the P'rushim (Pharisees) that even a Sadducee would consider himself a min?

  • Conversely, if a heretic would not avoid reciting this blessing, why would we rule that a prayer leader must be removed for omitting it?


In light of Josh Waxman's answer, I would like to clarify what I meant by my first and third questions above; they are not questions on the gemara, but rather questions regarding the halacha as it pertains to the modern Ashkenazi variant of the prayer that excludes mention of heretics. Background to those questions follows:

Ashkenazi poskim such as the Mishna B'rura (126:4) seem to apply this halacha of removing a sh'liach tzibbur even in light of the current predominant Ashkenazi nusach that does not explicitly mention heretics.

Some poskim, such as the K'nesses HaG'dola (126), have decried the practice of omitting mention of heretics, and the Mishpat Tzedek (Vol. 2, §9; early 17th century) discusses whether a chazzan should be removed for mentioning only lamalshinim and not lam'shumadim. The Magein Avraham (126:1) is likewise unsure whether a prayer leader must be removed if he mentions malshinim but excludes mention of heretics, though the Magein Avraham mentions that the nusach of Romania includes only v'lamalshinim.

The Magein Giborim (126:1) expresses surprise that the Magein Avraham didn't mention that this is our nusach, too. The Magein Giborim seems to conclude (if I'm understanding it right) that it is forbidden to deviate from our nusach of v'lamalshinim:

ומהתימא שלא כתב שמנהגנו הוא לומר ולמלשינים כבני רומניא ועכ"פ לשנות הנוסח' בברכה זו ודאי אסור

The Aderet, however, comments that this is a mistaken nusach, and advises that people switch back to another version in their silent amida that includes reference to either lam'shumadim or lakofrim (T'fillas David §13, cited here). Even the Aderet, though, says that a prayer leader should adhere to the accepted nusach in public to avoid leading to a radical fragmentation in community practice based on what each individual thinks is appropriate ("שלא לתת שתהיה תורה ביד כל אחד").

The Mishna B'rura (ibid.) says that a prayer leader is not removed for using the nusach of v'lamalshinim that excludes mention of heretics, because there are places where this is an established nusach.

In any case, by the standard described in the above commentary of the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah, who reject the notion quoted by the Tur (126) in the name of the Y'rushalmi (B'rachos 5:3, "לכל אין מחזירין אותו חוץ ממי שלא אמר מחיה המתים ומכניע זדים ובונה ירושלים אני אומר מין הוא") that someone omitting תחיית המתים should also be removed, it would seem that modern Ashkenazim should no longer remove prayer leaders who skip the entire blessing of V'lamalshinim. This is because its recitation would not indicate that the prayer leader is a believer (per the rationale of "אין בזה היכר אם הוא מין או לא" that the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah commentary gives to explain the implicit ruling in the Bavli that omission of the T'chiyas HaMeisim blessing would not be cause to remove a prayer leader).

Additionally, per Dave's answer and Shmuel Brin's comment, it's possible that this problem would apply nowadays even to nuscha'os that explicitly mention heretics (unless offense rather than fear would still motivate modern heretics to omit this blessing).

So why is the halacha to remove a prayer leader who omits the blessing of V'lamalshinim still applicable?

  • I can't tell from the passage you quoted: is he concerned about cursing himself, or being the means by which he is cursed? That is, is he worried about the words he says, or about the words the congregation will say (or say "amen" to) having a bad effect on him? Sep 10, 2013 at 2:49
  • @MonicaCellio It seems to be the former. If the latter, it probably would have said אינו רוצה שיקללו אותו.
    – Fred
    Sep 10, 2013 at 3:08
  • 1
    I guess really it's more analogous to say that still saying "lamalshinim" instead of "lameshumadim" is as silly as still skipping "sheheim mishtachavim lahevel varik..."
    – Double AA
    Aug 21, 2016 at 1:45
  • 1
    @SAH From Shulchan 'Aruch OC 126:1 (cited in the OP): "A prayer leader who erred and skipped any one of the blessings, we do not remove him if he continues from the proper place and recites the blessing upon being corrected. However, if he skipped the blessing of the malshinim, we remove him immediately, lest he be a heretic (but if he started the blessing and subsequently erred in it, we do not remove him)." The Mishna B'rura clarifies that if someone deliberately skips any of the blessings, he is immediately removed.
    – Fred
    Mar 8, 2018 at 17:44
  • 1
    Heard today from a friend that he knows someone who used למשומדים in front of R Chaim Kanievsky. People complained to RCK to reprimand him since God must have allowed the change to happen, and RCK replied God also allowed us to find the original again.
    – Double AA
    Dec 20, 2023 at 14:52

3 Answers 3


The question is based on an anachronistic assumption about the nature of heresy, specifically that heresy makes you less likely to consider curses potent and harmful.

