Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 131:4-6

Sugya Map: Nefilat Apayim

• Issue: The laws and customs surrounding nefilat apayim (prostrating oneself in prayer), including when and how it is performed, and when it is omitted.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Proper performance of nefilat apayim according to custom (leaning left/right).
  • Understanding the permissible times and places for nefilat apayim versus other forms of supplication.
  • Determining which specific prayers or supplications are omitted on certain days or in certain circumstances (e.g., Va-anachnu lo neida, Ashrei, La-m'natzeyach, Vidui, V'hu Rachum).
  • The impact of the presence of a mourner, groom, or brit milah on the prayer service.
  • The distinction between individual prayer and congregational prayer regarding these laws.
• Primary Sources:
  • Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 131:4-6
  • Beit Yosef (on Rif/Tur)
  • Tur
  • Rokeach
  • Maharil
  • Hagahot Maimoni
  • Riva"sh
  • Agur
  • Piskei Mahari"a
  • Mordechai
  • Turei Zahav (commentary on SA)
  • Magen Avraham (commentary on SA)
  • Ba'er Hetev (commentary on SA)

Text Snapshot

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 131:4

"Nefilat Apayim" is [said] sitting and not standing.

Gloss: there are those who say is no "falling on the face" [done] other than in a place that has an ark with a Torah in it; but if not, then we say supplication without covering of the face, and that is what we practice (Beit Yosef in the name of Rokeach - siman 324). And [regarding "falling on the face" in] a courtyard/room of the synagogue which is open to the synagogue (Mahari"l), or at the same time when the congregation is praying, then even an individual in his home may says supplication while "falling on the face" ) (his own opinion, commentary of the Agur).

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 131:5

There is no "falling on the face" at night. And on the nights of vigils [i.e. saying early morning Selichot], we practice to "fall on one's face" since it's close to daytime. The custom is to not "fall on one's face" in the house of a mourner or a groom, and not in a synagogue on a day when there is a brit milah (circumcision) taking place or when a groom is present.

Gloss: And this is specifically when the brit milah or the groom is in the same synagogue [where one is praying], but if the brit milah is not in that synagogue, even though it's in a different one [in the same city], Tachanun is said (Piskei Mahari"a - siman 81). And on the day of a brit milah, when Tachanun is not said, that is only during Shacharit, since that is when the baby is circumcised; but during Mincha, even though they are praying in the presence of the circumcised baby, Tachanun is said. As opposed to a groom, where we do not say Tachanun the entire day when praying in the presence of the groom (Hagahot Maimoni - chapter 5 in the Laws of Prayer). And he is only called a "groom" on the [actual] day that he enters the chuppah (wedding canopy).

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 131:6

If a circumcision fell out on a public fast day, we pray the Selichot [Penitential] prayers and say Vidui [Confession prayers], but we do not "fall on their faces" nor do we say "V'hu Rachum" ["And He is Merciful"] during Shacharit, even in a place that practices to recite it otherwise. They practiced not to "fall on their faces" on Tu B'Av [the 15th of Av], Tu BiShvat [the 15th of Sh'vat/New Year of Trees], Rosh Chodesh, nor on the Mincha that precedes it, and not on Chanukkah, and some say also not on the Mincha that precedes it (and that is how we practice). On Purim, we do not "fall on their faces". On Lag BaOmer, we do not "fall". On Erev Yom Kippur, we do not "fall", and so too on Erev Rosh Hashana, even during Shacharit. [Minhagim] The widespread custom is to not "fall on their faces" the entire month of Nissan, and not on the 9th of Av, and not between Yom Kippur and Sukkot. [And not from the beginning of Rosh Chodesh Sivan until after Shavuot.] An important/prominent person is not permitted to "fall on his face" when he is praying with the congregation, unless he is confident that he will be answered like Yehoshua ben Nun. It is also forbidden for any person to "fall on their face" by [lying face down and] extending their hands and feet, even if it's not a stone floor (Hagahot Ashiri - end of the chapter on The Morning Prayers, and the Riva"sh - siman 412). But if one is leaning a little on his side, it is permitted as long as it's not a stone floor; and that is how it should be done on Yom Kippur when they "fall on their faces", [or] if they spread out grass [on the floor] in order to make a separation between [them and] the floor, and that is how we practice. (Mordechai)

Readings

Turei Zahav (Ta"Z) on 131:9 (regarding בית האבל)

The Ta"Z, commenting on the prohibition of nefilat apayim in the house of a mourner (which is the basis for not saying Tachanun there), cites the Beit Yosef (from the Rokeach) who explains the reasoning: "because it is written, 'And I will turn your festivals into mourning' (Amos 8:10), and therefore it is akin to a festival, meaning the seven days of mourning." (Ta"Z on 131:9). He further notes that just as other viduyim and tachanunim are omitted, so too is nefilat apayim.

