Zoom-Amen: hearing and answering berachot and tefila remotely

(14) Responding “Amen” to an Electronically Reproduced Berachah

(15) Assuming, like most authorities, that we do not equate an electronically reproduced sound with a natural voice, one who hears a berachah (blessing) over a microphone merely knows that it has been recited at that moment, but has not actually heard it. This situation appears analogous to the Great Synagogue of Alexandria (described in Sukkah 51b), which was so large that many congregants could not hear the leader. In order that they would know when to answer “amen,” someone would wave a banner to indicate that the leader had recited a berachah.

(18) Accordingly, Rav Shlomo Zalman rules that if one hears via a microphone a berachah that he is not obligated to recite, he may answer “amen.” This situation commonly arises at weddings, where members of the audience hear the berachot only over loudspeakers. The bride and groom, who must hear these berachot, do hear the actual sound, as they stand right next to those who recite the blessings.¹²...

(19) In another interesting ruling, Rav Shlomo Zalman forbids answering "amen" to a berachah that one hears while listening to a radio (or telephone), even during a live broadcast. He argues that only one who is present in the place of a berachah’s recitation is eligible to answer “amen” (e.g., the situation in Alexandria). However, if he is not present in the place where the blessing is recited, he must not answer "amen" under any circumstances. Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (cited in Avnei Yashfeih 1:9) equates hearing a berachah over a telephone or radio to receiving a telegram that someone will recite a berachah at a certain time. Just as we would never think of reciting amen in the latter situation, so, too, a radio listener is so far removed from the berachah’s recitation that he should not answer amen. Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:155) similarly rules that one should answer “amen” only when close enough to at least hear the natural voices of other people answering amen to the berachah, but not when hearing a berachah from extremely far away.

(20) Not all halachic authorities agree with this assertion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:91) rules that one should answer amen to a berachah recited on the radio (if it is a live broadcast) or on the telephone, because of a safeik (doubt). As we have already quoted from Rav Moshe, he was not sure whether a reproduced sound shares the status of a person’s voice, so he rules that one should respond “amen” in case the berachah does share a natural voice’s status.¹³It would seem that Rav Moshe considers the recitation of an amen yetomah to be a rabbinic prohibition, so he felt we should recite “amen” in such a questionable situation. However, Rav Moshe does not explicitly address the issue of an amen yetomah in his responsum, so it is not clear if he thinks that any concern exists for an amen yetomah when one hears a berachah over a telephone or live radio broadcast. Also see Biur Halachah (124 s.v. Veyeish), who implies that “amen” should not be recited when a doubt exist regarding whether it constitutes an amen yetomah.

(1) Modern authorities have vigorously debated whether a sound heard through a microphone, hearing aid (which functions much like a microphone),¹Regarding why hearing aids do not violate Shabbat, see Igrot Moshe (Orach Chaim 4:85), Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo (1:9), and The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (41:62-98). or telephone shares the status of the original sound. This issue impacts the fulfillment of numerous mitzvot, such as listening to the blowing of a shofar or to Torah and Megillah readings, by hearing them through these electronic media.

... (6) A number of prominent authorities who understood microphones more accurately nonetheless considered permitting their use for mitzvot that entail listening. The Chazon Ish (in an oral communication to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, cited in Minchat Shlomo 1:9) suggests that perhaps “since the voice that is heard via microphone was created [at first] by the [human] speaker and the voice is heard immediately,³Dr. Joel Berman notes that there is, technically, a slight gap between the time it takes to hear a live sound and the time to hear a sound through a microphone. Nevertheless, human beings can hardly perceive this gap, so the Chazon Ish presumably did not consider it to be significant. as it would be heard in regular conversation, it is also defined as ‘actually hearing’ the shofar blower or the [voice of the human] speaker.”

(7) Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 2:108) and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (cited in Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 2:113 and Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 8:11) suggest a similar line of reasoning. Rav Moshe indicates that one never hears a sound directly from its source; rather, the vibration created when a person speaks then passes through the air to the listener’s ear. The vibrating air next to the listener is not the same air that vibrated near the speaker’s vocal chords. Thus, indicates Rav Moshe, perhaps any sound that reaches the listener as a direct result of the original sound shares the same halachic status as the speaker’s own voice. Nevertheless, Rav Moshe discourages the use of a microphone even for rabbinic mitzvot, such as reading the Megillah.⁴Also see Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:126, and Teshuvot Sheivet Halevi 5:84. Rav Shlomo Zalman, however, attacks any possibility of claiming that one can equate an electronically reproduced sound with a person’s original voice:

(8) Does not the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 27b) state that if one blows a shofar into a pit and hears only an echo, then he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of shofar? Why is hearing something through a microphone different from hearing an echo? They are both replications of the original sound!⁵The Minchat Elazar (2:72) writes that only the mitzvah of shofar requires an original sound, as opposed to an echo. However, an echo would suffice for Torah or Megillah reading, so one may also read them over a microphone. Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechaveh Daat 3:54) counter that a microphone is far worse than an echo, as the connection between the reader and the hearer has been entirely disrupted. The microphone and speakers completely reconstitute the voice, so it is as if the listener heard it from wood or stones. Thus even if one could fulfill most mitzvot through an echo, a microphone is surely unacceptable.

(9) Rav Shlomo Zalman concludes that the Chazon Ish’s possible leniency is highly questionable, “and I do not comprehend it.”

