The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

 Summarized by Aviad Hacohen

The gemara (Shabbat 10a) teaches:

Rava observed Rav Hamnuna praying at length. He said, 'You are putting aside eternal life and involving yourself with momentary life!' [Rashi explains: 'Eternal life' refers to Torah, whereas prayer focuses on the needs of our ephemeral physical life, such as healing, peace, food.]. And he [Rav Hamnuna] explained, 'Prayer has its time, and Torah study has its time.'

By virtue of his roots and influences, "the Rav" (as Rav Soloveitchik was known to his students) presumably belonged to the school of Rava. Obviously, as regards the mitzvot of tefilla (prayer) on the minimal halakhic level, the position of Rav Hamnuna - "Prayer has its time, and Torah study has its time" - was recognized in both Volozhin and Brisk. Halakha follows Rabbi Yochanan's opinion (Shabbat 11a) that Torah scholars' absolute exemption from prayer is limited to those, like Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, whose "Torah is their profession," i.e., those who devote all their time exclusively to Torah study. Since they are not engaged in matters of this world, they are exempt from prayer. Other than these rare exceptions, the obligation is binding and is taken for granted in the teachings of the Rav.

 At the same time, in the tradition of Volozhin and Brisk the value and status of prayer - relative both to other areas of Divine service (especially in comparison to Torah study) and to the special status and importance of prayer in the popular view - were quite limited.

 Volozhin and Brisk were guided by the central awareness that, in the words of the Rambam (Hilkhot Tefilla 6:8), "the mitzva of Torah study is greater than that of tefilla." In truth, the issue was never evaluated in these terms. Tefilla and Torah study were never placed on two arms of a scale with a view to comparing their respective weight. The attraction to Torah study and commitment to it were understood first and foremost on the valuational and existential levels. The obligation of conscientious study day and night, uninterrupted and unwavering, was emphasized over and over.

Few were those who would have been courageous enough to emulate the pious ones of old, of whom it is told (Berakhot 32b) that they would spend nine hours each day engaged in prayer, and nevertheless "because they were pious their Torah study was preserved and their labor was blessed." Not many believed that they could rely on this promise. In any event, I believe that in Volozhin and Brisk they neither desired nor aspired to this. The prevailing motto was, "'If you walk in my statutes' - i.e., if you labor in My Torah." The dominant emphasis was placed on the acquisition of Torah through investing supreme effort in its study.

There can be no doubt that this tradition regarding the relationship between Torah and tefilla left an indelible imprint on the Rav at the outset of his career, and had a determining influence on his way of life and also, to some extent, on his philosophy.

For a long time, at least until the end of the 1950's, the Rav would not hesitate to pray alone in order to make more time available for learning. He found support for this decision in Rav Chaim's understanding of the Rambam's approach to the laws of communal prayer. He also offered an intriguing explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's opinion (Megilla 27a) that "a synagogue may be converted into a beit midrash (study hall)" (but not vice versa, because the sanctity of a study hall is greater than that of a synagogue). According to the Rav, the sanctity and unique nature of a beit midrash are based not on our preference for the intellectual and rational aspect of our faith, but rather on the greater importance of study than tefilla on the existential plane. Nevertheless, it is clear that prayer held a central place in the Rav's spiritual world.

 At the start of his career as a Torah luminary, the Rav paid special attention to the issue of prayer - both between the walls of his own beit midrash as well as from various public podiums. When his father, Rav Moshe zt"l, would invite him to deliver a guest lecture at the yeshiva in New York, the Rav regularly chose to deal with issues in Tractate Berakhot. There is clearly no need to elaborate on the place which this held in the Rav's teachings throughout his life. A brief perusal of his annual "Yahrzeit lectures" (collected in the two volumes of "Shiurim LeZekher Abba Mari Z"L") bears adequate witness to this.

Alongside Torah study, tefilla represented a central and potent ingredient in the Rav's personality and his service of God. Those closest to him remember with admiration not only his brilliant lectures but also the broken heart filled with longing which characterized his stance as a servant of God standing before his Master during the Ne'ila prayer on Yom Kippur, and the ecstasy and power which burst forth during his recitation of "Nishmat Kol Chai" at the Seder table. Anyone seeking to understand the Rav's teachings, his philosophy and his essence must therefore turn his attention to his treatment of tefilla both as a subject of study and as a state of being.

I shall deal with some of the principal points in this regard. It should obviously be kept in mind, though, that all his teachings - transmitted in great detail both orally and in writing, in the framework of Torah study and its practical application in life, all spanning many decades - cannot possibly be crammed into a single lecture.

The word "tefilla" is used in two different senses. One is a wider concept, referring to the contents of the siddur, the prayers which we recite in synagogue. The content of "tefilla" in this context includes the portions read from the Torah, birkat kohanim (the priestly blessing), pesukei de-zimra (songs of praise), hallel, etc.

