Chicago Chesed Fund

https://www.chicagochesedfund.org/

Sunday, May 17, 2020

The Deerfield Beach Shul Letter: A Lomdus



Many have reacted negatively to the invective directed against the people who participated in a private minyan against the rabbi's express directive.  I am not interested in offering my opinion about kvod mara d'asra and the obligation to defer to a rov's strict instruction, especially in a community where there is only one shul and one rov.  This was not bechadrei chadarim:  This derogation of local religious leadership was, pshuto kemashma'o and in the most essential definition, befarhesya.  Nor should readers care what I think about this. It seems to me that the correct reaction is so obvious that anyone that differs is not amenable to rational discourse.

What I am interested in is offering a lomdus.

A minyan is not merely a quantitative matter, that when you have ten people you have השראת השכינה and a hetter to say דברים שבקדושה. What you do have is a qualitative change, that now you have a צירוף that brings about a chalos din of "tzibbur." (An example of the change is that although you can not be motzi קריאת שמע with שומע כעונה, but if you are in a minyan you can. This is because the tziruf makes it that it is not "I am being yotzei with his dibbur." It is "His dibbur is like my dibbur." This is an elementary truth. But if you need to see it in print, please see  רשימות שיעורים מסכת סוכה דף לח, א; עמ' קפז מהגרי"ד )

It seems to me that when the chalos tzibbur results in communal pirud, it's not shayach that it should have a din of tziruf to make a tzibbur. If the minyan gufa creates פירוד, it can not create a chalos of צירוף that would create a din of מנין.

But someone might argue, and point out that Reb Moshe in three places states that although for Tefilla betzibbur you need ten shomrei mitzvos, for saying devarim shebikdusha you count mumrim and mechallelei Shabbos. His raya is that we learn out the definition of eidah (for אלוקים נמצא בעדת אל) from the meraglim, who were called an eida (עד מתי לעדה הרעה).  You see that even though the meraglim were kofer b'ikker, they had a din eida. After all, he says, nobody would argue and say that there is no din of kiddush or chillul hashem b'rabbim if the rabbim consists of kofrim.

Lechoirah you see that even the meraglim comprised a minyan, despite their terrible intentions and the fact that they had a din of מומרים.

I say that this is not a kashe. 
First, they did not want to shaf a pirud, they were not separating themselves from the ציבור. On the contrary! They were hoping to convince all of Klal Yisrael to join them. It was a public statement that was intended to win over all the people. Here, on the other hand, they were fully aware that their minyan would create pirud; they wanted to make their own minyan knowing that they were and would remain alone in their action. This was not an attempt to convince and change. It was אני ואפסי עוד. 
Second, this case is more than "people who are causing pirud."  It is the chalos sheim minyan that is causing the pirud.  Even if reshoim and mumrim are mitztareif to make a minyan, a tziruf that is inherently divisive is not a tziruf.


To make it clear which teshuva of Reb Moshe I referred to, here are the two clearest of his teshuvos on the matter. You will see that his analysis in determining the validity of the minyan is focused on the limud in Shas Bavli, as is that of all our rishonim.



אגרות או"ח א כ"ג
 נשאלתי מתלמידי הרב ר' אברהם יוסף ראזענבערג שליט"א אם יש בשעת הדחק לצרף מחללי שבתות לעשרה, והשבתי דלמנהגנו שאף בשביל יחיד פורסין על שמע ואומרין קדושה כתלמידי רש"י בשם רש"י שהביאו תוס' במגילה דף כ"ג ואיפסק כן בש"ע או"ח סי' ס"ט יש לצרפם, דהא כיון שמקרא אחד ילפינן הדין בקדוש השם ליהרג בשאר עבירות שהוא בעשרה, והדין שאין אומרין דבר שבקדושה בפחות מעשרה, ולכן כשם שקדוש השם ליהרג הוא מחוייב אף לפני עשרה כופרים ומומרים אם אף הם מישראל כדמוכח כן מהא דסנהדרין דף ע"ד דפשיט בעית ר' ירמיה בתשעה ישראל ונכרי אחד שאינו מחוייב אלא בכולהו ישראל דאתיא תוך תוך ממרגלים שהיו כולהו ישראל כדפרש"י והתם הא היו כופרין בפרהסיא שגריעי ממחללי שבתות עיין בערכין דף ט"ו אלמא שלזה עדיפי מומרים מנכרים א"כ בהכרח שגם לענין לומר דברים שבקדושה מצטרפי.  

