1) I am going to suggest a source which may shed some light on this question. This is in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 275:9. The discussion there concerns reading on Friday night to the light of a lamp when there is a worry that the reader might be tempted to tilt the lamp, which is forbidden on Shabbos. The Shulchan Aruch states that if the Seder night falls on Shabbos, one may read the Hagadah to the light of the lamp because there is no Am ha'Aretz who is not slightly familiar with the Hagadah of Pesach (and therefore it is unlikely that he will be tempted to tilt the lamp since he knows the material quite well). The Mishnah Berurah (#17) adds that the Pri Megadim discusses what to do if one is an Am ha'Aretz who has never learned anything and he is not familiar with the Hagadah at all.

We learn from the Pri Megadim that if someone never learned anything at all we cannot expect him to know by heart even things which are familiar to everyone else.

2) In addition, see Tosfos to Berachos 3a (end of DH v'Onin) who writes that the reason why Kadish was instituted in Aramaic was because not all the Amei ha'Aretz understood Hebrew. I suggest that it is difficult for someone to learn by heart the Shemoneh Esreh in a language which he does not know. (Try learning by heart Kadish in Chinese!)

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) We see from here that someone who learns things in parrot fashion will not remember them, especially if he does not even understand the language.

The Vilna Gaon says something similar to this in his commentary on Mishlei 23:5. He writes that because the Mishnah does not give the reason for the Halachos, it is easy to forget them quickly, but one who understands Gemara will not forget it quickly.

It is true that, there, the Vilna Gaon is discussing Torah, not Tefilah, but the same principle may apply for everything, that if one does not understand what he is saying, he will not manage to remember it.

2) We find that in the time of the Tur (circa 1269-1343) the Chazan used to say most of the davening and was Motzi the community. The Tur (Orach Chaim 49) writes that when the Chazan arrived at verses in the Tefilah, such as "Mi Kamocha ba'Elim..." and "Hash-m Yimloch l'Olam va'Ed," he would remain quiet and the congregation would say these verses. The Machatzis ha'Shekel (49:1) writes that in the time of the Tur, the Chazan would say most of the Tefilah and the Tzibur knew by themselves only these two verses. This was before the invention of the printing press. It was only these well-known verses that everyone knew by heart.

3) Now to the Taz about the lamp: In fact, it was not the Taz who said that even if the lamp cannot be moved, one may not read by its light. Rava stated this explicilty in the Gemara (Shabbos 12b) when he said that even if a lamp is ten flights up, it is forbidden to use its light. Rashi (DH v'Afilu) writes that since the Rabanan made a Gezeirah we apply the principle of "Lo Plug," "we make no distinction," and using the light of a flame is always forbidden. "Lo Plug" is a principle we find continuously in connection with Gezeiros of Chazal.

4) The Taz (275:1) is actually worried about the opposite problem -- namely, why do we not always say "Lo Plug" for this Din? Why do we say that if there are two people using the candle it is permitted? To answer this problem the Taz writes that concerning different people we do not say "Lo Plug" and we do distinguish between different people, some of whom the Gezeirah applies to and some it does not apply to. In contrast, concerning the candle we do say "Lo Plug" and it is always forbidden to read to its light, whether it is high up or in a closed box which is not reachable.

5) An example of "Lo Plug" in the Gemara is in Bava Metzia 53b.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) (a) We find an important explanation of "Lo Plug" in the responsa of the Rambam, cited by the Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim #124:3, DH v'Chosev ha'Rada). The Rambam was asked about a community where everyone knew the Shemoneh Esreh and everyone had already davened. The question was, should the Chazan now say Chazaras ha'Shatz?

The Rambam answered that since the Sages made a Takanah that the Shali'ach Tzibur should say the Tefilah again so that anyone who is not expert himself to say the Shemoneh Esreh should be Yotzei, this means that the institution of Chazal applies even in a congregation where everyone knows how to pray himself.

(b) The Rambam gives a few more examples of this idea. There is a Takanah to make Kidush in Shul on Friday night for guests who sleep on the synagogue premises. However, this applies even if there are no guests in shul. In addition, on Friday night after Shemoneh Esreh, we say "Magen Avos," which was instituted for latecomers. While the Chazan is saying Magen Avos, this gives them time to daven themselves, and this way the latecomers will not be in danger of having to go home alone after the service ends. Even if, on this particular evening, there were no latecomers, the Takanah of saying Magen Avos remains.

(c) The Rambam explains that this is the way a Takanah always works. We do not say that the Takanah only applies if the reason that the Takanah was made is present. Rather, we say that the Takanah always applies because of a Gezeirah that on another occasion the original reason for the Takanah might be present.

(d) The Rambam writes that one must understand the matter this way because, otherwise, "Hayu ha'Chachamim Nosnim Divreihem l'Shiurim" -- each case would require different parameters. A check would have to be made at the beginning of every service to see if each individual present was expert at davening.