In its narrower sense, the word "tefilla" is used to refer specifically to the Shemoneh Esrei (the "Eighteen Blessings;" also called the "Amida," or "standing prayer"). This differentiation appears in the Rambam, who distinguishes in his Mishneh Torah between the "Laws of Berakhot (blessings)," the "Laws of Reciting the Shema," and the "Laws of Tefilla." The Rav dealt at length with both areas, but we shall concentrate here on his treatment of tefilla as it refers to the Shemoneh Esrei.

Through the Rav's teachings, we may examine tefilla on three levels:

The first is that of tefilla itself, alone.

The second is an examination of tefilla as typifying a category of mitzvot.

The third level is the perspective which sees tefilla as rooted and integrated in the totality of the Rav's philosophical thought.

With regard to the first level, we may highlight several central elements on which the Rav focused:

1. The primary emphasis on "bakasha" (petition, request). The Shemoneh Esrei, as we know, is structured such that there is praise (shevach) at the beginning, thanksgiving (hoda'a) at the end, and requests in between. The Rav laid particular emphasis on the element of bakasha as characterizing tefilla. This in itself is not surprising, and perhaps not even innovative: the gemara itself uses the words "rachamei" and "tachanunim" (supplications) as synonyms for tefilla. According to the description which appears in the gemara (Berakhot 34a), "[During] the first [set of blessings in the Shemoneh Esrei,] one is compared to a servant who presents praise before his master; [during] the middle [blessings] he is compared to a servant who requests a favor from his master; and [in reciting] the last [blessings] he is likto a servant who has received a favor from his master, and now takes his leave and departs." Here, too, the central element of the tefilla is perceived as residing in the dimensioof request.

The Rav did not stop at emphasizing this fact, reflected as it is in the content of the tefilla itself. (The Sifalso quotes a number of verses fromTanakh which support this tripartite structure of prayer.) He also examined the question of the legitimacy of this view, and the extent to which it is necessary. This examination was carried out keeping other views in mind: mystical perspectives which highlight at length the dimension of praise, and idealistic-philosophical perspectives which regard the status of "petition" with misgivings, and perceive it as an unacceptable egocentric act: instead of a person being full of praise to God, he is merely concerned with his own personal cares.

 The Rav completely rejected these views, insisting instead, over and over, that prayer is indeed - and must be - "supplication and request." I shall quote a few lines from his article, "Ra'ayonot al haTefilla" (Ideas on Prayer):

"As has been explained, tefilla also requires praise and thanks. Nevertheless, the vigor and power of tefilla are embedded in the bakasha. Halakha is interested in the psychosomatic human being - in his actual body. It is not pleased by an ecstatic separation of the soul from the body during prayer." [Printed in Ish HaHalakha - Galui VeNistar, p. 265]

This tone is echoed in several places and in various contexts.

2. Moreover, the Rav emphasized the view of tefilla as standing before the King. He referred not only to the outpouring of one's request, but also to the consciousness of the encounter itself. This aspect is highlighted especially in the Shemoneh Esrei, as opposed to other prayers in which we recite words before God against a different background. The Rambam gives expression to this idea while addressing the issue of the "preparation of the body" for prayer (Hilkhot Tefilla 5:4):

 "And his heart should be turned upwards, as though he were standing in heaven."

 Similarly, the Ramban in this regard explicitly differentiates between the Shemoneh Esrei and the recitation of the Shema (Berakhot 22b s.v. "Aval "). The gemara (Eruvin 64a, and see Berakhot 31a) teaches that "a drunk person is forbidden to pray," to the extent that if he does so, his prayer is considered an abomination. The Ramban maintains, however, that a person who is inebriated is permitted to recite the Shema, and may even be obligated to do so:

"Because in 'tefilla' [i.e. the Amida,] he requires excessive concentration, for he is like one who stands before a king, and we know from other sources that the regulations concerning 'kavana' (concentration) are more strict with regard to 'tefilla' than with regard to the recitation of the Shema..."

The Ramban connects this to the issue of kavana. The Rav, however, saw the halakhic conclusion as more than simply a result arising from the requirement of "excessive concentration" which would prevent someone who was drunk from praying properly. He perceived tefilla as an encounter characterized principally by the "standing before the King," presenting oneself before God, a direct appeal to Him expressed in the language of the siddur in the second person singular. This standing before the King gives rise to both obligations: the first - deep concentration, and the second - sobriety, which a drunk cannot fulfill. 

The Rav would frequently quote Rashi's comment (Berakhot 25a s.v. "Aval le-tefilla " ) on the gemara which states that when it comes to the Shema, it is sufficient for a person to cover only his private parts and leave most of his body exposed, whereas for tefilla he must "cover his heart." Rashi explains:

'But for tefilla' - he has to present himself as standing before the King, and to stand in fear. But the recitation of the Shema is not [considered] speaking before the King.

The Rav saw in this idea of encounter and dialogue (with consideration for the unique nature of both "the one who stands" praying and "the One before Whom he stands") the central dimension of tefilla.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

(c) Yeshivat Har Etzion1997 All rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion