Q&A: Rabbi Chaim’s Novel Approach Regarding Intention in Prayer
Rabbi Chaim’s Novel Approach Regarding Intention in Prayer
Question
To the Rabbi: As is well known, in Chiddushei Rabbi Chaim HaLevi (Prayer 5:1), he innovates that there are two laws regarding intention in prayer: A) intention as in the rest of the Torah, and B) intention that defines the act as an act of prayer.
I saw that people challenge Rabbi Chaim from explicit passages. The Chazon Ish in his glosses asks from the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot 2:4), where it is told of Amoraim who did not have proper intention throughout the entire prayer. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo 1:1) asks from what is stated in Berakhot (16), that if one was up to “and you shall write them” in the second paragraph, he does not need to go back, because he was following his accustomed flow, and so too the Shulchan Arukh rules (Orach Chayim 64:4). According to Rabbi Chaim, why does the person not need to go back on the grounds that he was merely acting unawares at the time of reading the second paragraph? Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach in Avi Ezri (there) asks from the fact that the Talmud (Berakhot 14b) disputes regarding which part of the Shema has a requirement of intention, and Maimonides rules that aside from the first verse, “if he did not direct his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation” (Shema 2:1).
Does the Rabbi think there is a way to reconcile Rabbi Chaim’s words?
Happy holiday!
Answer
1. I did not understand the difficulty from the Amoraim who did not have intention throughout the whole prayer. Even if one accepts his approach, that does not mean the intentions are indispensable throughout the entire prayer. Especially if you recall the Rema, who writes that nowadays, when we do not have proper intention, one does not go back even for the first blessings of the Amidah.
2. Regarding “he was following his accustomed flow,” it is possible that just as in matters of intention there are views that an unspecified act is presumed to be for its proper purpose—that is, the context indicates the existence of implicit intention—so too one can say that here. Even without Rabbi Chaim, you could ask, since according to all opinions at least one intention is required.
3. See 1.
Discussion on Answer
I was speaking about the basic premise that there are two kinds of intention in prayer. If he says that one does not fulfill his obligation in anything at all, then that is indeed contradicted. But that is not necessary. Certainly not in parts that themselves are not indispensable.
Maybe one can draw a parallel between what Rabbi Michi wrote in the latest column regarding conversion and the issue here:
Just as accepting the yoke of the commandments is not a separate law in conversion but is the very essence of conversion, so too the basic intention of standing before God is the very essence of prayer, and not a specific law like the intention required for other commandments.
Forgive me for the trouble, but if I may ask about the Rabbi’s words.
Rabbi Chaim writes there: “It appears that this intention is not a law of intention, but rather part of the very essence of the act of prayer. If his mind is not clear and he does not see himself as standing before God and praying, this is not an act of prayer; rather, he falls into the category of one acting unawares, for whom there is no status of an act. Therefore this intention is indispensable throughout the entire prayer, for wherever he was acting unawares, his status is as one who did not pray at all, and it is as though he skipped these words, and surely regarding the essence of prayer all eighteen blessings are indispensable.”
Seemingly, it is explicit in his words that a certain intention is indispensable throughout the entire prayer, and simply understood, the example in the Jerusalem Talmud, as well as a person who does not remember whether he recited the Shema, are examples of a clear absence of intention.
The Rema’s words themselves require clarification, but I did not understand how the Rabbi intended to resolve Rabbi Chaim’s difficulty through that. [I now saw that the Steipler Gaon (Berakhot 27) resolves the Rema’s words from the difficulty raised by the Biur Halakhah (there): how can a person who is in the middle of “You are mighty” continue his prayer and thereby recite blessings in vain? His answer is that the law of intention does not constitute part of the essence of the commandment of prayer, and therefore this is not a blessing in vain. And if you say as he does, that itself would intensify the difficulty with Rabbi Chaim’s principle. But in any case, the matter still requires clarification according to Rabbi Chaim’s words.]
Thank you very much, and happy holiday!