However, the Ta"Z then introduces a nuanced distinction. He posits that while the mourner himself might be exempt due to the overwhelming sorrow, other congregants praying in his home might still be obligated to say certain tachanunim like Va-yanachnu lo neida after leaving the mourner's house. He bases this on the principle that Tachanun is a personal obligation (chovat gever) and is established for Mondays and Thursdays (B's and H's). This implies that the primary reason for omission in the mourner's house is not that the day itself is rendered a festival, but rather a specific decree (gezeirah) related to the atmosphere of mourning.

Turei Zahav (Ta"Z) on 131:10 (regarding בית החתן)

The Ta"Z addresses the prohibition of nefilat apayim in the house of a groom. He suggests that even after leaving the groom's house, one might not need to say tachanunim like Va-yanachnu lo neida, because the joy associated with the groom has "descended upon" the congregants. This contrasts with the house of a mourner, where the reason for omission is not solely the overwhelming sorrow, but rather a decree that the attribute of judgment (midat ha-din) should not be aroused at such a time, as explained by the L'vush. Therefore, while others might be obligated to say Tachanun after leaving a mourner's house, the groom scenario might involve a broader exemption.

He then raises a significant question: if the seven days of feasting (sheva yemei mishneh) are considered a festival for the groom, as stated by the Rib"a (cited in the Beit Yosef on 132), why then would tachanun be said on other days of the feast when the groom is present? He connects this to Rosh Chodesh, where Tachanun is omitted because it is considered a minor festival. He concludes that perhaps the groom should not even enter the synagogue on these seven days to avoid the omission of Tachanun.

Magen Avraham (Ma"h) on 131:10 (regarding בית האבל)

The Magen Avraham elaborates on what is omitted in the house of a mourner. He states that not only tachanun but also La-m'natzeyach Shir Mizmor are not recited. However, the prayer 'Avot' Britti Otam (a section of tefillah) is said. Crucially, he notes that even on Chanukah, Hallel is not recited in the house of a mourner, citing the Mahari"l.

He then presents a counter-argument from the Rokeach, who writes that the prohibition of Hallel applies only to Rosh Chodesh because it is a custom, whereas on Chanukah, one recites Hallel. The Ma"h interprets this to mean that on Chanukah, one does say Hallel, as an individual completes it in any case. He therefore concludes that on Chanukah, it is preferable for each person to recite Hallel in their own home, a practice also endorsed by the Mahari"n.

Magen Avraham (Ma"h) on 131:11 (regarding מילה)

The Magen Avraham discusses the case of a brit milah (circumcision). He notes that if the brit falls on a Shabbat, piyutim (liturgical poems) are certainly omitted. He infers from the Mahari"a that if the circumcision is performed in a different house, tachanun would be said in the synagogue where the congregants are praying.

However, he then states that the custom in many places is that even if the brit is in one house, nefilat apayim is not performed in the synagogue where the ba'al habrit (father of the child) is praying. He cites the Hagmot Maimoniyot which states that Av Harachamim is not recited on the day of a brit, and Tzidaktecha is said in the afternoon service.

Magen Avraham (Ma"h) on 131:12 (regarding מנחה)

The Magen Avraham addresses the practice of nefilat apayim during Mincha. He cites the Bach who ruled, based on the Rashal, that nefilat apayim is not said when praying alongside the child (etzli ha-tinok), and this is the custom in Brisk. He contrasts this with the Hagmot Maimoniyot, which he believes discusses a scenario where one is not praying alongside the child.

