Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 120:1-121:2

Hook

It might seem straightforward, but the seemingly simple directive to include "R'tzei" in every Amidah prayer, and the subsequent discussion around it, actually unlocks a profound theological debate about the very nature of prayer in a post-Temple world. We're not just talking about a liturgical detail; we're delving into how ancient Israelite concepts of divine service and acceptance are reinterpreted when the physical locus of that service – the Temple – is gone.

Context

To truly grasp the weight of this s'if, we need to rewind to the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. This wasn't just a political cataclysm; it was a spiritual earthquake. The Temple in Jerusalem was the physical manifestation of God's dwelling place among Israel, the central hub for korbanot (sacrifices) that facilitated atonement and divine communion. Its destruction left a gaping void, forcing a radical re-evaluation of how one could connect with the Divine. The Rabbis of the Talmud grappled intensely with this, developing the Amidah as a spiritual successor to the Temple sacrifices, a "prayer that is in place of the sacrifice." This shift is precisely what makes the R'tzei blessing, with its inherent connection to divine acceptance of offerings, so complex and the subject of such nuanced interpretation. The very inclusion of "R'tzei" in the Amidah is a testament to this rabbinic ingenuity, an attempt to imbue prayer with the efficacy of ancient sacrificial rites.

Text Snapshot

Here's the core passage we're examining, from the Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 120:1-121:2:

That It Is Proper To Say "R'tzei" in Every [Amidah] Prayer. Containing 1 S'if:

We say "R'tzei" in all the [Amidah] prayers; and this is not like those who have a custom to not say it in the afternoon [Amidah] prayer. (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 120:1)

The Laws of "Modim". Containing 3 S'ifim:

We bow in "Modim" ["We are thankful"] at the beginning [of it] and at the end. One who says "Modim Modim", we silence [that person]. An individual does not say "Birkat Kohanim" ["The Priestly Blessing"].

Gloss: And this is the principle, and it appears to me that [people should] practice like this. But the the widespread custom is not like this, rather even an individual says it any time it is appropriate to "spread the hands" [i.e. to say Birkat Kohanim], but this does not appear [correct to me]. (Beit Yosef in the name of Manhig [Sefer haManhig by Rabbi Avraham ben Natan, 13th century Provence])

The Sefaria URL for this passage is: https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim_120%3A1-121%3A2

Close Reading

Let's unpack the layers of meaning embedded in these seemingly brief lines.

Insight 1: The Tension Between Custom and Principle in "R'tzei"

The opening statement of 120:1, "We say 'R'tzei' in all the [Amidah] prayers; and this is not like those who have a custom to not say it in the afternoon [Amidah] prayer," immediately flags a divergence. The Shulchan Arukh, in its characteristic style, asserts a normative practice ("We say...") and then contrasts it with an existing custom ("those who have a custom..."). This isn't just about noting a variation; it's about establishing a hierarchy. The Shulchan Arukh, by presenting its view as the default, implies that deviating from it requires justification. The "custom to not say it in the afternoon [Amidah] prayer" is presented as a deviation from the established norm, suggesting that the R'tzei blessing holds a fundamental importance across all daily prayers.

The commentators dive deep into why this custom might have arisen and why the Shulchan Arukh insists on its inclusion. The Tur, in his commentary, explains the origin of the R'tzei blessing: "R'tzei ותקנוה אחר שומע תפלה שכיון שבאת התפלה באה עבודה דכתיב (ישעיה נה) ושמחתים בבית תפלתי עולותיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא לכל העמים" (Tur on OC 120:1). He connects R'tzei to the concept of divine acceptance of offerings, citing Isaiah 56:7, which speaks of sacrifices being "acceptable upon My altar." This verse is crucial because it links the physical Temple and its sacrifices to the idea of divine favor.

