The mishna[1] states that one who says “Modim modim” is silenced. The reason is that he appears to be addressing two deities. Rabbi Zeira[2] extends this halacha to Shema as well. The gemara questions this by quoting a baraita that states that repeating Shema is “meguneh” (unseemly), implying that we do not go as far as to silence one who repeats. The gemara explains the apparent contradiction by distinguishing between a case in which one repeats the statement as a whole and a case in which one repeats word by word. Rashi explains that if one utters a coherent statement twice in succession, it may be understood as addressing two deities; repeating each word appears “only” like a mockery, which is a less serious affront. The Rif[3] comes to the opposite conclusion: repeating words gives the impression of speaking to two deities, whereas repeating sentences is generally “only” derogatory. The Shulchan Aruch[4] does not decide between the opinions, stating only that it is forbidden to repeat Shema in either manner. Only if one feels that he had insufficient concentration is it proper to repeat a section.[5]
The problem of giving the impression that he is addressing two deities does not apply to most passages of Kri’at Shema and tefilla.[6] Nevertheless, many poskim write that the negative view of unnecessarily repeating words applies throughout tefilla, and the Maharam Shick[7] offers five objections. The most classically halachic one, which applies to parts of tefilla during which one may not talk, is the matter of hefsek.[8] Rav Moshe Feinstein,[9] while objecting to repeating words, writes that if one keeps the sequence of the words intact, repetition is not a hefsek. His proof is the fact that one who did not concentrate when saying certain words is allowed to repeat them even though he was already yotzei.[10] However, he reasons that if one repeats words out of sequence, at least when this distorts the meaning, it is a hefsek.
The Aruch HaShulchan[11] employs his well-known approach, seeking justification for common practices that apparently contradict halacha when people are reluctant to change their ways. He suggests that perhaps the problem of repeating words is restricted to the instances that the gemara mentions.
Some of the Maharam Shick’s objections are subjective. For example, he says that repeating words is a disrespectful way of presenting our prayers to HaShem. Chazanim may counter that the inspiration gained by using moving tunes to reach the tefilla’s ultimate goals justifies some repetition and even provides useful emphasis. Skeptics will counter that one can use or compose tunes that are just as moving without affecting the words’ integrity and that the Rabbis who formulated the prayers were in a better position to judge the tefilla’s goals than a composer of cantorial pieces. Some would also invoke the Shulchan Aruch’s[12] complaints about certain chazanim flaunting their voices. Of course, no two cases are precisely the same.
After summarizing that repeating words in a way that does not change meaning, while being far from ideal, is vaguely justifiable, we offer the following comments. In an ideal world, a congregation would instruct its chazanim, as a rule, to not repeat words. However, many congregations include dear Jews who may not be aware of or careful about every halachic intricacy. In such settings, it may not be realistic or worthwhile to take issue with those who do repeat. Likewise, if in a congregation where generally there is no word repetition, a guest or someone who does not take this rule seriously does repeat, it does not pay to offend him. A rabbi may want to introduce the halacha in an educational way that avoids hurting feelings. In general, we should criticize others very sparingly. This is especially true in our society, in which people are used to freedom and react negatively to criticism (sometimes with severe consequences). Only regarding people or settings (such as a yeshiva) where there is a willingness to learn improved ways of performing mitzvot would we suggest correcting (privately) one who is unaware of these objections. Certainly, when nothing positive can be achieved, it is a shame to upset yourself.