He then quotes the Hagmot Maimoniyot directly: "There is no nefilat apayim in the Yotzer prayer on the day of a milah, and likewise on the day of a wedding where the groom is praying." He deduces from the fact that the Hagmot Maimoniyot mentions both the groom on his wedding day and the child on the day of milah in the context of the Yotzer prayer, that in the afternoon (Mincha), nefilat apayim would be said even if praying alongside the child.

He acknowledges that customs vary, and cites the Mahari"a and Re'inus who describe customs of grooms leaving the synagogue before R'tzeh on Thursday to allow the congregation to say Tachanun, and even more so on Friday, the day of the chuppah. He also notes that in some regions, grooms do not enter the synagogue for one or two days prior to the chuppah, possibly for this reason. He concludes that if the groom does enter, Tachanun is said, except on the actual wedding day, as stated by the Rama.

Friction

The Kushya: The Intertwined Logic of Mourning and Joy

A significant point of friction arises from the seemingly contradictory logic applied to the presence of a mourner versus a groom in the synagogue. The Shulchan Arukh (131:5) prohibits nefilat apayim in the house of a mourner or a groom, and in a synagogue when a groom or brit milah is present. The commentaries, particularly the Ta"Z and Ma"h, attempt to elucidate the underlying reasons.

For the mourner, the reason is often cited as the prohibition of intensifying sorrow, equating the situation to a festival turned to mourning (based on Amos 8:10). This suggests an atmosphere that is inherently inimical to supplication. For the groom, the reason seems to be related to his state of joy, which is considered akin to a festival. This joy, in turn, precludes the solemnity of nefilat apayim.

The friction emerges when we consider the case of a brit milah. While the Ma"h states that nefilat apayim is not said when praying alongside the child, and the Ta"Z links the groom's exemption to the seven days of feasting, the exact demarcation of these prohibitions becomes murky. If the groom's presence signifies joy and thus a festival atmosphere, why would the brit milah, a joyous occasion, also lead to the omission of nefilat apayim? Furthermore, the Ta"Z's distinction between the mourner's house and the groom's house regarding the obligation to say tachanun after leaving raises questions about the consistency of the underlying principles.

If the groom's joy creates a festival atmosphere, why would this preclude nefilat apayim but not necessarily tachanun after leaving? Conversely, if the mourner's sorrow is the issue, how does this extend to the groom, whose presence is associated with happiness? The Ba'er Hetev's attempt to differentiate the reasons – the groom's joy as a king, and the mourner's sorrow as a decree against arousing divine judgment – offers a potential resolution, but the specific application and the precise boundaries of these exemptions remain a subject of extensive discussion and varying customs.

The Terutz: Divergent Rationales and Practical Custom

The resolution to this friction lies in recognizing the distinct, and sometimes overlapping, rationales for these prohibitions, coupled with the primacy of established custom.

1. Divergent Rationales:

   • Mourner: The primary reason for omitting nefilat apayim (and Tachanun) in the house of a mourner is the decree against stirring up the attribute of judgment (midat ha-din) during a time of sorrow. This is not merely about personal sadness, but about preventing spiritual arousal that could be detrimental. The Ta"Z's distinction between the mourner and others praying there after leaving highlights that the decree is tied to the immediate environment and atmosphere of mourning.
   • Groom: The groom's presence signifies joy and celebration. This joy is seen as a form of festival, and nefilat apayim, a posture of deep supplication, is considered inappropriate in such a context. The Ta"Z's question about the seven days of feasting suggests that the entire period surrounding the wedding is imbued with this celebratory spirit, akin to a mo'ed (festival).
   • Brit Milah: The brit milah also carries a joyous connotation, being a mitzvah and a cause for celebration. The omission of nefilat apayim on this day likely stems from a similar sentiment of inappropriate solemnity during a time of festivity, albeit perhaps with a slightly different emphasis than the groom's personal joy.

2. Practical Custom: The commentaries themselves highlight the prevalence of differing customs. The Ma"h notes that the Hagmot Maimoniyot seems to imply that nefilat apayim would be said during Mincha even alongside the child, while the Bach and Rashal rule otherwise, and this is practiced in Brisk. Similarly, the Ta"Z's query about the seven days of feasting suggests a potential conflict between logical extension and actual practice.