That's probably true of a cross-section of today's heretics, who tend toward atheism. And if you exclude religion, modern rationalism allows no other means by which curses could work.

In the past, however, heretics (and certainly the minim addressed by the beracha) were religious, just not in a way we approve of. And even if a heretic was irreligious, he'd still be subject to garden-variety superstition.

  • 1
    This answers the question in the title. However, that's not really the question in the body of the post (the mismatch is my fault, sorry). I think I'll clarify the title to something like "Does the Ashkenazi nusach of V'lamalshinim imply a curse against heretics?" +1, though, for technically answering the question in the title at the time.
    – Fred
    Sep 11, 2013 at 15:21

1) Even though nusach Ashkenaz does not mention heretics explicitly, this is because of modification due to censors. At the time of the gemara, certainly the bracha had laminim as part of it.

See here:

”Velamalshinim”= We should have in mind the historical significance of the prayer. Originally the word “velamalshinim” read “velaminim,” but the Christain censors, who were originally “targeted” by the Bracha, actually changed. It’s important to realize that our prayer has historical significance. (Artscroll Mesorah)

2) Your question has the answer as part of it. Yes, since the audience would know what minim were, and the text of the blessing was composed with Sadducees in mind, a Sadducee (or an early Jewish Christian, e.g.) would understand this as the meaning of the prayer, and would balk at reciting this blessing.

  • See my edit above.
    – Fred
    Sep 10, 2013 at 3:42
  • modified question now seems parallel to, though different from, this question: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/30981/… Sep 10, 2013 at 4:10
  • @Fred, this modification greatly expands the scope of the question, and indeed seems like an entirely different topic. would this perhaps better be presented as a new and separate question? Sep 10, 2013 at 4:13
  • @joshwaxman Perhaps, but the edit is also a follow up that is dependent on the premise of your answer that a heretic would not be afraid of reciting the modern Ashkenazi formulation of the blessing. I'm not yet convinced of this premise due to the new question it raises as described in my above edit.
    – Fred
    Sep 10, 2013 at 4:20
  • i don't think it follows that I have advanced a "premise". your question was about how to understand the gemara. i explained that the gemara, according to everyone, did not have this nusach, so the question does not start. we can be agnostic as to whether the gemara would have asked the same question with a nusach that did not exist. that is irrelevant to understanding the gemara. Sep 10, 2013 at 4:25

The slander which we are referring to when praying for the downfall of 'the slanderers' is specifically the slander said against the Torah being God given.

We are not praying for the downfall of the co-worker who slandered you to your boss, or people who slandered Jews to the Romans or anything like that. No matter what the censors were hoping to imply with their new word. It is referring to the slander against the Torah, which means these slanderers are minim, and the bracha means the same thing as if it said minim, no matter how you look at it. At least according to the popular minhag to keep the nusach as is.

Now you will ask, but maybe the shliach tzibur thought it meant a regular slanderer, like you're co-worker, and by skipping it he not shown any signs of heresy. To this the answer is, could be, we don't know, and we don't need to know with any degree of certainty that he is in fact a heretic. We remove him as being a suspect heretic, as we see all the language used is he is suspect.

  • Interesting. This is somewhat similar to the understanding of the Mishpat Tzedek (cited in my OP) regarding the meaning of zeidim in this blessing as a reference to a subset of wanton and brazen minim l'hach'is (see my comment here). He notes that if someone merely omits "ולמשומדים", the poskim implicitly appear to judge him favorably and not suspect him of being a heretic, viewing, rather, the overall blessing as being understood to refer to heretics.
    – Fred
    Mar 19, 2015 at 4:17
  • +1, but it would be nice if you could bulk up this answer with sources (e.g. per last column of the Mishpat Tzedek's responsum, where he says that the word "lamalshinim" replaced "lamshumadim" in Sephardi siddurim due to censors, but that the Sephardim would still say the word "lamshumadim" - maybe some source explicitly indicates that the word "v'lamalshinim" in the b'racha, even if pronounced as such, came to be understood as a reference to apostates).
    – Fred
    Mar 19, 2015 at 4:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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