Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 38

Wed, 20 May 2020

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 21:28:32 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Simchas Torah, post-covid19


.
R' Zev Sero asked:

> The indvidual obligation of Shmo"s is "lehashlim parshiyosav
> *im hatzibur*.  If the tzibur is not reading the parsha, does
> the individual obligation still apply?

R' Micha Berger responded:

> Define "tzibbur". The local minyan (or the local minyan he
> usually attends)? Or the community of all minyanim that follow
> the same minhag of sedros.
>
> Can we prove whether or not the nursing homes, hospitals, army
> bases, etc... all the minyanim that have no motive to halt
> during a pandemic, are enough to carry kelal Yisrael forward
> for shenamyim miqra ve'echad targum?

My wild guess is that "HAtzibur" refers to the minyan that one usually
attends, similar to Tefilas Tal, for which the nursing homes et al did not
suffice (at least not according to Rav Schachter).

RMB added:

> (Note, I learned about "shemo"s" as an acronym for shenayim
> miqra from a chassidishe rebbe in Jr High. Personally, I have
> only encountered that acronymn inside the chassidish veldt.)

And at the very end of Aruch Hashulchan O"C 285:1, quoting the Levush.

R' Michael Popper wrote:

> Fn2 at
https://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Shnayim_Mikra_V%27Echad_Targum
> tells me that l'chulei alma, individuals are obligated even when
> there's no communal reading.

No. Halachipedia's words are "that there's an obligation of Shenayim Mikra
even for someone who heard Torah reading in shul." That's pretty much the
same as the words of both Rambam Tefilah 13:25 and Mechaber 285:1 - "Even
though one hears the whole Torah each week b'tzibur, he must read it to
himself each week."

One could easily interpret it to mean "Even though he hears it b'tzibur,
and certainly if he doesn't hear it b'tzibur," but it's NOT explicit in the
text. One could just as easily say that "Yashlim adam parshiyosav im
hatzibur" would not apply if there's no tzibur reading it.

It is worthwhile to note that Halachipedia points to an interesting Hagahos
Maimoniyos on Rambam Tefila 13:25. He quotes the Raavan as holding that
Shemo"s applies ONLY to those who live in villages and don't go to the shul
to hear the parsha. The Raavan understood "IM hatzibur" to mean that those
yechidim should be reading the parsha at home at the *same time* as it is
being read in shul, but the Hagahos Maimoniyos disagreed.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200518/74ac3e0c/attachment-0001.html>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 09:36:58 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Naming a Girl when there are no minyanim


> The Bnei Yisaschar maintains that a daughter should be named at the 
> first opportunity, because a Jewish name infuses /kedusha/ into the 
> child. For a boy, one must wait to give the name at the /bris/, but a 
> girl should be named as soon as the father receives an /aliya/.

Even in the case of a boy it's not actually necessary to wait for the 
bris.  The usual practice when the bris is long delayed is indeed to 
wait, and in the meantime to just call him "the baby" or by such 
nicknames as "Tzadikel", but I know of one case where a rav advised that 
rather than wait several months the name should be given at a 
mi-sheberach, just as it would be for a girl.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 15:57:28 +0100
Subject:
[Avodah] Sh'as hadchak (was Street Minyanim)


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






Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Prof. L. Levine
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 14:52:46 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] Making Early Shabbos when there is no minyan


From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. During these long Spring/Summer days I usually daven in a shul that
makes an ?early Shabbos?. I would like to do so even though I am now
davening at home because of the Coronavirus quarantine. Are there any
differences that I should be aware of when davening myself?

A. There is a dispute in the Gemara (Brochos 27a) about the status of the
time period between plag ha?mincha (1? halachic hours before sunset) and
sunset. Rabbanan say it is treated as day, and one can daven mincha during
this window of time, while Rebbi Yehudah maintains it is night and it is
suitable for davening ma?ariv. The Gemara concludes that this issue remains
unresolved, and one may follow either opinion. The Shulchan Aruch codifies
this in OC 233:1 but adds one caveat. One cannot burn the candle at both
ends and daven both mincha and maariv in this time frame as that would be
tarti di?sasri (mutually contradictory) because it cannot be both day and
night simultaneously.

The Derech Hachaim (66:1) writes that erev Shabbos is different, and a
congregation may daven mincha after plag and ma?ariv immediately
afterwards. Even though there is a halachic contradiction in doing so, we
allow it so as not to inconvenience a tzibur. Although the Mishnah Berurah
(267:3) is uncomfortable with this leniency, the widespread custom is to
allow it to be done.