או"ח ב י"ט
בדבר מה שכתבתי בסימן כ"ג שלומר דבר שבקדושה יש לצדף אם יש בהעשרה גם מחללי שבתות בפרהסיא ומומרים מהא דסנהדרין דף ע"ד הוא ראיה גדולה דהא אם הילפותא ממרגלים הוא רק לענין המספר עשרה ולא לענין האיכות איך פשית התם בעית ר' ירמיה לענין קדוש השם שדוקא כולהו ישראל ולא בש' י ראל ואחד נכרי דמה התם כולהו ישראל הא לא ילפינן משם אלא המספר ומצד הסברא היה רוצה ר' ירמיה לומר דנכרי אחד יצטרף להחשב מספר עשדה אלא חזינן דהילמותא לענין קדוש השם הוא שיהיו גם לענין האיכות כמו התם שהיו כולם ישראלים וא"ב יש למילף ממילא שסגי באיכות כזה כהמרגלים שאף שהיו כופרים וגריעי ממהללי שבתות אם הם עשרה מהריב לקדש השם וליהרג אף על מצוה קלה א"כ גם על הדין דצריך עשרה לומר דבר שבקדושה שג"כ ילפינן מאותו הקרא עצמו נמי  הוא אף כאיכות דהמרגלים ויכולים לומר קדיש וקדושה ורק מעלת תפלה בצבור ליכא והוא רק למנהגנו שאף בשביל יחיד אומריי קדושה דלהמצריכין רוב מנין נסתפקתי שם בטוב טעם והוא ברור לע"ד בין לקולא דלומר דבר שבקדושה בין לחומרא שמחוייבין ליהרג ולא לעבור אף בשאר עבירות בפני עשרה אף שהם מחללי שבתות בפרהסיא


Two talmidei chachamim wrote to disagree with what I've said (and the way I said it.) This encouraged me to explain it in a different way, as follows. 


Tosfos in Sukkah 30a teaches that the psul of מצוה הבאה בעבירה only applies (1) to mitzvos of Ritzui, and (2) where the commission of the aveira underlies and enables the fulfillment of the mitzva.

וא"ת לקמן (ד' לא:) דפסלינן לולב של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת משום דמיכתת שיעוריה תיפוק ליה משום מצוה הבאה בעבירה ותו אמאי שרינן דלאו אשרה דמשה וי"ל דלא דמי לגזל דמחמת עבירת הגזל באה המצוה שיוצא בו אבל הני אטו מחמת עבירה שנעשית בו מי נפיק ביה

Or better, the Yerushalmi Shabbos 3:3
אמר לון תמן גופה עבירה, ברם הכא הוא עבר עבירה, כך אנו אומרים הוציא מצה מרה"י לרה"ר, אינו יוצא בה יד"ח בפסח?

I am not applying the rule of מצוה הבאה בעבירה per se. I am saying that that lomdus of מצוה הבאה בעבירה teaches that where the commission of the aveira directly EMPOWERS the mitzva, it becomes part of the CHARACTER  and the CONSTITUTION of the mitzva, and renders the mitzva self contradictory, and tainted, and meaningless. The fact that Korach gathered his people, the fact that the Meraglim gathered people, that is like using a lulav shel asheirah. It's not particularly nice, but it doesn't passel the mitzva, because it is not part of the fabric of the mitzva.  In this case, the effectuation of the halachic status of "minyan" itself causes division; that means that part of the fabric of the tziruf of the tzibur is the metziyus of pirud. Pirud can not be tziruf.  There is no minyan. Their chazaras hashatz is a bracha levatala and their kaddish and kedusha is, at best, a sippur devarim b'alma.

