1. What Defines a Rasha? Someone1 asked me about a seeming anomaly in Tanya.

In the first chapter of Tanya the Alter Rebbe writes that “even one who violates a minor prohibition2 ordained by the Sages is termed wicked,3 as is stated in Tractate Yevamos, chapter 2,4 and in Tractate Niddah, chapter 15 [...], and all the more so, one who neglects any positive [Scriptural] commandment6 that he is able to fulfill.”

The questioner asks: Why does the Alter Rebbe have to resort to a kal vachomer7 (“all the more so”) as a source for the statement that one who neglects to observe a positive commandment is termed wicked?This is explicitly stated in the Gemara!8 “What are the circumstances surrounding the positive commandment [whose neglect is atoned for by the sacrificial service of Yom Kippur]? If the individual did not repent, it is written9 that ‘the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination’!”10

[The Rebbe concluded:] Now, why don’t questions like this person’s question occur to chassidim who study Tanya?

*

2. Is Responding Amen a Positive Affirmation? Responding Amen may conceivably be considered in either of two ways: (a) as a positive and obligatory affirmation that completes the blessing that was just heard; or (b) as a preemptive measure — primarily negating a lack of response, so that it should not appear that one dissents from the content of the blessing and in fact (G‑d forbid) dissociates himself from it.

[At this point one of those present proposed that one could prove that Amen is a positive affirmation, by citing the law that when a litigant responds Amen to an oath that is administered and articulated by a rabbinical court, he is fully bound by the oath. In response, the Rebbe pointed out that in the case of an oath there is no negative option, because if the litigant does not respond Amen he has no connection whatever with the oath.]

At first glance, there would appear to be evidence that responding Amen is a positive affirmation.

By way of introduction, however, let us consider the practical halachic difference11 between the two approaches. At first sight, this difference would have practical significance in the case of a worshiper [who has not kept pace with the congregation and] who has reached a point in the service at which he is not permitted to interrupt his prayers by responding Amen [to a blessing recited aloud by the sheliach tzibbur, for example]. If responding Amen is a positive obligation, then in a situation in which one is forbidden to make an interruption, the obligation to respond Amen is of course suspended. If, however, responding Amen is required for a negative reason (so that he should not be misunderstood as dissociating himself from the content of the blessing), he cannot refrain from responding Amen, even if at this moment he is not permitted to interrupt his prayers by making this response. He will then have no alternative but to leave the synagogue momentarily in order to avoid hearing the blessing. And since there is no mention anywhere of such a directive, it would appear at first glance that here we have evidence that responding Amen is a positive obligation.

In fact, however, this proves nothing, because even if we were to hold that the purpose of responding Amen is to avert a possible misconception, this point does not have to made — when one cannot respond — by walking out of the synagogue. Such a misconception can be ruled out by other means, apart from responding Amen. (As witness: In the Beis HaMikdash, the response was, “Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom for ever and ever,”12 not necessarily Amen.) Thus, the very fact that this worshiper is standing in prayer and praising G‑d by reciting the Verses of Praise13 (such as the verse, “Praise G‑d from the heavens”14 ), or by affirming that the Shema which he has just read is “true, certain and established,”. Siddur, p. 44. or by saying “You have always been the help of our fathers”399 and the like, — this very fact utterly rules out any possible misconception that he dissents from the blessing that he has just heard.15

3. When is one Exempt from Responding? To support the proposition that responding Amen is an affirmative obligation, one might want to cite the fact that [at certain times] one does not interrupt one’s prayers to respond Amen. One could then argue that the rationale for this is the principle that “whoever is engaged in fulfilling one commandment is exempt from fulfilling a different commandment.”16 This rationale can apply only if one holds that responding Amen is a positive obligation (“fulfilling a mitzvah”); it cannot apply if one holds that responding Amen is merely a negative, preemptive measure.

In truth, however, one cannot prove that the reason for not responding is that “whoever is engaged in fulfilling a mitzvah is exempt from fulfilling a different mitzvah,” because if this were the reason, one would not interrupt oneself by saying Amen even in a place in which this is permitted, such as while reciting the passage beginning Hodu laShem, kir’u bishmo,17 or while studying Torah.

It is thus clear that the principle that “whoever is engaged in fulfilling a mitzvah is exempt from fulfilling a different mitzvah” does not explain why one should refrain from making an interruption by saying Amen. (After all, if one does make such an interruption by saying “Long live the king!” out of deference to a king of flesh and blood, how much more certainly should one make such an interruption by saying “Long live the King of the Universe!”) In fact, however, the exemption from responding Amen applies in places in which all interruptions are forbidden.

4. Does the Response Outweigh the Blessing? Arguably, the present inquiry (as to whether responding Amen is an affirmative obligation or a negative, preemptive measure) hinges on the debate in the Gemara18 as to whether “he who recites the blessing [i.e., the Grace after Meals] is more praiseworthy than those who respond Amen,”or whether “he who responds Amen is more praiseworthy than the one who recites the blessing.”

One can argue the superiority of the response over the blessing only if we hold that responding Amen is a positive obligation: since that response fortifies the blessing, it can be described as being superior to the blessing. If, by contrast, we hold that responding Amen is a negative, preemptive measure, it does not stand to reason that the negation of a possible misconception [regarding suspected dissent from the content of the blessing] should be superior to the recitation of the blessing itself.

It would thus appear that the authority who holds that “he who recites the blessing is more praiseworthy than those who respond Amen” also holds that responding Amen is [merely] a negative, preemptive measure, whereas the authority who holds that“he who responds Amen is more praiseworthy than the one who recites the blessing” also holds thatresponding Amen is a positive obligation.

5. Amen from a Chassidic Perspective. With regard to the view that“he who responds Amen is more praiseworthy than the one who recites the blessing,” it is explained in the literature of Chassidus19 that this response recalls the halachic phrase describing the closing words of compound blessings, which “one seals with Baruch....”20

The word berachah (ברכה — “blessing”) in the Holy Tongue signifies the drawing down21 of beneficence from Above. Since it is possible that this downward flow will also be diverted to unholy recipients,. In the language of the Kabbalah and Chassidus: yenikah lechitzonim. it must also be “sealed with Baruch.” [The Alter Rebbe teaches:] “The function of this seal22 is like the outer seal that is affixed to a letter so that it will not be read by a stranger to whom one does not want to divulge its contents. So, too, this blessing and downward flow of Divine beneficence must be sealed [...], so that it will remain only in the realm of holiness, with no stranger having any portion or inheritance in it,” as is explained at the beginning of Torah Or.

This is also the content of the response of Amen — affirming a blessing in such a way that its downward flow of beneficence will reach the holy realm only, no part of it being diverted by unintended recipients to serve unholy ends.407

From this it would appear that responding Amen is a negative, preemptive measure, for its purpose is to deflect misdirected influence.

In truth, however, ... [No further record of this discussion is extant.]