The Tur then grapples with the custom of omitting R'tzei in the afternoon prayer (Mincha). He notes: "ונוהגים בספרד שלא לומר רצה במנחה אלא מתחיל ואשי ישראל וכ"כ רב שרירא גאון לומר רצה ה' אלהינו המנהג כאשר כתב רב סעדיה שאין אומרים אותו במנחה אלא במנחה של תעניות ומי שאומרו תמיד לא יפה הוא עושה" (Tur on OC 120:1). This passage reveals a significant regional difference in practice, with Spanish custom and the opinions of Rav Saadia Gaon and Rav Sherira Gaon suggesting R'tzei should not be said in Mincha, except on fast days. The Tur expresses puzzlement: "ובי"ה במנחה אע"פ שאין נושאין כפיהם נהגו לומר רצה ואיני יודע טעם למנהגם" (Tur on OC 120:1). He questions the rationale for saying R'tzei in Mincha when the Priestly Blessing (Birkat Kohanim), which is often associated with the Temple service and divine acceptance, is not recited in Mincha (as the priests don't raise their hands for the blessing in Mincha). This highlights the central question: if the R'tzei blessing is so tied to the sacrificial system, why its presence or absence in different prayer times?

The Mishnah Berurah, in his commentary on 120:1, reinforces the Shulchan Arukh's position and critiques the omission of R'tzei: "(א) במנחה - דהיינו שהם מתחילין מואשי ישראל ועיין בפמ"ג שכתב דלפי מה שנהגו עכשיו בכל מקום לאמר רצה מקרי המדלג משנה ממטבע שטבעו חז"ל ודינו כמש"כ המחבר סימן קי"ט ס"ג בטעה בברכה" (Mishnah Berurah on OC 120:1). He states that omitting R'tzei is akin to skipping a fundamental element established by the Sages and compares it to making a mistake in a blessing, which requires correction. This is a strong statement, emphasizing the perceived centrality of R'tzei to the structure of the Amidah. The Mishnah Berurah cites the Pri Megadim, who argues that in contemporary practice, where saying R'tzei is widespread, omitting it is indeed a deviation from the established "coinage" of the Sages. This suggests a dynamic where, over time, a practice becomes so ingrained that it solidifies into the normative, and deviations are viewed as problematic. The very existence of this debate underscores the ongoing effort to reconcile historical practice with present reality, and to determine which elements of the ancient Temple service, now adapted into prayer, are non-negotiable.

Insight 2: The Theological Work of "ואשי ישראל" (Va'ashi Yisrael)

The phrase "ואשי ישראל" (Va'ashi Yisrael) within the R'tzei blessing, meaning "and the sacred offerings of Israel," is a linchpin in understanding the theological underpinnings of this prayer. The commentators wrestle with its meaning and its connection to the prayer for divine acceptance. The Tur quotes a Midrash: "ובמדרש יש מיכאל שר הגדול מקריב נשמתן של צדיקים על המזבח של מעלה. וע"ז תיקנו ואשי ישראל" (Tur on OC 120:1). This Midrash posits that Michael, the great angel, offers the souls of the righteous on the heavenly altar. This is presented as the basis for the inclusion of "ואשי ישראל."

The Beit Yosef, in his commentary on the Tur, elaborates on this: "וא"י מיכאל שר הגדול מקריב נשמתן של צדיקים על המזבח של מעלה. וע"ז תיקנו ואשי ישראל. וי"מ על מה שלמעל' ממנו וה"פ והשב העבוד' ואשי ישראל. ואח"כ תחיל' הדבר ותפלתם באהבה תקבל ברצון ע"כ. על הפי' הראשון קשה כפל ותפלתם ואי בא לפרש מהו אישי ישראל הי' לו לומר תפלתם בלא וי"ו." (Beit Yosef on Tur, OC 120:1). He presents two main interpretive paths for "ואשי ישראל" in relation to the preceding phrase "והשב את העבודה לדביר ביתך" ("and restore the service to Your sanctuary").

One interpretation, which the Beit Yosef finds potentially redundant, suggests that "ואשי ישראל" refers to the prayer itself, implying "and the prayers of Israel." If "service" (עבודה) is already mentioned, and prayer is seen as the successor to sacrifice, then repeating the idea of prayer might seem superfluous. However, the Beit Yosef offers a nuanced explanation: "וי"ל דיש ב' מיני תפלות הא' תפלה בזמנ' הי' במקום קרבן ואחר זמנה אי' ר"פ ת"ה שכר תפלה יהבי לי' שכר תפלה בזמנה לא יהבי לי' ע"ז קאי ותפלתם לכלול אף תפלה שלא בזמנה שהיא לא מקום אישי ישראל" (Beit Yosef on Tur, OC 120:1). This distinction between prayers offered "in its time" (which is directly analogous to sacrifices) and those offered "after its time" suggests that "ואשי ישראל" might encompass a broader category of prayer, including those that might not be perfectly aligned with the sacrificial model.