(e) The Mishnah Berurah (OC 124:12) adds a few words when he cites this idea. He writes that Chazal instituted that the Shali'ach Tzibur always repeats the Tefilah just in case on one occasion there might be somebody there who is not expert. (This is very interesting, because the suggestion is that it would be worth making Chazaras ha'Shatz even for the unusual case where there was somebody in shul who did not know how to daven. This may help us to understand what we have been discussing recently about how Chazal made the Takanah for an unusual eventuality.)

(f) At any rate, we can now say that if Chazal would have said that one may not read to the light of the candle only when the candle is in a place where it is possible for one to reach it, this would have made life very complicated. One would have had to invite a rabbi to one's home every Friday afternoon to decide whether the candle is at a height where there is a reasonable concern that it may be reached on Shabbos. Instead, Chazal said that it is always forbidden to read to the light of a candle. Similarly if Chazaras ha'Shatz would apply only when there is someone present who does not know how to daven himself, this would have meant that before every service all the congregants would have to undego a test to determine their proficiency in praying.

2) Just to add a comment about more than one person reading with the candle: Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 275:2) writes that 2 people are allowed to read together with the candle since if one gets tempted to tilt the candle, his friend will remind him that this is forbidden.

(a) The Taz (275:1) is concerned with the following problem: Why do we not say "Lo Plug" when 2 people are reading? What is the difference between the candle placed in a very high place where we say that even so one may not read with it because of Lo Plug? Why do we not say Lo Plug also when 2 people are reading? The Taz answers that one must make a distinction between different people and different candles. There are some people who are allowed to read with the candle, such as a person who has a friend reading with him who will remind him not to tilt the candle. In contrast, we do not make a distinction between different candles. If it is forbidden to read with a candle, then it is forbidden however high the candle is, or however securely the candle is locked into a box to prevent one from opening the box in order to tilt the candle.

(b) It seems to me that with the help of the Teshuvah of the Rambam that we mentioned earlier, we can now understand the Taz well, bs'd. The Rambam writes that if Chazaras ha'Shatz would have to be said only when there was someone in shul who does not know how to daven, then this would mean that at the beginning of every service we would have to give an exam to everyone in shul to assess if he knows how to pray on his own. This is clearly impossible. I argue that the same logic applies with the candle. If there would be a Heter to read by a high-up candle or a candle locked securely in a box, one would have to decide every week if the height of my particular candle was sufficient, or if the lock on my box was secure enough. This procedure is too complicated.

In contrast, the distinction between different people who are allowed, or not allowed, to read with the candle is much more straightforward. It is a clearcut Halachah that 2 people may read and 1 person may not. It is not necessary to make a new decision concerning this each time they want to read because there is an explicit Halachah which states when it is permitted and when it is forbidden, and is not similar to the height of the candle or the strength of the lock, which always varies.

3) (a) Now to the impact of the invention of printing on the ability of the average person to daven on his own. I argue that even though there were Sidurim long before the invention of printing, nevertheless these were too expensive for many people to buy. One had to hire a scribe to write specially a Sidur for one's personal use and this was too expensive for most people.

(b) We have seen from the Rambam I cited in the previous reply that the reason the Rambam eliminated the Chazarah was not because people knew how to read the prayers. See the Radbaz (part 4, responsum #1165), who says that the reason was that people were talking during Chazaras ha'Shatz and this was a Chilul Hash-m.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) If one person steps out for a while, the other one is not allowed to read until his friend returns.

2) It seems that it is not possible to give a fixed height that is permitted because this could always vary according to the circumstances. For instance, if someone had access to a very high ladder, then this measurement would not be relevant for him, so again each individual would have a different Psak. This comes back to the issue of "Nasnu Divreihem l'Shi'urim" -- "the Sages would have to give a different measurement every time," which we cited above, in the name of the Rambam and Beis Yosef (OC #124, DH v'Chasav ha'Rada). Therefore, we say "Lo Plug" and it follows that all heights are forbidden.

3) The Mishnah Berurah gives a solution for a person alone on Friday night. He writes (in Bi'ur Halachah 275:1, DH l'Or ha'Ner) that he has heard that "men of deeds" write on a piece of paper in large letters, "Today is Shabbos. It is forbidden to light the candle," and place the note next to the candle before Shabbos. The Mishnah Berurah writes that one certainly may rely on this.

4) The Teshuvas Radbaz 4:1165 cites the Rambam. It appears from the Rambam's description that the problem was particularly bad during Chazaras ha'Shatz, because people felt they had already fulfilled their obligation and they felt free to walk out of shul for Chazaras ha'Shatz, or remain inside acting disrespectfully. The Radbaz writes that the situation in his times (16th-century Egypt) was better than in the time and place of the Rambam. In addition, the Rambam stressed a few times that his eliminating of Chazaras ha'Shatz applied only in his time and locality.

