Korach 5778

“Separate from amidst this assembly…”

(Bamidbar 15:21)

We learn from this that all components of prayer which sanctify the name of G-d should be recited amidst a quorum of men. (Gemara Megilla 23b)

Quorum Forum

(From Igrot Kodesh section 11, 3645)

It was Shabbat morning, and Naftali was hurrying down the street, eager to spend the next few hours in prayer, in the beit midrash of his rabbi, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. As he walked, he anticipated the unique atmosphere in which he was about to immerse himself. Suddenly, a voice from behind him interrupted his reverie. “Reb Yid, Reb Yid.” Naftali turned to see a simply dressed man, calling out to him. “Sir, we need your help with a minyan!” the man continued.

Naftali hesitated a moment, but made up his mind that he would help the struggling minyan.

He followed after the man. They entered the synagogue together, and Naftali was surprised to see about a dozen men waiting there. If they were all here, why did Naftali have to come to complete the minyan?!

“Please, sir,” one of the men began. “Please stay with us and be our chazzan. You see, we’re all in a hurry to go to work, and we need someone else to be the chazzan, because it’s not appropriate for any of us, who work on Shabbat, to lead the prayer.”

Naftali was startled by this unusual request. What should he do now? On the one hand, how could he pray on Shabbat morning with a minyan of Shabbat violators? On the other hand, these appeared to be simple, unlearned Jews, on their way to work, on Shabbat morning. These Jews were begging Naftali to pray with them, and, if he refused, perhaps they wouldn’t pray at all.

Naftali stood there, vacillating. However, the group was urging him to start, because they had to hurry to work. Naftali took a deep breath, opened the siddur he had been given, and, with decidedly mixed feelings, began to lead the prayer.

Did Naftali act correctly? Would it have been better if he had refused this strange request?

Answer:

The Lubavitcher Rebbe:

It was proper that Naftali prayed with the group. If Naftali had not prayed with them, it would have been a demonstration of misplaced zealousness. This is because it seems that, if Naftali had left, the minyan would have broken up, and most of the men wouldn’t have prayed at all. Therefore, it was appropriate to choose to overlook his personal stringency, and forgo praying with a Shabbat observant minyan, in order to ensure the mitzva observance of others.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe provided two reasons which support this conclusion:

1) It is true that Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah, 2, 5) states that one who publicly violates Shabbat, even if he is acting for personal benefit (i.e. not in order to rebel against G-d), is treated in some respects as a non-Jew, and if he were to ritually slaughter an animal, it would be considered non-kosher. However, the later commentaries qualify this, by explaining that not all types of Shabbat desecration would cause a person to have this designation. (Ed. note: It appears that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was referring to the commentary of the Pitchei Teshuva, which states that this law is only in cases of public violations of Torah law (and not rabbinic law). The Pitchei Teshuva adds that some say this law applies only in cases of violation of those Shabbat prohibitions which relate to agriculture.) Additionally, some say that this law only refers to those who violate Shabbat in front of ten Jews.

2) If Naftali had refused the group’s request, they might have viewed his actions as a statement of his rejection of the group. This would have been a kind of desecration of G-d’s name.

In summary: Naftali was correct in leading the minyan in prayer.

Additional Sources:

The Mishneh Berurah (siman 55 se’if katan 46) rules that one who publicly violates Shabbat has the status of a non-Jew and cannot be counted for a minyan. However, Rabbi Asher Weiss, shlita, states, in his collection of responsa, Minchat Asher (chelek 1, siman 10), that the status of those who publicly violate Shabbat nowadays is not as it was in the past. They are considered to be “captured children” (i.e. raised in the “captivity” of isolation from Torah knowledge), and, therefore, even if they violate Shabbat, they do not take on the status of non-Jews. Among other sources, Rabbi Weiss cites the Binyan Tzion, who states that, in the past, one who publicly violated Shabbat was, in essence, declaring himself a heretic. However, in our challenging times, the situation has changed. Today, there are many who drive on Shabbat, yet light candles at the onset of Shabbat, and make Kiddush in honor of the day. This clearly indicates that it is not their intention to deny the existence of G-d.

Rabbi Weiss adds that some people contend that, given the vast array of technology at our disposal, it is nearly impossible for a person to be unaware that Jews are commanded to keep Shabbat. They feel that this renders all non-observant Jews intentional Shabbat violators, and, by extension, heretics. However, the opposite is the case. While it may seem that modern technology promotes greater awareness of Torah observance, the reality is that the presentation is highly distorted. This causes a deeply rooted misunderstanding of, and even distain for, the Torah way of life. Therefore, most Jews, unfortunately, have the status of “captured children,” and are not held responsible for their lack of observance. This is the position of the Chazon Ish, as well, who feels that the designations of “heretic” and “captured child” are not dependent on mere knowledge of the mitzvot, but, rather, on education which provides a meaningful understanding of mitzva observance.

(However, see the Dirshu edition of Mishneh Berura, which cites opinions that it is, indeed, improper to include Shabbat violators in a minyan, even nowadays).