Interrupting the Amidah for Important Matters

The Amidah is the central component of all of the prayer services throughout the day.  As such, the standards for situations when one may interrupt the Amidah are stricter than other parts of the prayer service.  In fact, the Mishna, Berachot 30b, states that one may not interrupt one's Amidah even if the king asks one about one's welfare or if a snake is climbing up one's leg.  In this issue, we will present a further clarification of the Mishna's ruling and how that relates to interrupting the Amidah for important matters.

Interrupting the Amidah for Life-Threatening Situation

The Gemara, Berachot 32b, states that the Mishna's prohibition against interrupting one's Amidah to respond to a king only applies to a Jewish king.  The implication is that the Jewish king will understand why there was no response.  However, a non-Jewish king may be offended by the lack of response and sentence the individual to death.  As such, in a life-threatening situation, one may interrupt one's Amidah.

One must then explain why one may not interrupt one's Amidah when there is a snake on one's leg.  Rashi (1040-1105), Berachot 33a, s.v. Aval Akrav, explains that a snake is not likely to bite.  Tosafot, Berachot 33b, s.v. Aval Akrav, add that if one surmises that the snake might bite, one may interrupt.  Rabbeinu Yonah (c. 1200-1263), Berachot 21a, s.v. V'Afilu, writes that whenever there is a concern that the snake presents a life-threatening situation, one may interrupt.  Rabbeinu Yonah, Berachot 23a, s.v. Lo Kashya, also writes that if one can avoid the life-threatening situation by moving elsewhere without speaking, it is not permissible to speak.  The case of the king is unique in that the only way for one to resolve the life-threatening situation is by speaking to the king. 

Interrupting the Amidah in order to Avoid Distraction

A snake climbing up one's leg is certainly a cause for distraction, even if it poses no danger.  Yet, the Mishna prohibits one from speaking in order to mitigate that distraction.  Rabbeinu Yonah, Berachot 21a, s.v. V'Afilu, writes that one may not speak but one may move to another place in order to avoid or remove the snake because moving to another place is not considered an interruption.  This ruling is codified by Rama (1520-1572), Orach Chaim 104:3.  R. Avraham Gombiner (c. 1633-1683), Magen Avraham 104:3, writes that in ordinary situations, one may not move from place to place in the middle of the Amidah.  However, if there is a need to move, it is permissible.

The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) contends that Rabbeinu Asher (c.1250-1328), Berachot 5:13, disagrees and maintains that one may only move from place to place in a potentially life-threatening situation.  Therefore, if the snake poses no danger, but only causes distraction, one may not move from place to place.  R. Yisrael M. Kagan (1838-1933), Mishna Berurah, Bei'ur Halacha 104:3, s.v. Lo, shows deference to the opinion of the Vilna Gaon and rules that one should only move from place to place in a case of great need.

Mishna Berurah 104:1, applies his own ruling to the case of a person who is distracted by a crying child in the middle of the Amidah.  He writes that one should first attempt to appease the child by signaling to the child without speaking.  If that does not work, one may move to another place to avoid the distraction.  Apparently, Mishna Berurah considers mitigating the distraction of a crying child a case of great need.  Therefore, one may move to another place if there is no other option available.

Interrupting the Amidah for Purposes Relevant to Prayer

There are a number of scenarios that arise where it would be beneficial to interrupt one's Amidah for a matter relevant to the prayer service itself.  R. Avraham Danzig (1748-1820), Chayei Adam 25:9, discusses a case of someone who realizes that he has a halachic question regarding a mistake he made in his recitation of the Amidah.  He rules that one may certainly walk to another place in the middle of his Amidah in order to find the answer to his question in a book.  He suggests that one may also ask a rabbi a question in the middle of his Amidah.  Mishna Berurah 104:2, codifies the opinion of Chayei Adam.

R. Moshe Feinstein (1896-1985), Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:16, discusses the case of someone who hears his neighbor make a mistake in the Amidah.  He writes that if one is between berachot, one may tell the neighbor that he erred in his prayer, even if the mistake would not invalidate the Amidah.  However, one should not speak in the middle of an individual beracha.

Another scenario where one may want to interrupt one's prayer is in a case where there is an opportunity to respond to Kaddish or Kedusha.  Rashi, Sukkah 38b, s.v. Hu Omer Baruch, writes that if one is reciting the Amidah when the congregation recites Kaddish or Kedusha, one should stop and listen to the shaliach tzibbur and fulfill one's obligation of responding to Kaddish and Kedusha through the principle of shomei'a k'oneh (one who listens is as if he responds).  Tosafot, Berachot 21a, s.v. Ad, cite Rabbeinu Tam (1100-1171) and Rabbeinu Yitzchak (12th century) who object to Rashi's opinion because if we consider one who listens as one who responds, listening to the recitation of Kaddish or Kedusha would constitute an interruption.  Nevertheless, Tosafot note that common practice is to pause during one's Amidah and listen to Kaddish and Kedusha. R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575), Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 104:7, rules in accordance with the opinion of Rashi.

Where Does One Return After a Permissible Interruption?

Suppose one was in a situation that forced him to interrupt his Amidah in a manner that was permissible.  Does he continue from where he left off or does he return to a previous place in the Amidah?  Tosafot, Berachot 22b, s.v. Ela, note the following apparent contradiction.  The Gemara, Berachot 22b-23a, concludes that if one pauses in one's Amidah the amount of time it takes to recite the entire Amidah, one must repeat the Amidah.  This implies that any pause that is longer than the length of the entire activity causes an absolute interruption and one must begin again.  Yet, the Gemara, Rosh HaShanah 34b, cites R. Yochanan that one can fulfill the mitzvah of shofar by listening to one blast every hour.  The Gemara states that R. Yochanan's ruling assumes that an interruption longer the length of the entire activity is not considered an interruption.

Tosafot resolve the apparent contradiction by citing the opinion of R. Shimshon of Kutzi (12th century) who states that if the interruption is caused by one's inability to perform the activity and the interruption is the length of the entire activity, one must return to the beginning.  However, if the interruption is not due to one's inability to perform the activity, the interruption will not force one to return to the beginning, even if the interruption lasts many hours.  Rabbeinu Yonah, Berachot 14a, s.v. V'Katav Rabbeinu, presents a different resolution.  He suggests that interruptions in the Amidah have a higher standard.  Therefore, if there is any interruption in the Amidah that lasts the amount of time it takes to recite the Amidah, one must repeat the entire Amidah.  Regarding other activities such as shofar, hallel or megillah, an interruption does not cause one to repeat the activity, even if the interruption was very lengthy.

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 65:1 and 104:5, rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbeinu Yonah.  Therefore, if one's interruption lasts longer than the time it takes to recite the Amidah, one must repeat the Amidah.  Otherwise, Shulchan Aruch rules that one returns to the beginning of the beracha which was interrupted. [The first and last three berachot are considered one unit so if one interrupts in the middle of these berachot, he returns to the beginning of the unit.]  Regarding Rama's opinion, Rama (see Darkei Moshe, Orach Chaim 65:1, Rama, Orach Chaim 65:1 and Mishna Berurah 104:16) seems to follow the opinion of R. Shimshon that one is not required to repeat the Amidah unless the interruption is one that does not allow to one to pray.  Mishna Berurah 104:16, adds that since there is a dispute on the matter, one should be stricter on what types of interruptions are categorized as not allowing one to pray.  Therefore, even if one interrupts his Amidah in order to deal with a distraction and the interruption lasts longer than the time it takes to recite the Amidah, one must repeat the Amidah.