A more favored interpretation by the Beit Yosef is that "ואשי ישראל" is connected to the preceding clause, "והשב את העבודה לדביר ביתך" ("and restore the service to Your sanctuary"). He suggests it could mean "and the offerings of Israel." This directly links the prayer to the concept of sacrifices, even in their absence. The Kaf HaChayim explains this further: "והתו' סוף מנחות כתבו ע"פ מ"ש שם בגמרא לעולם זאת על ישראל. זה מזבח בנוי ומיכאל שר הגדול עומד ומקריב עליו קרבן וז"ל מדרשית חלוקים יש מי שאימר נשמותיהן של צדיקים ויש מי שאומר כבשים של אש והיינו דאמרינן בי"ח בעבודה ואשי ישראל וכו' עכ"ל" (Kaf HaChayim on OC 120:1). Here, the Kaf HaChayim references the Talmud in Meseches Menachot, which describes a built altar in heaven where Michael offers sacrifices, either the souls of the righteous or "sheep of fire." This reinforces the idea that "ואשי ישראל" refers to sacrifices, either actual or metaphorical, being offered on a heavenly plane.

The Turei Zahav (Taz) offers his opinion on which interpretation is most robust: "על הפי' הראשון קשה כפל ותפלתם ואי בא לפרש מהו אישי ישראל הי' לו לומר תפלתם בלא וי"ו. וי"ל דיש ב' מיני תפלות... ועל פי' בתר' קשה ל"ל ואשי ישראל כיון שכבר זכר העבודה ואי תימא שיש עבודה בלא אישים עכ"פ לא היה לו להפסיק בלדביר ביתך בנתים והי' לו לומר והשב העבודה ואשי ישראל לדביר ביתך עכ"כ הפי' האמצעי הוא המובחר מכולם" (Turei Zahav on OC 120:1). The Taz believes the "middle interpretation" (which he sees as connecting "ואשי ישראל" to the preceding "עבודה") is the most preferable. He argues that if "ואשי ישראל" is meant to refer to prayer, it's redundant with the subsequent "ותפלתם" ("and Your prayer"). Furthermore, he questions why "ואשי ישראל" would be separated from "עבודה" by "לדביר ביתך." This grammatical critique highlights the meticulous attention paid to the precise wording and structure of the liturgy.

The Gra (Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna), however, favors the latter interpretation, as noted by the Mishnah Berurah: "אבל הגר"א כתב שהעיקר כפי' האחרון" (Mishnah Berurah on OC 120:1). This suggests a continued debate among later authorities, with the Gra finding the interpretation that sees "ואשי ישראל" as referring to the offerings themselves, or as a continuation of the concept of divine service, to be the primary meaning. The Chokhmat Shlomo further explores this, suggesting that "עבודה" itself can refer to prayer: "ולדעתי יש לו' הכוונה הכל על התפלה מ"ש והשב את העבודה לדביר ביתך ע"פ מאמרם ז"ל היה מתפלל בירושלים יכוין את פניו כנגד בית המקדש היה עומד בחוצה לארץ יכוין פניו נגד א"י אם כן מוכח מזה דכל דרך התפלות הוי לכנוס לבהמ"ק תחלה ומשם הם עולין למעלה ולכך אנו מבקשים שאף שאנו מתפללים בשאר מקומות מ"מ רצה ד' בעמך ישראל ובתפלתם והיינו שהשב את העבודה היינו התפלה [כמאמרם ז"ל איזה עבודה שהיא בלב זו תפלה] לדביר ביתך שתחלה תביא את התפלה ממקום שמתפללים אל דביר ביתך ותכנס התפלה לבית קדשי הקדשים ושם ואשי ישראל ותפלתם תקבל ברצון לעלות למעלה." (Chokhmat Shlomo on OC 120:1). This interpretation is quite profound, suggesting that the prayer's intent is to channel our prayers, even from outside the Land of Israel or the Temple, towards the Holy of Holies, where they can be accepted. "עבודה" here is understood as "prayer," which is then brought to the Temple, where "ואשי ישראל" (offerings/souls of Israel) and their prayers are accepted. This connects the physical space of the Temple, even in its absence, with the spiritual act of prayer.