15 comments:

  1. The sources for minyan are the 10 brothers selling Yoseif (Yerushalmi Berakhos 7:3 [55a]and Megillah 4:4) and the 10 meraglim who brought a bad report (Berakhos 45b, Megilla 23b).

    Seems that being sinners is far from minyan-breaking. And what was worse pirud than selling Yoseif?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand. The point I tried to make was that in those cases, it could be argued that the minyan comprised people who were trying to create a pirud. I don't believe that is the case, as I said in the post. But arguendo, I still distinguish between those cases and this. Here, it is the din tziruf gufa that is creating the pirud. No minyan, no pirud.

      Delete
    2. There are times I am in a conversation and I realize how many assumptions people who learn Brisker derekh take for granted. Like this whole idea that halakhah revolves around the applicability of labels divorced from what those labels mean, where they come from, and real life.

      Here, you are distinguishing between tziruf in fact and "din tziruf". Between brothers who joined together to sell Yoseif and otherwise couldn't sell him, and tziruf for the sake of minyan which learned from that sale.

      I have to drop out not because you're right or wrong, but because of a lack of shared givens. Telzher derekh has a much harder time working with "din tziruf" detached from a more natural definition of tziruf.

      Delete
    3. Ah, Reb Micha, I enjoy it more when you disagree than when we are on the same page.

      Tosfos in Sukkah 30a teaches that the psul of Mitzva habaah be'aveira only applies to mitzvos of Ritzui, and where the commission of the aveira underlies and enables the fulfillment of the mitzva.

      וא"ת לקמן (ד' לא:) דפסלינן לולב של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת משום דמיכתת שיעוריה תיפוק ליה משום מצוה הבאה בעבירה ותו אמאי שרינן דלאו אשרה דמשה וי"ל דלא דמי לגזל דמחמת עבירת הגזל באה המצוה שיוצא בו אבל הני אטו מחמת עבירה שנעשית בו מי נפיק ביה

      Or better, the Yerushalmi Shabbos 3:3

      אמר לון תמן גופה עבירה, ברם הכא הוא עבר עבירה, כך אנו אומרים הוציא מצה מרה"י לרה"ר, אינו יוצא בה יד"ח בפסח?

      Applied here: if the gathering were a picnic, it would be a shame, but not a direct contravention of the rabbi's authority. When they get together to daven, it is the fact that they did so in order to make a minyan that directly contravenes the rabbi's direction, and thereby generates pirud.

      I am not applying the rule of מצוה הבאה בעבירה per se. I am saying that that rule teaches that when the commission of the aveira directly EMPOWERS the mitzva, it becomes part of the CHARACTER and the CONSTITUTION of the mitzva, and renders the mitzva self contradictory, and tainted, and meaningless. If it is the halachic creation of a tzibur that causes division, that incongruity means that the tzibur is inherently a manifestation of pirud. Pirud can not be tziruf.

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't go to the Y-mi if you want to talk about mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveiro. The language the Y-mi uses is "qateigoro naaseh saneigoro". The nearest parallel in the a pesul in the cheftzah. Which may or may not be the concept we have today.

      When the aveirah is in something that is inherently part of the mitzvah, don't we call that asei dokheh lav? Not that an asei is dokheh safeiq piquach nefesh, nidon didan. But it's not mitzvah habaah ba'aveirah even by our shas's rules.

      In any case, I thought your point was not piruq as aveirah but pirud as the opposite of minyan. Because in terms of pirud as aveirah, defying the rav may be the lesser of their sins. And the picnic is far more than just "a shame". Who cares about the rabbi's authority when the issue is whether they're needlessly adding risk to bubby's life?

