(By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com)

It was a deeply inspiring lesson – one that had a profound impact on this writer.

THE STORY

Reuvain was in charge of a college that had a policy.  If you registered for a class – you had precisely one week to withdraw.  If you did not withdraw – then you were responsible for all the work the professor required in that semester.  Shimon’s son did not withdraw during that first week, and subsequently failed the class.

“Don’t worry son.  I will take care of it.”  Shimon was a powerful member of the community.  He also davened with Reuvain in shul.  Shimon tried pressuring Reuvain to make an exception for his son.

It didn’t work.

Reuvain would not make an exception – even if Shimon was a powerful person.  And then the incident happened.  In shul, on one particular Yom Tov – Reuvain was davening Musaf for the amud.  Shimon who was a much larger person than Reuvain – physically lifted him aside and began the repetition of the Mussaf Shmoneh Esreh himself.

The shul members were shocked.  Had this ever happened before where the baal tefillah was physically replaced by another person – who had had an issue with him?  Can a shul function in this manner – where someone, by dint of physical force – replaces the baal Tefilah?  This was what many were thinking.

Personally, I had a different thought process.

There is a halachic debate between Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l – author of the Igros Moshe and Rav Ovadiah Yoseph zt”l –  author of Yabia Omer (and other Poskim as well) in the following scenario:

Your family minhag is Nusach Ashkenaz.  The shul’s minhag is Nusach Sefard – and you are davening for the Amud.  Which Shmoneh Esreh should you recite during the silent Shmoneh Esreh?

THE TWO OPINIONS

Rav Ovadiah is of the opinion that you daven in accordance with your family minhag.  This is the shmoneh esreh that you are davening to fulfill your obligation of Tefillah.  Do it in the custom of your fathers.  The repetition of the Shmoneh Esreh is to help others, who are not fluent in the prayer, fulfill the Mitzvah of prayer later – after you have fulfilled your obligation.

Rav Moshe Feinstein, on the other hand, is of an entirely different opinion    According to his view – the first silent Shmoneh Esreh is a means of practice for the Baal Tefillah.  It is so that the repetition will be without error.  The Baal Tefillah only fulfills his obligation of prayer with the second Shmoneh Esreh – the one he recites out loud.

Generally speaking, the issue is moot because the Baal Tefillah had fulfilled his obligation with either the first shmoneh esreh or the second one.  But this time – in the case of the irate father and the college professor – the issue was alive and well.  What should the baal tefillah do?  Should he repeat the Musaf shmoneh esreh again in order to fulfill the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l?  In that first Shmoneh Esreh before he was so rudely displaced – he was only practicing!  Or do we follow the view of the other Poskim, as espoused by Rav Ovadiah Yoseph zt”l, that his first Shmoneh Esreh was the real one and that he, therefore, had already fulfilled his obligation?

SOLUTION

The solution I was suggesting was that the displaced college professor repeat the Shmoneh Esreh on a tnai – a condition.  If Rav Moshe’s view is correct then the Shmoneh Esreh he was about to recite would be obligatory.  If, on the other hand, Rav Ovadiah is correct – then the Shmoneh Esreh would be a tefilas nedavah – a non-obligatory, voluntary shmoneh esreh – no different than a voluntary korban that the shmoneh esreh was replacing.  The Talmud tells us that these can be recited all day.  And while it is true that Mussaf, in general, cannot be brought as a nedavah – a voluntary offering – it is the view of Rav Hai Gaon and others that the items themselves can be brought (See Rab on Rif Brachos 13a).  While this cannot be done on Shabbos – on Yom Tov it could be brought.   Proud of both the question and my proposed solution – I was about to suggest it to the college professor.

THE QUIET WISDOM OF A TZADDIK

While I was discussing the issue, a quiet and wise man in the shul, Rabbi Yaakov Avigdor Zucker zt”l, approached me.  This man, a son of Rabbi Shmuel Zucker the owner of Zucker’s Hotel in Glen Wild, New York, had grown up with Gedolim.  Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky were fixtures at Zucker’s hotel.  He approached me gently and with great wisdom and suggested that I not pursue the issue further.

Rabbi Zucker said that the discussion will, in all likelihood, only further the machlokes that had started.  In this case, it would be of far greater wisdom to remain quiet and let the incident pass.  Reb Yaakov Avigdor Zucker was a man who valued shalom deeply and avoided machlokes at all costs.  He was most certainly correct and I dropped my suggestion.