Insight 3: The Nuance of "Modim" and the Silent Objection

The subsequent sections (120:2 and 120:3) shift focus to the Modim blessing, which expresses thanksgiving. The Shulchan Arukh states: "We bow in 'Modim' ['We are thankful'] at the beginning [of it] and at the end. One who says 'Modim Modim', we silence [that person]." This seems straightforward: the Modim prayer has a specific structure involving bowing, and repetition is not permitted. However, the subsequent gloss by the Beit Yosef introduces a complexity that resonates with the R'tzei discussion:

Gloss: And this is the principle, and it appears to me that [people should] practice like this. But the the widespread custom is not like this, rather even an individual says it any time it is appropriate to "spread the hands" [i.e. to say Birkat Kohanim], but this does not appear [correct to me]. (Beit Yosef in the name of Manhig)

The Beit Yosef, in the name of the Manhig, is addressing the practice of an individual reciting the Priestly Blessing (Birkat Kohanim). The principle, as he understands it, is that only a congregation of Kohanim can offer the Birkat Kohanim. However, he acknowledges that the "widespread custom is not like this," meaning individuals often do recite it. He finds this practice incorrect. This mirrors the R'tzei situation: a principle is stated, a deviation is noted, and the writer expresses discomfort with the deviation.

The tension here lies in the contrast between a strict adherence to the original framework of the ritual and the evolution of communal practice. The Birkat Kohanim is explicitly a communal blessing offered by Kohanim. When an individual recites it, they are essentially stepping outside that established communal and hierarchical structure. The Beit Yosef's discomfort stems from this.

Furthermore, the Shulchan Arukh's statement, "One who says 'Modim Modim', we silence [that person]," speaks to the importance of liturgical precision. Repetition is not just an aesthetic flaw; it can indicate a lack of concentration or understanding, disrupting the intended flow and meaning of the prayer. The act of silencing is a form of communal correction, ensuring the integrity of the prayer service.

The connection between the R'tzei discussion and the Modim discussion, particularly the gloss on Birkat Kohanim, is the overarching theme of how rabbinic authority navigates between established halakhic principles and the lived realities of communal practice. Both sections highlight situations where a formal rule exists, but custom has diverged. The Shulchan Arukh, in both instances, leans towards upholding the principle, while acknowledging the prevalence of custom. This reveals a fascinating internal dynamic within Jewish law: a constant interplay between textual authority, historical context, and the evolving needs and habits of the community. The "silencing" in Modim is a direct intervention, whereas the critique of the Birkat Kohanim custom is a more discursive one, but both point to the same concern: maintaining the sanctity and meaning of prayer through adherence to established forms.

Two Angles

The debate over the inclusion of "R'tzei" in the Mincha prayer, and the underlying reasons for its significance, reveals a fascinating spectrum of interpretation among classical commentators. We can see two primary angles emerging from the Tur and the Beit Yosef (drawing on the Manhig), representing a more conservative approach versus a more accommodating one.

Angle 1: The Tur's Hesitation – Prayer as a Substitute for Sacrifice with Temporal Constraints

Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, the Tur, in his commentary on Orach Chayim 120:1, expresses a clear perplexity regarding the custom of saying "R'tzei" in the Mincha prayer. His reasoning is deeply rooted in the understanding of prayer as a functional successor to the Temple sacrifices. He states: "ונוהגים בספרד שלא לומר רצה במנחה אלא מתחיל ואשי ישראל וכ"כ רב שרירא גאון לומר רצה ה' אלהינו המנהג כאשר כתב רב סעדיה שאין אומרים אותו במנחה אלא במנחה של תעניות ומי שאומרו תמיד לא יפה הוא עושה" (Tur on OC 120:1). He explicitly cites the custom in Spain and the opinions of Rav Sherira Gaon and Rav Saadia Gaon, who argue against reciting "R'tzei" in Mincha, except on fast days.