      I would instead go in an entirely different direction than issur veheter or pirud. Nidui -- it's all about social ostracism as a means of enforcing rabbinic authority.

      I would go

      Delete
  2. The right to form a breakaway minyan, is well enshrined in Shut Haradbaz, and has been invoked many times in subsequent years, when people decided that they weren't comfortable with another minyan.

    So while there was "pirud" involved, it doesn't disqualify their minyan. They have a right to be "nifrad" from others, and make a "tziruf" of themselves.

    That being said, the shul can react by saying, fine, you exercised your right to be "nifrad", but we also have a right not to allow you to be part of our community.

    However such a war of words, might ultimately lead to a loss of membership of the shul, which affect the shul budget.

    Maybe this will be a watershed moment, where the community will realize that it's time to start another shul, which will cater to people who are uncomfortable with the other shul's leadership.

    I'm not familiar with the community, and am not advocating such a move, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

    The members of the so-called "rogue Minyan" evidently included maggidei shiur, baalei kriah, and shluchei tzibbur, so they potentially have the talent to have a functioning shul, with perhaps one of the maggidei shiur serving as the Rov.Can the parent shul handle such a potential brain drain?
    Time will tell.
    בברכת התורה,
    IsraelReader

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This minyan was not the beginning of a new kehilla. It was created in direct disregard to the instructions of the only Rov in the community who made a takana for the tzibbur. Takanos tzibur have a long history, including charamim on people who bring in meat from out of town butchers. Perhaps all of those community takanos can be nullified by bringing in another rov and creating a new kehilla. But until that new kehilla is created, the takana stands. Especially, especially, where it was enacted not to protect the Rov's monopoly on candles, or the butcher union, but for the protection of the health of the kehilla. For individuals to say "I'm smarter than the Rov, so who cares what he says," means that no kehilla can make any takanos ever.

      Delete
    2. In retrospect, making this minyan may have been the beginning of a new kehilla...

      Perhaps you should do a post, fleshing out the basis of the authority of today’s rabbis to impose gezeiros on the tzibbur.

      Can they do so unilaterally?

      When they are considered to be binding according to halacha, and under what circumstances?

      Delete
    3. Looking forward to seeing such a post.

      Delete
  3. Seems to me that you are putting the cart before the horse and confusing cause and effect. The minyan is not creating the pirud -- the pirud exists because part of the community does not want to obey the Rabbi's edicts, and therefore they elected to form their own minyan. In such a case, not only is separating permitted, it is to be encouraged, as explicit in Shu"T Radbad 3:472 (see long Pischei Teshuvah in CM 163:6 as well, most of which does not apply here since nothing is being taken from the original shul)
    https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1952&st=&pgnum=343

    ReplyDelete
  4. Furthermore (and this is l'ravcha d'milsa, just icing on the cake), the Radbaz was speaking of separating from a functioning, existing minyan. In this case, one can I believe argue that a tzibur that does not meet is not a tzibur. A letterhead and a building do not a community make. It would be like forcing someone to show up to a shul that never can pull together 10 people for davening instead of allowing them to go to or form a functioning minyan. That is simply midas Sdom.

    ReplyDelete
  5. https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/12/merging-and-making-new-shuls/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

    quotes Igros Moshe 2:46 about making new shuls

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. I really did not express well the reason for my anger at the breakaway minyan. It was not an issue of making a new shul, or creating a new sector of the community. Here, the Rov had made a takana for the whole community regarding a matter that affects the whole community. This is similar to the shchutei chutz and tax issues that were universal in Europe. You want to make a new shul? Go ahead. But if there is one Rov, and that one Rov makes a takana for the protection of the community, I don't care that you went out and got yourself another Rov, or decided the first Rov was a clown. As Rov, he has the communal authority to pasken a takana for the tzibur. I am going to have to write this over.

      Delete
    2. We're still waiting for a post regarding the authority of today’s rabbis to impose gezeiros on the tzibbur.

      Delete