This issue of cantors exhibiting their musical talents has been the subject of much discussion over the years. Already in Medieval times, Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid wrote that one who has a pretty voice should utilize it in the service of Hashem (Sefer Chassidim #18, 158, 768). On the other hand, Rashba (responsa 1:215) was asked about cantors who put on performances and derived benefit from this chance to show off their abilities. He answered that everything depended on intent – if the cantor was happy because he was being given the opportunity to praise Hashem, then he is praiseworthy, as it is commendable for the chazzan to have a voice that is beautiful. On the other hand, if the chazzan is intending merely to show off, then he is repulsive and should not lead the services.

The Tur (O.C. 61) deals with this gemara and Yerushalmi and writes that one who says the word Shema twice should be silenced, since he appears to be professing a dualistic belief. He then raises the Yerushalmi, but rejects it since the Bavli does not have such a distinction (an interesting methodology which is worthy of much further study). He notes that when the Bavli says that one who says Shema twice is considered to be repulsive, but is not silenced, that is referring to one who repeats the entire verse, whereas one who merely doubles the word is not silenced. However, Rif holds that the issue is repeated the individual word, and thus the Tur advises that we should be strict on both ends and not repeat either. However, he rules that we may repeat an entire parasha (paragraph) without worrying.

The commentaries on the Tur go in divergent directions on this issue. Citing the Semag and Rabbeinu Manoach, the Beit Yoseif rules that we should be careful in not even repeating an entire parasha. On the other hand, the Bach recognizes the fact that neither the Tur nor the Shulchan Aruch allow for the distinction between public and private, yet he himself rules that the Yerushalmi's distinction is valid and that one may privately double the words (he does restrict this to private davening where no one else can hear and not just silent davening in a minyan).

Bach goes even further. He notes that the practice in some places was to repeat the words Shema during the recitation of Selichot and in Ne'ilah on Yom HaKippurim. In defense of this practice, he notes that when the entire congregation is participating, there is clearly no worry that it will look as if anyone is proposing that there are two divine forces, and thus with that factor avoided there is no issue and it is permitted. The Magen Avraham (O.C. 61:9) attacks the Bach and claims that he is neglecting to consider the gemara in Succah 53b. There the gemara discusses the various practices of the Simchat Beit HaShoeiva, which included the recitation of prayers that doubled words. As Rashi there explains the gemara's solution, the practice was permitted because the seemingly doubled word actually was the same word serving as the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next, and thus the issue was a non-issue. However, notes the Magen Avraham (and the Be'eir Heitev and Chochmat Shlomo), the fact that this practice was challenged as being a violation of the prohibition of repeating words shows that even when everyone is saying something that does not serve to make it permitted.

This issue has been given a bit more extensive coverage in the past century. The Aruch HaShulchan (O.C. 53:13) states simply that it is forbidden to repeat words. It should be noted that this statement is made in the context of the laws of Birchot HaShachar (the morning blessings in the midst of a discussion about qualification for a chazzan. As such, it seems that he is expanding this law from being solely about Shema and Shemoneh Esrei to being about all of davening. By contrast, the Torah Temimah, the nephew of the Aruch HaShulchan, allows for the repetition of words if it is done with the full intent of beautifying the prayer to Hashem , and not for one's personal glorification. Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in a responsa (Shemesh Merapeh O.C. #4), wrote that any repetition of words should be frowned upon, as sometimes it may show a lack of belief in the unity of Hashem and in any case it makes the holy institution of prayer into a less serious matter than it should be.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe O.C. 2:22) investigates the various problems that could arise when one repeats words. First he discusses the issue of repeating words in the middle of a blessing (such as a chazzan who repeats words in his repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei). Rav Feinstein notes that in such a case the problem is very clear-cut: the repetition serves as a hefsek, a forbidden break in the prayer. However, there are different levels at work here. If the repetition results in prayers that can be translated validly without compromising the meaning of the blessing, then we do not make the person repeat the prayer. On the other side of the spectrum, if the resultant meaning of the prayer is one that is false or blasphemous, then we rule that the prayer is no good and must be said over. In the middle are the cases where the resultant meaning was neutral or nonsensical. In such a case, Rav Feinstein rules that if the repetition was brought about as a means of "going with the flow" of the music, then we do not do anything. However, if a tune was devised that called specifically for words to be repeated and was used knowingly in this way, then we make the cantor repeat the prayer.

Rav Ovadiah Yoseif (Yechaveh Da'at 2:5) takes a harsher stance on this. He claims that the cases in the gemara are merely prototypes and that one may never repeat words. As proof, he adduces the view of the Maharam Schick that one should never repeat words, throwing in the concept of hefsek in addition to that of heresy. Interestingly, Rav Yoseif cites Rav Feinstein among his proofs, seemingly ignoring Rav Feinstein's distinctions between different parts of the prayer service and casting him as agreeing with Rav Yoseif's monolithic view of this issue. It should, however, be noted that Rav Yoseif does not say that there is a clear-cut violation of law at work here. Rather, he makes this ruling in the context of an issue that cantors should be warned about (he says that repeating words is "similar to" the cases in the gemara).

Back to Chabura-Net's Home Page