47 Omer - Sunday, 3 Sivan 5774 – June 1, 2014
The Torah in Parashat Behaalotekha speaks of the chatzotzerot (trumpets) which are to be sounded under certain situations, including times of war (10:9). The Rambam, in the beginning of Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, famously cites this verse as the source of a more general Biblical command to appeal to God during times of crisis. He defines this mitzva as requiring that we respond to any dire crisis with prayer and sounding the chatzotzerot (“li-z’ok u-le’hari’a ba-chatzotzerot”).
It is well-known that the Ramban, in his critique of the Ramban’s Sefer Ha-mitzvot (asei 5), cites this verse as the source for what he believes to be the Biblical command of prayer. Whereas the Rambam maintains that the Torah requires daily prayer, the Ramban was of the opinion that the obligation of daily prayer was enacted by Chazal. As far as Torah law is concerned, one is required to pray only “bi-sh’at tzara” – during times of crisis, as indicated by the mitzva of chatzotzerot.
The question arises as to how to understand the relationship between these two obligations according to the Rambam. As mentioned, the Rambam regards these two mitzvot – daily prayer and prayer in crisis situations – as Biblical commands. Seemingly, then, there must be a fundamental, substantive difference between the two obligations. Otherwise, why would the Torah command praying during times of crisis if we in any event are required to pray to God each day?
The difference between the two obligations can be easily understood by considering the different terminologies used by the Rambam in these contexts. The Rambam refers to daily prayer as “avoda she-be’leiv.” The term “avoda,” which immediately conjures an association with the service in the Beit Ha-mikdash, suggests formality and procedure. Indeed, in Hilkhot Tefila, the Rambam defines the obligation of daily prayer as requiring a fixed format of shevach, bakasha and hoda’a (praise of God, submitting requests, and expressing gratitude). This mitzva requires approaching God and formally “serving” Him by following a set procedure, similar to the formal rituals performed in the Beit Ha-mikdash. The obligation derived from the chatzotzerot, by contrast, requires “li-z’ok” – that we cry and beg for help during times of crisis. This is not formal worship, but rather an outburst of genuine emotion. And thus this mitzva is associated with the sounding of the chatzotzerot, which may be seen as a kind of wordless prayer, speaking to God through the expression of raw emotion, without articulating any particular text. This is not an avoda; here we are commanded to cry and beg the Almighty for assistance, not approach Him with a formal protocol. (We speak here on the level of Torah obligation; as we know from Masekhet Ta’anit, Chazal instituted a formal structure of fasting and prayer during times of crisis.) In short, these two mitzvot require two very different forms of prayer.
This analysis will affect the way the Rambam views the case of a crisis that surfaces after one has already prayed that day. There is a view among the Acharonim (cited in the name of Rav Yosef Rappaport) that in such a case, the Rambam would not require one to pray, at least not on the level of Torah obligation. Since the person had already prayed that day, he has fulfilled the day’s Biblical obligation of prayer even if a crisis suddenly arises. According to what we have seen, however, this would not seem to be correct. The requirement to pray in crisis situations is a completely different mitzva from daily prayer, and thus one must pray in response to crisis even if he had already recited the daily prayers earlier in the day.
Another ramification of this distinction is the issue of kavana (concentration) during prayer. The obligation of daily prayer is fulfilled even if one prays without concentrating on the meaning of the words, as long as he concentrates during the first berakha of the Amida. (Rav Chayim of Brisk famously asserted that throughout the rest of the Amida, one must pray with an awareness that he stands before God, even if he does not concentrate on the words’ meaning.) It stands to reason, however, that the obligation of prayer in times of crisis requires concentration and feeling throughout the entire of the prayer. This obligation requires not formal prayer – which can technically be performed even without any mental or emotional component – but rather ze’aka, crying and pleading with God. By definition, it would seem, this requires genuine feeling, and merely mouthing words would not suffice.
Rav David Silverberg
