Q&A: A Halakhic Hair-Splitting Discussion about Tachanun
A Halakhic Hair-Splitting Discussion about Tachanun
Question
Hello Rabbi. I am Sephardi, and I often end up praying with Ashkenazim (to my misfortune), and there are days when they do not say Tachanun for reasons that are not acceptable from a Sephardi perspective. I do not depart from the local custom, and I do not say it along with them.
In the first part of Tachanun there is no problem. The question begins with the accompanying sections. As is known, among Sephardim, “Lamnatze’ach” and “Tefillah LeDavid” are dependent on Tachanun—if there is no Tachanun, there is no recitation of those either. Among Ashkenazim they are not always connected, and it may be that they say them even when they do not say Tachanun.
The question is: in a situation where it happens that they do not say Tachanun for an “Ashkenazi” reason, but they do say the additions, should I say the additions or not? The possible sides are these:
One should not say the additions, since I am not saying Tachanun, and for me the additions are tied to Tachanun.
Or perhaps go this way:
One should say the additions, since according to my own view the entire Tachanun should have been said, and only because I am with a congregation that does not say it do I refrain from saying it with them—and they do say the additions, and it is enough for what is derived from a law to be like the original case.
And if you say to recite them in any case—if it helps, good, and if not, it does no harm—according to Kabbalah, whoever adds detracts from the order of the worlds.
And perhaps one could say that what they said on the basis of Kabbalah—that whoever adds detracts—applies specifically to things that are not part of the prayer order at all; but with things whose place and connection are within the prayer service, only they are subject to dispute or varying customs, that rule does not apply.
It seems to me that this kind of bathtub pilpul is not exactly the Rabbi’s cup of tea, but perhaps even so the Rabbi (or one of the readers) can throw out a few interesting ideas.
Thank you very much
Answer
The only interesting idea I have is that if you are praying with a congregation, it is proper to pray according to their liturgy, even if it differs from yours. Almost all of the connections people make between parts of the prayer service are not based on any real source, and their roots lie in one custom or another whose reasons are dubious.
Discussion on Answer
??
Just an example that popped into my head, and I wrote it merely as abstract pilpul in case the questioner was looking for an example of the mechanism. When something (Tachanun) is canceled for an external reason (the local custom), are the things dependent on it (the addition) also canceled? This resembles the position among the later authorities that even if the obligation of the oath is canceled because of a supporting witness, the obligation of the roll-over oath (which depends on the obligation of an oath) is not canceled, because the obligation of the oath generated the obligation of the roll-over, and the oath itself is only set aside, not uprooted.
!!
The Rabbi wrote:
“That if you are praying with a congregation, it is proper to pray according to their liturgy, even if it differs from yours.”
Does that mean that even, for example, the silent Amidah should properly be recited in the Ashkenazi rite even if that person is Sephardi? Usually it is harder to have proper intention with a wording that is not your “natural” wording.
In principle, in my opinion communal prayer ought to be conducted according to the local rite. But for the silent prayer you can be somewhat flexible, certainly if it interferes with concentration.
You could also take an interest in the later authorities’ analysis regarding a supporting witness who exempts someone from an oath—does he also exempt him from a rolled-over oath? (And this connects in part to the wonderful point that without a prohibition on eating, there is no prohibition on deriving benefit.)