[Avodah] Sh'as hadchak (was Street Minyanim)

[Chana Luntz]

RAM wrote:

> 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?

And RZS replied:

>In that case I have an easy answer.  Bearing in mind that I come from a
tradition 
>that does not rely on that shita *even* bish'as had'chak,
> my understanding of those who do is that sh'as had'chak means not only
> that there is no tenth man but that there is no prospect of getting one,
> even by waiting, or searching for one on the street, or going to people's
homes
> to fetch them.  So long as one *can* get a tenth man, that is the
alternative;
> if one can't, then it's an emergency.

Well Rav Moshe in Igerot Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 2 siman 18 appears to have
a much more restrictive definition.
He was asked whether the situation that was detailed to him was a sufficient
sh'as hadchak to allow relying on a katan with a chumash in his hand, the
situation being that if the shul in question couldn't manage to make a
minyan regularly, it would close, but there was another shul that was
accessible in the place.  And Rav Moshe agrees that this is a sh'as hadchak
that allowed relying on a katan with a chamash because:
a) even if there was another shul in the vicinity, some of those who were
far from that second shul might not go;
b) even those who are close might not go to a place they weren't accustomed
to, thereby not participating in tefilla b'zibur, divrei kedusha and Torah
readings;
c) the regular shiurim that were held in the first shul would also close if
the shul itself closed and even if there were equivalent shiurim in the
second shul, not everybody learns as well in every setting (which is why
even a kohen is permitted to go to chutz l'aretz and become ta'ameh for
Torah learning, even if there is Torah learning in Eretz Yisrael).

Now all of this detailing would seem to be irrelevant were RZS's definition
of when is a sh'as hadchak in this circumstance, and it certainly did not
need to take up about a third of the teshuva.  Rather, it seems clear, that
it is only because if they kept missing tefilla b'tzibbur the shul would
close, that Rav Moshe permitted the katan with the chumash.

I am also surprised that RZS says he comes from a tradition that does not
rely in this shita even bishas hadchak, because I certainly know any number
of Lubavitchers who do indeed rely on this shita.  In fact, I would hazard a
guess that they are the group that most often rely on this shita worldwide,
given the sort of environments Lubavitchers often put themselves in, taking
positions in places in the world where minyanim that are full kosher
according to all opinions are often very hard to come by, and yet where they
often can provide the relevant katanim.  

Regards

Chana