This is the case when davening with a minyan, but there is no allowance for
an individual to daven mincha and ma?ariv between plag and sunset, even
erev Shabbos. In response to our original question, as long as we are
quarantined because of the Coronavirus, we may start Shabbos early Friday
evening and daven ma?ariv after plag, but we can only do so if we daven
mincha before plag.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200519/3c4c95bf/attachment-0001.html>


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: menucha
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 20:06:29 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] ?????: Re: Naming a Girl when there are no minyanim


There is an article about naming boys whose brit will be delayed in Techumin.
https://books.zomet.org.il/index2.php?id=1&;lang=HEB
It may require registration,



>
> Even in the case of a boy it's not actually necessary to wait
> for the bris.? The usual practice when the bris is long
> delayed is indeed to wait, and in the meantime to just call him
> "the baby" or by such nicknames as "Tzadikel", but I know of one
> case where a rav advised that rather than wait several months
> the name should be given at a mi-sheberach, just as it would be
> for a girl.
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200519/a82f03fc/attachment-0001.html>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 12:07:14 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Sh'as hadchak (was Street Minyanim)


On 19/5/20 10:57 am, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
> 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.

I can't speak to what other people do, but my father told me that when 
the Yeshivah was in Burwood they often couldn't get a minyan and asked 
the LR about using a katan as the tenth, and the reply was that they 
were not to do so under any circumstances.  I have heard similar things 
from other sources, and have never heard otherwise until now, so I am 
surprised to hear that your experience has been different.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 20:11:29 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Street Minyanim/sh'as hadchak


On 17/5/20 8:15 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:

> 

>> 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.

 

And RZS replied:

 

>I think we are simply working from different definitions of the term "ikar
hadin".  

>By that term I mean that when you get right down to it the halacha allows
us 

>to follow this opinion, but since there are so many who disagree

> with it we shouldn't unless there is no alternative. 

>The stronger the opposition to it, the more we should avoid relying on it,

> and thus the narrower the circumstances in which we consider ourselves

> to have no alternative.  

>But if the bedrock halacha says "no, this shita is rejected and cannot be
relied on"

> then lack of alternative can't change that to a "yes".

 

But if you look at the halachos of sh'as hadchak, I think it is clear that
these are cases where the bedrock halacha says no, this shita is rejected
and cannot be relied upon, and yet, in a sha'as hadchak it can.

 

Here are the cases in the gemara of sh'as hadchak that I could find:

 

a)      The one that comes up most often and seems the most classic is
mentioned in Eruvin 46a and Nida 6a-b and 9b.  In that case there was a
preparedness to rely on the position of Rabbi Eliezer (as against the
Rabanan) in a sh'as hadchak as to how far back one should look to considered
foodstuffs taameh if touched by someone ta'ameh in certain specific
circumstances. Generally the Rabanan held that it was necessary to go back
twenty four hours (m'eis l'eis)(rabbinically) in these circumstances and
Rabbi Eliezer held that it was only from the time the tumah was detected
(daya shayta).  On Nida 9b it asks what the sh'as hadchak was and answers
that some say it was a time of famine, and others that the girl in question
had prepared a lot of taharos (ie big monetary loss if rendered tameh).
Rashi brings the time of famine as the sh'as hadchak on Nida 6a-b too, while
Tosfos says it can't be that (as that is given on daf 9b), and postulates
that it was either because Rebbi initially ruled in accordance with Rabbi
Eliezer, before he realised that this was not the halacha and in the
meantime a lot more taharos were contaminated, or alternatively that the
person to whom he had ruled had already gone, and getting him back to give
him the correct answer was majorly difficult;

 

b)      Relying on Rabbi Shimon regarding muktzah (moving of an extinguished
Chanukah candleholder) b'shas hadchak. Rashi says the sh'as hadchak is
sakana, but presumably it was not a pikuach nefesh sakana, as that wouldn't
need to be said.

 

c)       Chulin 107a - washing your hands in the morning and stipulating it
covers all washing the whole day.  The sh'as hadchak being the scarcity of
water.

 

d)      Gitten 18b-19a - relying on Rabbi Shimon's position regarding
certain signature rules for witnesses in a sh'as hadchak.  The sh'as hadchak
according to Rashi was that either the relevant person had already gone on
his way (so presumably, as per Tosfos, it was difficult to get hold of him
again) or the woman had already gone and gotten married in reliance on this
get;

 

e)      Brachos 9a - where a couple of rabbinical students got drunk and
fell asleep and missed krias shema until after amud hashachar,  with the
answer that they could rely on Rabbi Shimon to say it as it was a sh'as
hadchak.  This one sounds a lot like a bideved.

 

f)       Sukkah 31a-b (this is actually bringing a tosefta)- that it is
permitted to use a dried esrog (following Rabbi Yehuda) b'shas hadchak, but
not an a quince or pomegranate. And the gemora there asks - isn't it obvious
that you can't use a pomegranate or a quince (it is not as though Rabbi
Yehuda even suggested that you could!) and it answers, somewhat mysteriously
(IMHO) what is the hava mina, that the torah of Etrog might be forgotten.
So then why should one not use a quince or a pomegranate?  Answer because
people might not understand that this is a sh'as hadchak and hand over a
tradition to davka use a quince or pomegranate.  In any event, the gemora
brings a ma'aseh that those in the cities used to bequeath their (dry)
lulavim to their children, and doesn't this prove that Rabbi Yehuda was
right, and it was answered that you can't bring a proof from a sh'as
hadchak.