The Ba'er Hetev's distinction, that the groom's presence is like a king being honored (hence no need for personal deep supplication), while the mourner's presence is to avoid arousing divine judgment, provides a strong framework. In the groom's case, the congregation is essentially celebrating with him, and the atmosphere is one of communal joy, not personal distress. In the mourner's case, the atmosphere is one of potential divine displeasure or judgment, which necessitates refraining from intense supplication.

Therefore, the friction is resolved by understanding that the prohibitions are based on distinct, though sometimes parallel, concerns: the inappropriate solemnity during joy (groom, brit milah) and the potential spiritual peril during sorrow (mourner). The variations in practice reflect the nuanced application of these principles and the evolution of minhag.

Intertext

Tanakh: The Dual Nature of Supplication and Celebration

The underlying tension in nefilat apayim laws can be traced to the Tanakh's portrayal of both profound sorrow and exultant joy as occasions for divine engagement.

• Deuteronomy 11:12: "A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year." This verse speaks to God's constant awareness and involvement with His people, implying that prayer is always relevant. However, the nefilat apayim laws introduce situational modifiers.
• Jeremiah 3:12: "Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; I will not cause my anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, I will not keep anger for ever." The concept of God's mercy (rachamim) is central to Tachanun prayers like V'hu Rachum. The omission of these prayers on certain days, even when appropriate in principle, suggests a tension between the general availability of divine mercy and specific times where its full expression might be modulated by other spiritual considerations.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 559:1: The Timing of Tachanun

The Shulchan Arukh, in Siman 559, discusses the recitation of Tachanun more broadly. It states (559:1): "On the days of Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, Purim, Erev Pesach, Erev Yom Kippur, and the Ninth of Av, we do not say Tachanun." This provides a foundational list of days where Tachanun is omitted, setting the stage for the more specific exclusions related to nefilat apayim discussed in Siman 131. The connection is that nefilat apayim is often a component of the Tachanun service. The SA's explicit mention of these days reinforces the idea that certain communal circumstances or commemorations inherently alter the nature of public prayer, moving away from deep supplication. The Magen Avraham's discussion regarding Hallel on Chanukah in the house of a mourner (cited in the Readings) further illustrates how the established calendar of holidays and mourning periods dictates the permissible liturgical repertoire.

Psak/Practice

The laws of nefilat apayim and the related omissions of Tachanun are a prime example of how halakha blends textual sources with the weight of established custom (minhag). While the SA lays down the basic parameters, the glosses and the commentaries reveal a complex tapestry of practices that vary by community.

1. The Principle of "Minhag Yisrael Torah": The SA itself, and the commentaries within it, frequently defer to custom. For instance, the SA states regarding nefilat apayim in the house of a mourner: "and that is what we practice." This deference to established practice, even when a clear textual reason might be debated, is a cornerstone of halakhic development.
2. The Omission of Tachanun as a Guideline: The most common practical application of these laws revolves around the omission of Tachanun. On days where Tachanun is omitted due to a holiday, brit milah, or the presence of a groom or mourner, nefilat apayim is likewise not performed.
3. Sitting vs. Standing: The fundamental ruling that nefilat apayim is done sitting (131:4) is universally practiced. The debate over leaning left or right (131:3, gloss) is also settled by custom, with the majority adhering to the practice of leaning away from the tefillin on the arm.
4. The "Prominent Person" Clause: The prohibition for a prominent person to perform nefilat apayim unless confident of being answered (131:6) is generally understood not as a strict prohibition, but as a strong discouragement, particularly in public prayer. Most individuals do not consider themselves in this category, and thus perform nefilat apayim as part of the congregational prayer.
5. The Nuances of "Beside the Child" or "Beside the Groom": The practical application of whether Tachanun is said when praying in the same building as a brit milah or a groom often depends on local custom and the specific interpretation of the commentaries by contemporary halakhic authorities. Many communities will omit Tachanun if the brit or groom is in the synagogue itself, or even in an adjoining room.

Takeaway

The laws of nefilat apayim underscore the dynamic interplay between normative legal principles and the lived experience of Jewish communal life, where custom often refines and dictates practice.

The precise expression of divine judgment and mercy is not static, but is modulated by the spiritual atmosphere of specific times and communal circumstances, guiding the appropriate form of prayer.