The Tur's core argument, as we've seen, hinges on the connection between "R'tzei" and the sacrifices. He quotes the Midrash that "Michael, the great angel, offers the souls of the righteous on the heavenly altar," and upon this, "ואשי ישראל" (and the sacred offerings of Israel) was instituted. He then grapples with the temporal aspect: "ובי"ה במנחה אע"פ שאין נושאין כפיהם נהגו לומר רצה ואיני יודע טעם למנהגם מה ענין זה שלא לומר רצה ואי משום הא דאמרינן כל כהן שאין עולה בעבודה פי' ברצה שוב אינו עולה מאי נפקא מינה וכי בשביל שהיו עולין לרצה לא יאמרו אותו כשאין נשיאת כפים." (Tur on OC 120:1). His bewilderment stems from the fact that Birkat Kohanim (the Priestly Blessing), which is intrinsically linked to the concept of divine acceptance and is performed by priests, is not recited in Mincha. He finds it illogical to maintain "R'tzei," which he sees as carrying a similar weight of sacrificial acceptance, when the more direct priestly participation is absent.

For the Tur, the efficacy of prayer as a replacement for sacrifice is tied to certain conditions, and the Mincha prayer, lacking the full complement of Temple-era rituals (like the Birkat Kohanim), might not qualify for the full inclusion of a blessing so directly reminiscent of sacrificial acceptance. He prioritizes the original functional equivalence between prayer and sacrifice. If a particular prayer time lacks elements that were integral to the sacrificial system, then blessings directly mirroring those elements should also be omitted. This approach reflects a desire for a precise theological mapping between the past and the present, where the integrity of the liturgical structure depends on maintaining these functional parallels. His hesitancy suggests that while prayer can substitute for sacrifice, this substitution might be time-sensitive and context-dependent, mirroring the specific times and occasions when sacrifices were offered.

Angle 2: The Beit Yosef's Accommodation – Embracing the Principle While Recognizing Custom

Rabbi Yosef ben Ephraim Karo, in his Beit Yosef on the Tur, and by extension the Shulchan Arukh, presents a more accommodating perspective, though not without its own internal tensions. While he presents the Shulchan Arukh's ruling that "R'tzei" should be said in all prayers, he meticulously analyzes the Tur's words and the underlying customs. His approach is to acknowledge the principle but also to integrate the reality of widespread practice.

The Beit Yosef cites the Tur's explanation of the Midrash and the connection to Michael the angel offering the souls of the righteous. He then delves into the interpretation of "ואשי ישראל": "על הפי' הראשון קשה כפל ותפלתם ואי בא לפרש מהו אישי ישראל הי' לו לומר תפלתם בלא וי"ו. וי"ל דיש ב' מיני תפלות הא' תפלה בזמנ' הי' במקום קרבן ואחר זמנה אי' ר"פ ת"ה שכר תפלה יהבי לי' שכר תפלה בזמנה לא יהבי לי' ע"ז קאי ותפלתם לכלול אף תפלה שלא בזמנה שהיא לא מקום אישי ישראל" (Beit Yosef on Tur, OC 120:1). Here, he explores the idea that "ואשי ישראל" might encompass prayers offered "after its time," suggesting a broader application of divine acceptance beyond strict parallelism with sacrifices. This interpretation allows for the inclusion of "R'tzei" even in prayers that might not perfectly align with the sacrificial schedule.

Crucially, the Beit Yosef notes the widespread custom: "אמנם המנהג כאשר כתב רב סעדיה שאין אומרים אותו במנחה אלא במנחה של תעניות ומי שאומרו תמיד לא יפה הוא עושה" (Beit Yosef on Tur, OC 120:1, quoting the Tur's citation of Rav Saadia). He then comments on the Shulchan Arukh's ruling: "אמנם כתב הטור...אלא דהלכה כדברי המחבר דאומרים רצה בכל התפלות" (Beit Yosef on Tur, OC 120:1). This shows that while he presents the Tur's reservations and the customs, he ultimately sides with the Shulchan Arukh's authoritative ruling that it should be said in all prayers.

