[Avodah] Street Minyanim

[Akiva Miller]

.
R' Zev Sero wrote:

> I think the only way we can understand "sh'as had'chak" is that
> we *don't* consider these minyanim "halachically dubious".
> Rather, we hold that me'ikar hadin they are acceptable minyanim,
> even if not ideal. When we have alternatives we try to
> accommodate the stricter opinions as well.  But when we have no
> alternative we can't daven without a minyan just because there
> are opinions that don't like it; bish'as had'chak we fall back
> on what we believe is at the end of the day a valid opinion
> that can be relied on. "Kedai hu lismoch alav bish'as had'chak."

That's not my understanding. To me, even when we are accustomed to
accommodating the stricter opinions, we can follow the ikar hadin when the
stricter views are merely inconvenient or difficult. You don't need a "no
alternative" situation to justify following the ikar hadin. Why on earth
*would* you?

Let's focus on the phrase "Kedai hu lismoch alav bish'as had'chak." In
particular, the words "kedai hu". It seems clear to me that this refers to
an individual, i.e., a daas yachid, but one of sufficient stature that he
can be relied upon bish'as had'chak. Why on earth would we need to rely on
this individual if his views were that of the ikar hadin? Rather, when the
ikar hadin puts you in a "no alternative" situation, *that's* when one
might fall back on a minority opinion.

Getting back to the thread's topic of "street minyanim", I remember once
asking, many decades ago, about a particular shita which allowed a child to
be the tenth for a minyan, but only if it was a sh'as had'chak. I asked
what "sh'as had'chak" means in this context; wouldn't it apply to *every*
case of where only nine show up? And if so, then haven't we redefined the
minyan henceforth and forevermore? How would one distinguish between a
normal case of nine men and a boy being a non-minyan, versus a sha'as
had'chak case where nine men and a boy *is* allowed to be a minyan?

The answer I got (which the chevra may or may not agree with) is that not
all such cases are the same: If, for example, the weather was very bad and
only nine adults arrived, then, nu, nu, rov poskim say that there's no
minyan, so we'll daven b'yechidus and better luck next time. But if too
many people have been moving out of town, and the minyan is in danger of
collapse, this is a sha'as hadchak, and we can rely on minority opinions
lest the shul close up; when more people move to town we can return to
following the ikar hadin.

If one does agree with that distinction, I still don't know how to apply it
to today's situation. On the one hand, I see no reason to rely on minority
opinions here; if the street minyanim are valid, then good. But if they
don't meet the ikar hadin criteria, I don't see the sha'as had'chak. What's
so terrible about davening b'yechidus? But perhaps I'm being too
shortsighted about the long-term effects, and/or perhaps I don't even
appreciate the short-term effects. These are questions far bigger than me.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200517/1ec349a3/attachment.html>