Cantor's Prerogatives
December 30, 2008 Synagogue Configuration: Cantor's Prerogatives This morning, we resumed the study of teshuvot relating to synagogues, as part of our commemoration of Fifth Avenue Synagogue’s Jubilee celebration. We studied two teshuvot from Kollel Eretz Hemdah, one concerning the physical layout of a synagogue and the other dealing with positions of authority therein.
I. Changing the Location of the Sheli’ach Tzibbur for Acoustic Reasons The first question came from a rabbi in Costa Rica. He reported that his synagogue’s sanctuary suffers from terrible acoustics. There is no air conditioning in the building, and the seasonal rains are powerful. One can barely hear the cantor, even if standing near him. Rabbi Kermaier noted en passant that Fifth Avenue Synagogue was designed to have good acoustics, but the architect did not count on the installation of thick seat cushions, which have had the effect of muffling sound. Once, the cushions were removed for cleaning, and the acoustics were far better. Returning to the question from Costa Rica, the rabbi noted that congregants had asked about using a microphone, which he had rejected. He indicated, however, that he would be happy to hear if there were new technology that would render the use of a microphone permissible. The rabbi then asked whether it would be permissible for the cantor to daven not from the bimah but from the pulpit, the high spot near the Aron Kodesh whence the rabbi gives his sermons. In this scenario, the cantor would be facing the congregation. The women in the balcony would be able to hear him, and his voice would project better throughout the sanctuary. Perhaps because of the sensitivity of the issue, the questioner said he would look forward to receiving Kollel Eretz Hemdah’s answer with sources. Rabbi Kermaier noted that a cantor’s facing the congregation is a problem for Orthodox Jews because we recoil from the innovations of Reform Judaism, especially insofar as they sought to mimic Protestant practice. He added that he has only once seen an Orthodox congregation facing away from the Aron Kodesh. In the last year or two of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s life, Rabbi Kermaier and a friend were at 770 Eastern Parkwayfor a Shabbat. Midway through davening, the Rebbe would be wheeled into a spot in the balcony. In anticipation of the Rebbe’s arrival, the Hasidim davened facing the balcony, with their backs to the Aron Kodesh. (Rabbi Kermaier added that he and his friend were the only people facing the Aron Kodesh.) The teshuva began by noting that, in large sanctuaries, where it can be difficult to hear the cantor if he is stationed near the front wall, some allow him to stand on a bimah in the middle of the sanctuary (as we do), even if the bimah is more than three tefachim high (approximately 12 inches). Notwithstanding the preference that prayer, in order to be infused with humility, be rendered “from the depths” (Psalm 130:1), use of the bimah is permitted so that the cantor may be heard. Rabbi Kermaier noted that the Chatam Sofer permitted use of such a platform provided that the area is a domain of its own (reshut bifnei atzma), either because the surface is 4x4 cubits or because it is surrounded by walls. (At Fifth Avenue Synagogue, the bimah meets the second criterion, but Rabbi Kermaier was unsure whether it meets the first.) Though there may be some compromise on halachic preference to facilitate the cantor’s being heard, the teshuva continues that we are not aware of any arrangement permitting the cantor to face the congregation. On matters of the layout of a synagogue, we are very cautious about changing traditional practices, even if we cannot point to a specific prohibition. The cantor’s facing the congregation, moreover, would run counter to the purpose of prayer, which is to petition G-d, and not to appear as though addressing prayer to the congregation, Heaven forbid. The teshuva suggested a possible solution: move the bimah toward the back of the sanctuary, as it appears in some ancient synagogues, and then the cantor’s voice will spread through the sanctuary in a more acceptable manner. This approach, suggested by Rav Nachum Rabinowitz, was agreed to by Rav Ovadiah Yosef (footnote 5). II. Cantor’s Ability to Bar an Individual from the Amud The next question came from the former Soviet Union. “Reuven” was the rabbi and cantor at a synagogue. At times, he had “Shimon” substitute for him by davening for the amud and reading the Torah. Reuven and Shimon had a falling-out over the latter’s engaging in business competition with the former. Reuven could not forgive the affront. Before twelve individuals, standing in the synagogue, he told the story and declared Shimon a sinner. He concluded by forbidding Shimon, for a period of three years, from serving as the cantor, reading the Torah, or delivering a Dvar Torah in the synagogue. Reuven declared that this prohibition, stated in the synagogue, in front of a minyan, could not be nullified. The question was whether the Chief Rabbi of the city could overrule Reuven’s prohibition. The questioner noted that the congregation had available someone other than Shimon to read the Torah, if necessary. The teshuva observed that any appointment by the community gives the occupant of the position a certain level of ownership. This ownership extends, however, only to protection of his own rights, not to bar others from performing a role, even if there is a good reason to be upset with them. (Footnote 2 cites the Rashba as imposing upon the occupant a corresponding obligation to appoint a substitute when he is unavailable.) Therefore, Reuven lacked authority to bar Shimon from performing functions in the synagogue when Reuven could not be present. Finally, the teshuva referred to another teshuva on the question of when a Chief Rabbi may overrule a local rabbi. Footnote 4 summarizes that second teshuva as dependent on the question whether the local rabbi’s appointment depends on the approval of the Chief Rabbi.
|