(10) Argument that a Mitzvah Cannot be Fulfilled

(11) The majority of authorities believe that one does not fulfill any mitzvot by hearing a sound through a microphone. In particular, most mid- and late-twentieth-century authorities, who benefited from a greater understanding than their predecessors of how microphones operate, reject the use of microphones for the performance of mitzvot,⁶Besides Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, these authorities include Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kitvei Hagaon Rav Y. E. Henkin 1:122), Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:155 and Mo’adim Uzmanim 6:105), Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 8:11), Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechaveh Daat 3:54), Rav Levi Yitzchak Halperin (Teshuvot Ma’aseih Chosheiv 1:1) and Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 3:38:16). with the possible exception of Torah reading.⁷Many authorities also prohibit reading the Torah over a microphone or hearing it through a hearing aid (see Kol Mevaser 2:25; Minchat Yitzchak 3:38:16; and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, cited in Yabia Omer vol. 1, Orach Chaim 19:18). However, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:149 and 1:155) claims that there is no mitzvah to hear the reader’s voice per se during the Torah reading, but rather “to hear words of Torah” (1:155) from a public reading, “for the purpose of Torah study” (1:149). Rav Shternbuch thus suggests that someone who cannot hear the Torah reading without a hearing aid may nonetheless be called to the Torah for an aliyah (1:149). He further defends the practice of reading the Torah over a microphone during the massive services that take place on Chol Hamo’eid at the Western Wall (1:155). Nevertheless, he encourages trying to hear the reader’s natural voice in deference to authorities who reject his reasoning. Rav Ovadia Yosef (cited in Yalkut Yosef vol. 2 [Dinei Keri’at Sefer Torah U’veit Haknesset] pp. 107-108 note 14) also believes that a community fulfills its obligation to read the Torah even by reading it over a microphone. They argue that one hears an electronically reproduced sound over these devices, whereas the Halachah requires one to hear the actual sound of a shofar, or voice of the reader. They note that this reproduction is substantially inferior to hearing an echo since it lacks any trace of the original sound, whereas echoes come from the original sound waves. According to Rav Shlomo Zalman, blowing the shofar over a sound-system is analogous to pressing a button on a computer that produces the sound of a shofar.

(12) Rav Shlomo Zalman therefore writes that he is pained to rule that one cannot fulfill the mitzvot of shofar and Megillah through a hearing aid. Accordingly, hearing-disabled individuals should remove their hearing aids during shofar blowing and Megillah reading. If they cannot hear the shofar or Megillah without their hearing aids, they must not recite the blessings for these mitzvot.

(13) Hearing the shofar and Megillah with a hearing aid still has some value because of the opinion of the Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe that one might fulfill these mitzvot even with a sound system. Similarly, Rav Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 8:11) writes that if a Rav decides to broadcast the Megillah reading throughout a hospital so as to enable patients to hear it, he should not be denigrated, for he is ruling according to the reasoning of the Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe in a case of very great need (as these patients otherwise would not hear the Megillah at all).⁸Also see Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 4:26, where Rav Waldenberg vehemently opposes the use of microphones for prayers. Besides his halachic concerns, Rav Waldenberg claims that using a microphone in shul denigrates the sanctity of the prayers. Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:91) rules that one may recite havdalah⁹See Rav Yisroel Dov Webster’s The Halachos of Pregnancy and Childbirth (Teshuvot Meraboteinu pp. 12-13), where he cites Rav Yitzchak Isaac Liebes who distinguishes between havdalah and other mitzvot. He suggests that, unlike other mitzvot, one may recite havdalah over the telephone under pressing circumstances for people (particularly women; see Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 296:8) who could not hear it otherwise. From a practical perspective, it should be noted that there have been incidents of elderly women who have burned themselves during havdalah, which might provide an added reason to rely on Rav Liebes’s position in their situation. Alternatively, one might advise them to follow the Biur Halachah’s opinion (296:8 s.v. Lo) that women should not recite borei m’eorei ha’eish (the blessing for the candle) at havdalah (see, however, Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat 2:47:2, who disagrees), or one might encourage them to rely on those authorities who permit reciting borei me’orei ha’eish on a non-frosted incandescent bulb. (The Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah, 61:32, summarizes the dispute regarding incandescent bulbs and concludes that they should not be used in place of classical havdalah candles except in cases of great need.) Since each of these options is subject to much debate, one should consult a competent rabbi regarding how to deal with cases of havdalah for elderly relatives. over the telephone on behalf of a listener who has no other way to hear it (such as a patient in a distant hospital).¹⁰If one has already recited or heard havdalah, it could present a problem for that person to recite havdalah on behalf of a telephone listener, because Rav Moshe is not sure if such a recitation is effective. If the listener does not fulfill his obligation through this recitation, then the caller will have recited the berachot in vain. To avoid this problem, either the one reciting havdalah should be sure to not recite or hear havdalah beforehand, or someone who has not yet recited or heard havdalah should listen to the natural voice of the one reciting havdalah.

... (21) Conclusion

(22) Under normal circumstances, most contemporary authorities (cited earlier) accept Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s contention that electronically reproduced sounds do not suffice for mitzvot that require hearing a specific natural sound. Therefore, as a general rule, one should not use a microphone for any mitzvot that entail hearing an actual sound (with the possible exception of Torah reading according to some authorities). However, one should consult a competent rabbi if an unusually pressing situation arises, as some authorities believe that performing mitzvot through electronically reproduced sound is preferable to not performing them at all.

(23) Rav Moshe (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 2:108) writes, “In general, we should forbid the introduction of microphones into synagogues to discourage people from being obsessed with new things, a regrettable fixation in modern American society.” Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook (Or Ha’emunah, Chofesh Hamachshavah Veha’emunah) expresses a similar sentiment, “So many spiritual problems that befall individuals and the world in general... can be attributed to disregarding all that is old for... everything new.”

(24) Of course, we should not reject positive new phenomena. Rav Moshe and Rav Kook are trying to teach us to see the new with a critical eye, while remaining anchored in our glorious past and keeping an eye on the promise of the future.