Speaking Between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or (full article)

Assuming I need to interrupt my prayer to speak to someone, what is the optimal place to break? Within Pesukei Dezimra? Within Shema and its blessings? Within Shemoneh Esrei? My reading of the relevant sugyot is that interrupting Shemoneh Esrei is the most severe. A Mishnah on Berakhot 30b declares that, when one stands before Hashem in Shemoneh Esrei, one should not interrupt even if a snake were coiled around his heel. This is meant homiletically, reflecting the attitude one should maintain, so a later gemara minimizes its application to non-dangerous situations.

Shema interruptions seem to be of a lower level. According to the Mishnah on Berachot 13a and its associated gemara, interrupting to greet someone within the structure of Shema and its blessings is allowable in specific scenarios, depending on whether one is within or between paragraphs and whether the purpose is honor or fear¹. Shema, in which one reflects on, and accepts, Hashem’s kingship, is distinct from actually standing in Hashem’s presence.

Pesukei Dezimra, meaning Ashrei and its surrounding chapters of Tehillim, strikes me as being of a lower level. This is praise of Hashem, rather than a fulfillment of a Biblical obligation like Shema. In Shabbat 118a, Rabbi Yossi says “May my portion be among those who complete hallel every day”, which the gemara clarifies is a reference not to what we typically call Hallel but to Pesukei Dezimra, the recitation of Tehillim from Tehillah LeDavid until Kol HaNeshamah. This might indicate that Pesukei Dezimra was something only a subset of the religious people did. Regardless, the Rif (in Rif Berachot 23a) says that since the Rabbanan² instituted a blessing before and after – namely Baruch She’amar and Yishtabach – one should not interrupt within it, and that therefore, it is forbidden to talk from Baruch She’amar until the end of Shemoneh Esrei. Presumably, just as in the structure of Shema and its blessings, between and within paragraphs, and for the sake of honor or fear, would be in play. No one would say that the interruptions are all of equal severity.

What about speaking between these tefillah units? Perhaps Rif was inexact in specifying the span, and there are two key inflection points where speaking might be allowed: between Shema Shemoneh Esrei, and between Pesukei Dezimra and Shema. Still, there’s a preference, expressed in Berachot 26b, of juxtaposing the blessing of geulah – redemption, meaning the final blessing after Shema – to tefillah, meaning the first blessing of Shemoneh Esrei. Conversely, this juxtaposition might be temporal, and saying amen or even brief speech might not ruin it. Even if it would ruin the juxtaposition, there might be a difference between a preference and a prohibition.

Regarding the inflection point between Yishtabach, which is the final blessing of Pesukei Dezimra, and Yotzer Or, the opening blessing of Shema, Rif only mentions the overall span, and does not mention a reason why speaking then should be prohibited. However, the Shiltei HaGiborim assumes it is forbidden, pointing us to a Yerushalmi which I suspect does not exist. He writes: וְכֵן יֵשׁ בִּירוּשַׁלְמִי הַסָּח בֵּין יִשְׁתַּבַּח לְיוֹצֵר אוֹר עֲבֵרָה הִיא בְּיָדוֹ וְחוֹזְרִין אוֹתוֹ מִמַּעַרְכֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה. The Talmud Yerushalmi states that “one who speaks between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or, it is a sin in his hand, and they would send him back from the ranks of soldiers waging war.”

Returning from the Ranks

Sugyot in Sotah and Menachot discuss sending soldiers back for their sins. Thus, Devarim 20 discusses officials addressing troops going out to war. If any soldier had recently built a house, betrothed a woman, or planted a vineyard, he is sent back. Further, if anyone is fainthearted and his reaction in battle would destroy morale, he is sent back.

The Mishnah on Sotah 44a records a Tannaitic dispute as to the meaning of “fearful and fainthearted”. Rabbi Akiva, a fourth-generation Tanna, takes the verse literally, that a drawn sword will terrify him in battle. His contemporary, Rabbi Yossi HaGelili, says that the fear is of sins he has committed – he worries that he will not merit being saved in battle³. Rabbi Akiva’s fifth-generation student, Rabbi Yossi (ben Chalafta), runs with the sin theory, but enumerates specific Biblical sins – of prohibited yet legally valid marriages, such as a widow to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee to regular kohen – which will cause a man to be sent back from the ranks⁴.

The Talmudic Narrator wonders at the difference between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yossi HaGelili, and answers that the latter is concerned even about Rabbinic violations. This analysis is quite plausible. After all, Rabbi Yossi delineated Biblical marriage violations, while Rabbi Yossi HaGelili was more open-ended. However, other analyses seem possible. Perhaps (A) Rabbi Yossi is concerned specifically about marriage violations. (See footnote 4 about derasha mechanics, to see why this would be.) Rabbi Yossi HaGelili could then be more expansive, in considering all Biblical violations as reason to fear. Perhaps (B) Rabbi Yossi is the more expansive. After all, while a Kohen Gadol marrying a divorcee is a prohibition, it is as an issur lav – the lightest level of Biblical prohibition – and does not carry with it punishment of karet or mita. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yossi HaGelili would only be talking about severe violations, which might cause Hashem to allow him to fall in battle.

The Talmudic Narrator then quotes various braytot and aligns them with their respective Tanna. The first brayta reads: שָׂח בֵּין תְּפִילָּה לִתְפִילָּה — עֲבֵירָה הִיא בְּיָדוֹ, וְחוֹזֵר עָלֶיהָ מֵעוֹרְכֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה. One who speaks between one tefillah – that is, tefillin shel yad – and the next tefillah – that is, tefillin shel rosh – it is a sin in his hand⁵, and they would send him back from the ranks of soldiers waging war. The Narrator aligns this with Rabbi Yossi HaGelili. After all, this is a minor transgression, and is thus Rabbinic rather than Biblical. Note that, with analysis (B), it could be that it aligns with Rabbi Yossi. Not only minor Biblical violations, but even minor Rabbinic violations – if we would even really consider them true violations – are enough to legitimize his fear.

The Picture in Menachot

In Menachot 36a, Rav Chisda, a third-generation Babylonian assumes that a single blessing was said upon tefillin, and then one donned first the shel yad and then the shel rosh. But, says Rav Chisda, if someone spoke between, he must recite the blessing again. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yochanan, a second-generation Amora of the Land of Israel, described distinct blessings for the tefillin shel yad and shel rosh, namely lehaniach and al mitzvat. The implication seems to be that one should make distinct blessings ab initio. Abaye and Rava, fourth-generation Babylonian Amoraim, maintain a position that harmonizes these two statements. Ideally, one does not interrupt, but if he did, his second blessing on the shel rosh is al mitzvat tefillin. The gemara follows this up with the brayta of שָׂח בֵּין תְּפִילָּה לִתְפִילָּה עֲבֵירָה הִיא בְּיָדוֹ, וְחוֹזֵר עָלֶיהָ מֵעוֹרְכֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה, though our printed text spells שָׂח with a samech⁶.

It seems strange for a beracha to be coined for a sinful scenario. Even coining it for a bedieved situation seems strange. Further, if he interrupted, that just means that the first blessing would not apply to the shel rosh, not that he thereby sinned. Rashi says that the sin in his hand only exists if he interrupted and then did not recite that second blessing. Rif (in Rif Rosh Hashanah 11b) seems to say that, despite making the blessing, it is not good that he spoke. I would suggest that we are not dealing with a grievous sin here, and perhaps not even a true violation of a Rabbinic law. Rather, somewhat aligned with my suggestion (B) above, we are dealing with a minor non-ideal situation, and the Tanna of the brayta suggested that a soldier returns even if worried about such a minimal event.

The Imagined Yerushalmi

The above discussion was about speaking between tefillin shel yad and shel rosh. What about the parallel Yerushalmi, which mentions speaking between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or? The Tur (Orach Chaim 51) repeats the Rif’s language about not speaking between Baruch She’amar and the end of Shemoneh Esrei, and further references the Yerushalmi about the sin of speaking between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or. Rav Yosef Karo, in his Beit Yosef commentary on the Tur, discusses how one can interrupt between Yishtabach and Yotzer Or for the sake of a mitzvah, such as blessing upon donning a talit, so that, in this respect, it is of a lower level status than interrupting within Pesukei Dezimra. Rav Yosef Karo omits this in Shulchan Aruch but the Rema does record it, thus validating that the interruption is not as problematic.

I have learned through all Yerushalmi and don’t recall seeing such a sugya. Searches on Sefaria also have not yielded this Yerushalmi. Sometimes “Yerushalmi” refers to other sources, such as a midrash, but I strongly suspect that this Yerushalmi does not exist! Further, I suspect that the Yerushalmi could not exist. The blessings of Baruch She’amar and Yishtabach don’t appear in the Talmud, and are first discussed in Geonic writings – mystical references to their early authorship notwithstanding. If the blessings didn’t exist, how could one sin by speaking between them? Furthermore, as Mitchell First wrote in his Jewish Link article last week (“The Recital of Az Yashir Before Yishtabach”, February 5, 2026), the custom in Eretz Yisrael and its environs in the Geonic era (10th-13th centuries) was to recite Az Yashir daily after Yishtabach. The same was true for some Babylonian communities in the Geonic era, on Shabbat and Yom Tov. This would be problematic, and indeed was later seen as problematic, if the Yerushalmi declared such an interruption sinful. Finally, a sin should not just be established by fiat. Speaking between tefillin might involve unapplied or extraneous blessing. An interruption at an inflection point, where the closing blessing of the previous prayer has successfully closed and the opening blessing of the next prayer has not yet opened should not even be a minor sin.

Rather, I suspect that this “Yerushalmi” is a mistaken interpretation and expansion of the brayta we’ve seen in Sotah and Menachot.The brayta‘s use of the term “tefillah”, which in that context refers to ‘phylactery’, is the crux of the confusion. A reader, especially in Sotah where context is lacking, could misunderstand it as “prayer”. Shema and Shemoneh Esrei already are covered by the imperative to juxtapose geulah and tefillah. Therefore, this was taken as the prayer of Pesukei Dezimra, with its blessings, and the prayer of Shema, with its blessings.

Don’t take this as halachic guidance, but I would not be concerned about speaking during this particular inflection point in davening, even to greet someone. The theme of the original brayta is that the level of infraction is extremely minor, even negligible. Add that we haven’t established an even negligible sin, and that the echoing language suggests a transmission error, after Yishtabach seems like the perfect place to interrupt.

1. Later authorities restrict this law’s application, but my aim in this article is not to relate halacha as described in Shulchan Aruch, or to argue with Rishonim and Acharonim in interpreting sugyot.

2. I am not sure whether the Sages who enacted these framing blessings were Talmudic or post-Talmudic. I see no sugya discussing their institution, and would they enact blessings on an optional Pesukei Dezimra?

3. Indeed, the beginning of the Biblical chapter has the kohen tell the soldiers not to fear or panic, because Hashem marches in battle to save them. Rabbi Yossi HaGelili can point to peshat features of context in explaining why this person persists in his fear.

4. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi interprets the fear as pertaining to rach heleivav, soft of heart. That is, as a failing in the heart / love department. Consider loving Hashem bechol levavecha. Also, juxtaposition is considered relevant in Devarim, and the immediately preceding verse discusses betrothal but the marriage not completed.

5. I wonder if this is clever wordplay, of tefillin shel yad as the aveira beyado.

6. We should think about whether Menachot or Sotah is the brayta’s primary sugya.