<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The Shulchan Aruch states in Orech Chaim siman 55 si'if 1:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>"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."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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..."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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".<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>And yet of the various things that the Shulchan Aruch says requires a minyan, Rav Shlomo Miller says:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>"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."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Now although R' Miller gives his reasoning - namely safek brach l'vatala - I am still rather puzzled. Because:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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 "</span> <span style='color:black'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chana<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>