When I hear a chazzan repeating words to fit into tunes during tefilla, it upsets me. Am I correct to react that way?
The mishna (Berachot 33b) says that one who says “Modim modim” is silenced. The reason is that he appears to be addressing two deities, k’vayachol. R. Zeira (gemara, ad loc.) extends this halacha to Shema. The gemara asks from a baraita that calls repeating Shema meguneh (derogatory), implying that we do not go as far as to silence him. The gemara answers that it depends whether one repeated the statement as a whole or word by word. Rashi explains that to utter a coherent statement twice in succession may be taken as addressing two deities; repeating each word twice “only” appears like a mockery, which is a less serious affront. The Rif learns the opposite: repeating words looks like speaking to two deities and repeating sentences is generally “only” derogatory. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 61:9) does not decide between the opinions, stating only that it is forbidden to repeat Shema in either form. Only if one feels that he had insufficient concentration is it proper to repeat a section (Mishna Berura ad loc.:22).
The problem of looking like addressing
two deities does not apply to most passages of Kri’at Shema and tefilla (Beit
Yosef, OC 61). Yet, many poskim write that the derogatory nature of
unnecessarily repeating words exists throughout tefilla. The Maharam Shick (OC
31) objects on five grounds. The most serious one, which applies to parts of
tefilla where one may not talk, is the matter of hefsek (extraneous
interruptions). Rav M. Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, OC 22) while objecting to
repeating words, says that is not always a hefsek. If one keeps the order of
words intact, it is not a hefsek. His proof is from the fact that we allow one
who did not concentrate when saying certain words to repeat them even though he
was already yotzei. However, he reasons that if one repeats out of order, at
least when meaning is lost, it is a hefsek which requires returning (see OC 104
regarding how far to return).
The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 338:8) uses his
approach of finding justification for common practices that seem to contradict
halacha when the people will not change their ways. He suggests that perhaps the
problem of repeating words applies only in the places the gemara mentions.
Some of the Maharam Shick’s objections are subjective, such as that it is a
less effective way to present our thoughts and needs to Hashem. Chazzanim will
claim that the inspiration gained by using moving tunes to reach the tefilla’s
ultimate goals justifies some repetition. Skeptics will counter that similar
gains can be made without it and apply the Shulchan Aruch’s (OC 53:11)
complaints about certain chazzanim showing off their voices for the wrong
reasons. Of course, no two cases are precisely the same.
After summarizing that a little repeating of words in a way that does not change meaning, while far from ideal, is vaguely justifiable, let us say as follows. In an ideal world, a congregation would not allow its chazzanim to repeat words. However, many congregations include dear Jews who may not be aware of or careful about every halachic intricacy. There, it may not be realistic or worthwhile to take issue with those who repeat. Likewise, in a congregation where people do not generally repeat but a guest or someone who “missed the hint” repeats words, it does not pay to hurt feelings over it.
A rabbi may want to teach the halacha in
a way that avoids hurting feelings. In general, we should criticize others very
sparingly. This is especially true in our society, where people are used to
freedom and react to criticism negatively ( at times with severe consequences).
Only regarding a person or a setting (like a yeshiva) where people are willing
to learn improved ways of performing mitzvot would we suggest correcting
(privately) one who is unaware of these objections. Certainly, when nothing can
be done about it, it is a shame to upset yourself.
[Machon Eretz Chemda]