5) (a) Now to the question of reading near an electric light. A lot has been written about this topic, and most of the authorities permit it. I will cite one very early responsum about an electric light, that of the Teshuvis Maharshag (Orach Chaim #29), by Rabbi Shimon Greenfeld. He was one of the leading authorities in Hungary. The Teshuvah was written in 1911.

(b) His approach is that Chazal's Gezeirah applied only when there is a concern that one will tilt the oil to enable himself to read better. When using an oil lamp, where the wick may become removed from the oil, one might be tempted to tilt the oil so that it touches the wick again. Therefore, the Gezeirah of Chazal applies to all kinds of oil, or all other kinds of liquids, such as parafin or spirit, which are capable of burning. However, we cannot make new Gezeiros on our own, such as to forbid reading by an the light of an electric light out of ouncern that one might extinguish the light and relight it in a better way, or one might clean the wick so that it burns better, or one might move the lamp. We do not have the power to make new institutions after the completion of the Talmud. Therefore, we cannot say that one may not read to the electric light because the light might go off and one will try to put it on again. This is a new Gezeirah that we do not possess the authority to introduce.

6) About the question of Chazaras ha'Shatz nowadays: The Mishnah Berurah (OC 124:12) writes that the Takanah of Chazaras ha'Shatz was in case there might, one time, be someone in shul who is not expert in the Shemoneh Esreh. It seems to me that, to our great regret, there are so many Jews nowadays who know so little about Torah, that the Takanah of Chazaras ha'Shatz is very relevant, in the hope that these sort of people will come into shul from time to time. Even though we have Sidurim in every language, it makes it comes to life much more if one listens to the Chazan saying it.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) David, when you say that electricity could be considered a new Gezeirah, I assume that you are referring to lighting electricity on Shabbos. However, this is not an Isur d'Rabanan, but in fact it is an Isur d'Oraisa. The Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 9:6) writes that one who heats metal until it becomes red-hot like a coal is liable for the Melachah of cooking, "Mevashel." He writes that the prohibition of cooking on Shabbos includes the activity of softening a hard item through heat (it does not necessarily have to involve food). This is a source that electricity is forbidden mid'Oraisa since the wire gets hot. In addition, the Rambam writes that if one heats up metal, this constitutes "Mav'ir," the Melachah of kindling a flame (Hilchos Shabbos 12:1). We now have two possible sources that using electricity constitutes an Isur Torah, either Mevashel or Mav'ir.

2) However, the logic of the Maharshag is that since the Gemara (Shabbos 12a) states that the reason why one may not read to the light of the candle is "Shema Yateh," one might tilt the oil so to make it reach the wick, this does not apply at all to electricity, and thus electricity is not included in the Gezeirah.

3) Possibly, there are other scenarios where a sign would be considered equal to a Shomer. However, I suggest that if one wants to eat before he davens Ma'ariv, where the Halachah is that he needs a Shomer to ensure that he does not forget to daven, here a sign would not be sufficient. This is because one cannot compare this to reading to the light of the candle. In the latter case, if he gets tempted to tilt the lamp, the moment he goes to do so he immediately sees a sign directly in front of him warning him to stop. This does not apply to the issue of forgetting to daven.

I will comment later, b'Ezras Hash-m, about Chazaras ha'Shatz.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Now to Chazaras HaShatz.

1) I should first point out that the Beis Yosef Orach Chaim, beginning of #124, writes that the person who is not expert in saying Shemoneh Esreh, and therefore is Yotzei with the Shatz, must nevertheless understand Hebrew. If he does not understand what the Chazan says, he is not Yotzei. This is cited by the Mishneh Berurah; that someone who does not understand the Holy Tongue, is not Yotzei even if he hears every word from the Shatz.

2) The Aruch HaShulchan (beginning of #124) asks that if so what should someone who does not understand Hebrew do?! He answers that he should say Shemoneh Esreh word by word together with the Shatz and this way he is Yotzei even if he does not understand what the Shatz is saying.

3) So according to the Beis Yosef, possibly we could say that nowadays Chazaras HaShatz would be most applicable for Israelis, who speak Hebrew, but do not know how to daven. There are a lot of people in that category all over the world.

4) Just a comment about the person who could read Chazaras HaShatz in English on his own. I would note that Teshuvas Chasam Sofer Orach Chaim #84 and #86 writes that even though Chazal permitted praying in any language, nevertheless this is only if one does so on an occasional basis, but the fixed public way of praying should only be in the Holy Tongue. In addition when the Chazan davens for everyone, he is also showing everyone how to daven and makes it an alive public supplication performed in the special Hebrew language, in which the world was created.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom