64 Jason Rosenberg

rules that a person may answer“amen” to a minyan, even if she/he is not physically with that minyan. Later authorities assert that listening via telephone is an analogous situation, so someone listening on a phone would respond“amen” upon hearing a blessing. However, if the blessing was to fulfill an obligation of his/her own, than the person does not say“ amen” and they cannot count the blessing as their own(as they could have, had they been physical, present).”’

So, it seems that hearing a blessing via technology counts for something(we can/must respond to those blessing), but it doe not equal hearing the blessing in person.“Being there” through the telephone seems to count as a kind of lesser presence. As we'll see, this is a common theme in the halakhah, and one which is useful to us. Technology allows us to be there, in some sense, but not in the full

sense.

But, a Reform halakhic approach requires that we do more than know what the traditional sources say, it also requires that we understand why, so that we can decide whether this is relevant to us. In this case, the tradition seems to be taking a somewhat philosophical approach to the nature of prayer.

Is“true” prayer defined solely by the perception of the person in question? By the effect that it has on the listener? Does prayer exist solely in the eyes/ears of the beholder? The tradition seems to say“no.” Prayer hasan independent reality, even if it seems just as good to the listener as the echo of a shofar might.