AVOIDING MACHLOKES

Rav Yisroel Salanter would often give up the opportunity to say Kaddish for his father when someone else was saying Kaddish (at that time – the minhag was for only on person to recite kaddish – even if there were many mourners).  When asked about this, he responded:  “It is a bigger zchus for my father for me to avoid machlokes than to recite the actual kaddish.”

THE DRUNKEN CHAZZAN

There is a fascinating story that is cited in a footnote to Rav Tzvi Yechezkel Michalson’s hakdama to the sefer “Ein Habdolach” of Rav Yisroel Yonah Landau. Rav Landau was such a remarkable persona, that Rabbi Akiva Eiger used to request Kamiyos written by him and referred to him as “Ner Yisroel, Pe’er HaDor v’Amud Yemini.”

It seems that about two hundred and twenty years ago, in Rav Landau’s town of Kepno in the district of Posen, they needed a new chazzan. A new shliach tzibbur, a certain chazzan named “Shimon”, did come to town.  He had a remarkably beautiful voice.  The problem was that Shimon wasn’t particularly careful with what he ate. In fact, he is described as an individual who kept all the essin in the Torah “es hanivailo v’es hatraifo…”  (A takeoff on the Yiddish word es – to eat) but when he came to es Hashem elokecha tirah – fear of Hashem – he would move away.”

Still, Shimon’s voice was so beautiful that the members of the shul wanted to hire him nonetheless.  Rav Landau and his supporters refused. A veritable war was on the brink of ensuing.

Rav Landau decided to send the shailo to Rav Yoseph of Posen, the son-in-law of the Nodah BeYehudah and the Godol Hador at that time.

The startling answer came back from Rav Yoseph of Posen,  “Mutav le’haamid Tzelem b’haichal v’al yarbe machlokes b’yisroel – it is better to put an idol in the Temple than to cause machlokes.”

[The end of the story is also interesting.  After they had hired the chazzan, the Rav tried to befriend and influence him. When that did not work, he encouraged him to drink enough l’chaims that he would walk around the town drunk.  The members of the shul decided to fire him.]

The problem with the quote from Rav Yoseph of Posen is that there is no such chazal about it being better to put an idol in the Temple than to cause Machlokes.

This author would like to suggest that, in fact, the idea is based upon a Midrash cited by the RaDaK in Yirmiyahu 31:14 on the pasuk Rachel mevaka al baneha. The RaDaK asks, why is it Rachel who is plading for her children as opposed to all the other avos and imahos?

The RaDaK cites a Midrash that when Menashe had placed an idol in the Beis HaMikdash – Hashem was upset and could not be appeased nor assuaged by all the other patriarchs and matriarchs.  Rochel asked Hashem – “Whose mercy is greater – Yours or that of human beings?  Certainly it is Yours.  So, I did not say anything when Leah was brought to my wedding canopy instead of me and not only that but I gave her the simanim – the special codes I had worked out with my groom.”

Rochel won the argument with Hashem and He was appeased.

Rabbi Yaakov Avigdor Zucker zt”l corrected me that day and taught an important lesson of avoiding machlokes -argument at all costs.

REMEMBERING RABBI ZUCKER ZT”L

Recently, Rabbi Zucker’s granddaughter got married and a month earlier, a great-grandson was named after him.  A few words about him are therefore appropriate.

Rabbi Zucker’s life task was to be mekadaish shem shamayim.  He did so in a career that spanned close to six decades at the helm of three mosdos.

Rabbi Zucker z”l had an extraordinary sense of Achrayus – responsibility.  In a world where it was acceptable to pay teachers and Rebbeim late, Rabbi Zucker would not hear of it. At the Yeshiva High School of Central Queens, it was his achrayus to meet the payroll on time – families depended upon him.  Rabbi Zucker would work hard and long hours to ensure that he was able to collect, raise or borrow the needed funds.  Soon, other Mosdos began to follow suit.  Rabbi Zucker had started a revolution in Chinuch.

I will always remember him fondly as a man of integrity, someone who was mekadaish shaim shamayim and one who taught the value of always avoiding machlokes.  It is interesting that the lineage of Korach stops before it reaches Yaakov Avinu.  Rashi explains that it was because he so much wanted to avoid machlokes. May we all take this message to heart.

The author can be reached at [email protected]