[Avodah] Street Minyanim

Chana Luntz Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk
Sun May 10 14:11:49 PDT 2020


On the topic of street minyanim, and with the general back and forth on how
to rule (I have written something on mail-jewish on this), what I am finding
a bit of a puzzle is the view of a few, such as Rav Shlomo Miller, who
allowed a half-way house (although that I understand), but not necessarily
in the way I might have expected.  

 

The Shulchan Aruch states in Orech Chaim siman 55 si'if 1:

 

"They say kaddish.  And it is not permissible for it with less than ten
free, adult men that have brought two hairs, and this is the law for kedusha
and barachu that we do not say it with less than ten."

 

Then in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 143 si'if 1 it states:  "We do not
read in the Torah with less than ten adult, non-slaves..."

 

And in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 69 si'if 1 it says,  after
mentioning, inter alia, chazarat hashatz "and this is called 'passing before
the ark', and we do not do these things with less than ten because they are
devarim shebekedusha".

 

And yet of the various things that the Shulchan Aruch says requires a
minyan, Rav Shlomo Miller says:

 

"Since in halacha a minyan of people on adjoining porches is unclear, one
should not daven Chazarat HaShatz or kriyas Hatorah since it is a safek
bracha l'vatala. Therefore this minyan should only be formed at mincha, with
a short Shmonei Esrei in order to say kaddish and Kedusha.  One should also
be careful that everyone should either be able to see the Chazan, or the
Chazan should be able to see everyone."

 

Now although R' Miller gives his reasoning - namely safek brach l'vatala - I
am still rather puzzled.  Because:

 

a) While Chazarat HaShatz is, as can be seen from the above, not permitted
without a minyan, we hold like the position of Rabbi Yochanan in the gemara
that prayer as nedava, a voluntary prayer, is permitted, and so rules the
Shulchan Arukh  in siman 107,- although he also rules that in a situation
where he knows for sure that the prayer is a nedava, he should include
something new in the blessings (unlike where he is unsure whether he prayed
or not, as then he does not need to include something new).  So why should
the Chazan not make a condition: If this is a minyan, then what I am
davening is chazarat hashatz, and if it isn't, then I am davening a nedava?
It would seem that because of the uncertainty, then he would not need to add
something new, and even if he did, maybe the kedusha could be considered
something new (although the Mishna Brura, at least, holds that the new
aspect should not be included in the first three blessings, which this would
be).  Obviously this is only applicable for weekdays, not Shabbat or Yom
Tov, as nedavot are not permitted on Shabbat, and would not apply to Musaf
on Rosh Chodesh either, but at least for regular weekdays why is this not
permitted by R' Miller?

 

b) regarding reading the Torah - firstly, if the issue is the blessing, why
could the Torah not be read without the blessing, with all those taking part
bearing in mind that their blessings over the Torah in the morning are to
cover the reading as well?  And even more, the Shulchan Aruch has a lengthy
siman regarding saying the blessings over the Torah (Shulchan Aruch Orech
Chaim Siman 47) and in si'if 10 he discusses the question of when someone
might need to say the blessings over the Torah again saying " If he breaks
from his learning and busies himself with his business, since his intention
is to return and to learn, it is not considered a break, and this is the law
for sleeping and washing and the bathroom, that it is not considered a
break." And the Magen Avraham and the Taz have a dispute as to what to hold
here.  The Magen Avraham holds that we derive from this that where one does
not have the intention to return, and he then does come back and decide to
do some learning he needs to bless again, while the Taz while apparently
understanding how this can be learnt out from the SA, holds that because a
man is continually obligated to learn, the obligation presses down on him,
and even if he didn't specifically plan to come back and learn, given his
obligation, if he finds he has time unexpectedly, he will naturally return
to learning, and no new blessing is required.  This, while not quoted, is
presumably inter alia based on a Tosphos (Brachos  11b d"h shekvar) which
explains the difference between sukkah, where every meal needs a new
blessing, and Torah, where the one blessing in the morning suffices, as
being based on this idea that a man does not abandon his intention to learn,
because of being constantly obligated.  However, this is an argument about
the normal case.   Surely the Magen Avraham and the Taz would agree, along
with their rishonic antecedents, that were the person in the morning to
specifically bear in mind and intend that the blessings on the Torah that he
made would not cover the situation where he got an Aliyah to the Torah, or
read from the Torah scroll from a porch,  why would he not be obligated to
bless again on the porch reading, without it being a bracha l'vatala?  And
why is it any different from a man in shul, eg the chazzan, intending that
the havdala he makes should not patur him, so he can go home and make
havdala for his household?   So why not merely tell the participants - bear
in mind when making your birchas haTorah in the morning, that this blessing
will not cover any Torah reading at the porch minyan if you are given an
aliyah, and, when making the blessing at the reading, that if this minyan is
not a minyan, this is a regular blessing over the Torah, and if it is a
minyan, it is also a blessing over the mitzvah of reading the Torah in a
minyan as per the Shulchan Aruch?

 

So I can quite easily see ways of having both a form of chazarat hashatz and
Torah reading with blessings, even if one is doubtful about the halachic
validity of the minyan.  And yet I am struggling to understand   the ruling
that one can have kaddish and kedusha,( note that barachu is not mentioned
at all one way of the other).  I have heard that at least some understand
siman 55:1 as not covering kaddish d'rabbanan, and presumably kaddish yatom
as well, given that the latter is only a minhag.  But what about the other
kaddashim, not to mention kedusha?  Is the kedusha because it is really just
quoting psukim?   So I am left very puzzled by R' Miller's half way house,
as it includes what I might have omitted, and omits what I would have
included.

 

Regards

 

Chana

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200510/70676e62/attachment.html>


More information about the Avodah mailing list