His gloss on 120:3 further clarifies this accommodation: "ג) שם, ודלא כאותם שנוהגים שלא לאומרו במנחה ר"ל שבא לאפוקי מאותם שמתחילין במנחה מן ואשי ישראל ואין אומרים רצה כמ"ש בטור וב"י ויעו"ש הטעם שלהם וכתב ב"י דעכשיו בכל המקומות נוהגים לומר רצה בכל התפילות והביאו הב"ח, וכ"כ האחרונים." (Kaf HaChayim on OC 120:3, referencing Beit Yosef's position). The Beit Yosef acknowledges the reason for omitting "R'tzei" in Mincha but concludes that "now, in all places, they are accustomed to say 'R'tzei' in all prayers." This indicates a shift in practice, where the custom has become to include it universally. The Beit Yosef, by affirming the Shulchan Arukh's ruling that follows this widespread custom, demonstrates a willingness to accept evolved practice as the normative standard, provided it doesn't fundamentally contradict core principles. His approach prioritizes the established halakhic authority of the Shulchan Arukh, which reflects a settled communal practice, over earlier scholarly reservations.

Practice Implication

The nuanced debate surrounding "R'tzei" and its inclusion in all Amidah prayers has a direct impact on how we approach personal prayer and the understanding of its efficacy, particularly when we miss prayer times or pray at irregular hours.

Consider a scenario: You are rushing to catch a train and realize you've missed the Mincha prayer service at your usual time. You decide to daven Mincha on the train, perhaps using a mobile app. As you reach the R'tzei blessing, you recall the historical debates about its inclusion in Mincha.

Here's where the textual insights become practical:

1. The Principle of Universality: The Shulchan Arukh's explicit statement, "We say 'R'tzei' in all the [Amidah] prayers," establishes a baseline. This principle, championed by Karo and later commentators, suggests that the blessing's core message of divine acceptance of prayer is meant to be a constant, regardless of the specific prayer service. Even if historical customs varied, the normative practice codified in the Shulchan Arukh is to include it.

2. Prayer as the "Service": The interpretations of "ואשי ישראל" and the concept of "עבודה" as prayer itself (as explored by Chokhmat Shlomo) empower you. Your prayer on the train, though unconventional in its timing and location, is still a legitimate act of "service" in place of the Temple sacrifices. The blessing "R'tzei" is a plea for this prayer, in its current form and circumstance, to be accepted.

3. Acceptance of Evolved Practice: The Beit Yosef's acknowledgment of the widespread custom to include "R'tzei" in all prayers, even in Mincha, validates your action. The fact that this practice has become the norm, and is codified as such, means that praying it is not a deviation but an adherence to the established halakhic standard for contemporary Jewry.

Therefore, on that train, you would confidently recite "R'tzei." Your decision is not just about reciting words; it's about understanding that your prayer, even under less-than-ideal conditions, is intended to be accepted. The debate over "R'tzei" teaches us that prayer's efficacy isn't solely tied to perfect timing or location, but to the inherent value the Sages placed on prayer as a substitute for sacrifice, and their efforts to ensure that plea for divine acceptance is present in every moment of spiritual connection. It reinforces the idea that even when we are "off schedule," our attempt to connect is what matters, and the liturgical framework is designed to accommodate and bless those attempts.

Chevruta Mini

1. The Tur expresses concern that including "R'tzei" in Mincha, when Birkat Kohanim is absent, might be inappropriate due to the blessing's association with sacrificial acceptance. This implies a functional equivalence between prayer and sacrifice, where missing elements of the sacrificial system might necessitate omitting corresponding prayer elements. What are the potential dangers of such a strict functional equivalence model for prayer in the absence of the Temple? Could it limit our understanding of prayer's purpose or diminish its perceived power?

2. The Beit Yosef, while acknowledging the historical reasons for omitting "R'tzei" in Mincha, ultimately sides with the Shulchan Arukh's ruling that it should be said in all prayers, reflecting a widespread custom. This suggests a process where communal practice can, over time, solidify into normative halakha, even superseding earlier reservations. How do we balance the authority of established texts and early commentators with the dynamic evolution of communal practice? When does a custom become so ingrained that it overrides the explicit reasoning of earlier authorities?

Takeaway

The inclusion of "R'tzei" in every Amidah prayer underscores prayer's enduring role as the spiritual successor to Temple sacrifices, a plea for divine acceptance that transcends temporal and physical limitations.