 

Sh'as hadchak comes up a lot in the wider sources, there are dozens of
references in the Shulchan Aruch alone, so it is hard to pull together some
general principles (at least for cases where there is not financial hefsed
meruba).  The Pitchei Teshuva Even HaEzer siman 169 seems to suggest that a)
it needs to be a matter of dispute in relation to something rabbinic, not
from the Torah; b) it needs to be a b'dived situation; and c) not one that
can be fixed.  The case he was discussing there was where a yavam
deliberately stated during a chalitza that he was  not a lefty, so the
chalitza was done on the wrong leg. He apparently did so, so he could force
some sort of court case.  And the question was, could they rely on the SmaG
and the SmaK, against the majority, to say that it doesn't matter which leg
is used for chalitza, to validate this chalitza.  And the judgment was no,
because it was a matter of Torah law, and it wasn't as though she had
already gotten married in reliance on it, so it was a matter of fixing it by
persuading the yavam to redo it properly.  And he specifically says that a
wait of three or four months is not considered to be a sh'as hadchak.

 

But if the Pitchei Teshuva is right about it needing to be rabbinic (and the
Sdei Chemed (marechet kaf, klal 109- 113, seems to agree, and thinks this
can be derived from the gemora in Eruvin), then how do we explain the lulav
and Etrog, which on first day is from the Torah?  And maybe this idea about
not losing the "torah" of a mitzvah is an answer to that question, and that
is considered a form of sh'as hadchak, as discussed below.

 

In any event, our case of minyan is rabbinic, so that hurdle is crossed
(unless you fall into the bracha sheino tzricha is a violation of a d'orisa
camp).  But looking more closely at the cases where the consequences are not
loss of money, or opportunity to marry, or the like, but where the
fundamental loss appears to be a loss of mitzvah,  it is interesting to note
that the Shulchan Aruch in Orech Chaim siman 33 might be perhaps bringing
this idea  (ie the hava mina in the gemora, about not forgetting the torah
of the mitzvah) - when it says "And b' sh'as hadchak there is to rely on
those who permit, in order that he should not nullify the mitzvah of
tefillin" - even though the Taz and others makes it clear there that while
he can put the Halachically problematic tefillin on, he cannot bless on
them.  Similarly when discussing the actual case of the gemora (ie the four
species), the Shulchan Aruch in Orech Chaim siman 648 si'if 6 holds that "In
a sh'as hadchak that they do not find one that is kosher, we take all those
that are posul, and we do not bless". 

 

The Rema in contrast, however, brings those who do allow even blessing,
saying "there are those who render kosher a dry lulav, and even bless on it
and so we are accustomed to bless on dry lulavim, even when there are others
that are moist, but the rest of the species we are not accustomed so, and
there are those who are lenient even with a dry hadas, and there is to rely
on this in a sh'as hadchak, . and all this is for the matter of blessing on
it, but without a blessing he is able to take all the invalid ones, and not
bless on them."

 

Now it doesn't say in the case of the lulavim and esrogim that it is because
the torah of it might be forgotten (it might be that if you don't allow the
sh'as hadchak, people will spend a fortune trying to get hold of kosher
species, ie hefsed meruba), but it seems to me to be reasonably clear at
least from the discussion of the Rosh (Sukkah perek 3) on this that he holds
that the reason to allow is as a zecher for the real mitzvah, not out of
concern for what people will do if they  can't treat this as the mitzvah, as
he compares this to taking a quince or a pomegranate, where there is a risk
that the wrong tradition will be handed down. 

 

And for some sort of completeness, here is the Mishna Brura on this si'if
(siman 648 si'if katan 58): - "and the achronim agree to the law that in a
sh'as hadchak we are able to rely on the poskim who hold that with all the 4
species when they are dry we are able to bless on them.  And there is in
this 4 distinctions: if there are not found in the city moist ones just dry
ones then all of the four species may be taken and blessed.  If there is to
him completely dry and there is to others completely moist we bless davka on
the moist ones and even b'dieved he does not fulfil with the dry ones.  And
in lands where there are not found completely moist lulavim and hadassim,
and also the dry ones are not completely dry, it seems to me that we bless
on the dry ones that he has even l'chatchia and like that which is written
above.  And in a place that there are found by others completely moist ones
l'chatchila, it is possible to say that he should not bless on his dry ones
even if they are not completely dry, and bi'dieved when he blessed he should
take again the moist ones that are of others without a blessing."

 

Of course one major difference between the four species and other cases is
that the four species only happen once a year, and in places where they
struggle to get moist species, they are likely to struggle year on year, so
that there is much more of a risk of the torah of esrog being forgotten than
in cases of daily mitzvos, which is why the tefillin example is so
interesting.

 

But it seems much easier to say in the case of counting the katan in some
out of the way place where for years on end they might not have a minyan,
that there is a risk that the torah of minyan might be forgotten, than in
the case of porch minyanim, which nobody expects to need to operate for more
than a few months.  

 

But if it is not because the torah of minyanim will be forgotten, then what
is the sh'as hadchak? Which is why I came up with the list in my previous
post (Vol 38 issue 4).

 

Regards

 

Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200519/8d5c5bf4/attachment.html>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >