Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 96

Thu, 23 Aug 2018

• 1. Q. How do we know that a minyan must consist of ten adult men? (Professor L. Levine)
• 2. Re: Was the Rambam really a rationalist? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Was the Rambam really a rationalist? (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: Ki Seitzeh NOT Strictly for the Birds (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Was the Rambam really a rationalist? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Rabbi Friedman - The Soul and the Afterlife: Where Do We Go From Here? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Choices? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Q. How do we know that a minyan must consist of ten adult men? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Choices? (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Micha Berger)
• 13. May a non-observant Jew be counted towards a minyan? (Professor L. Levine)

The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis:


Q. How do we know that a minyan must consist of ten adult men?



A. The Gemara (Brachos 21b) writes that a davar shebikedusha (certain
prayers that sanctify G-d?s name) may only be recited in the presence of
ten men. The source for this is the verse, ?V?nikdashti b?soch Bnei
Yisrael? (Vayikra 22:32 ? ?and I will be sanctified in the midst of the
children of Israel?). How many people must be present to be considered ?in
the midst?? The Gemara points out that the term ?in the midst? is also used
to refer to the ten spies who explored the Land of Israel. Through
principles of scriptural exegesis, we say that just as ?in the midst? used
in reference to the spies refers to ten adult men, so too, ?in the midst?
which is a requirement for the recitation of a ?davar shebikedusha? refers
to ten adult men.

Prayers such as Kaddish, Barchu, Chazaras Hashatz and Kriyas Hatorah may
only be recited in the presence of a minyan (Shulchan Aruch OC 55:1). If
one began to recite a davar shebikedusha in the presence of a minyan, even
if up to four of the members walked out, one may still complete that
prayer. For example, if some of the minyan left in the middle of Chazaras
Hashatz, the shliach tzibur should complete Chazaras Hashatz, however
beyond that point there is a disagreement between the Mishnah Berurah
(55:18,19) and the Aruch Hashulchan (55:7).  The Mishnah Berurah says one
can still say both the Kaddish after Tachanun and the Kaddish after Uva
L'tziyon Goel.	While the Aruch Hashulchan opines that only one Kaddish
should be recited after Tachanun and that Kaddish should now be a Kaddish
Shetiskabel. All are in agreement that one should not begin a new davar
shebikedusha such as Kriyas Hatorah.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180822/8f13f604/attachment-0001.html>

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 09:34:20PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
: Could you translate "rationalist" and "mystic" into Hebrew?

I assume this is your way of pointing out that historically we couldn't
have classified outselves this way; we didn't even think in those terms,
at least not often enough to bother coining words for it.

I am not sure that matters. The Rambam could be a Rationalist (or not)
whether or not he was aware of the fact. It may mean we are overly
focused on a distinction that didn't matter to baalei mesorah. Ot it
may mean that we found a useful way to model ideas that were inherently
there all along, but never before consciously thought about and discusses.

Much the way no one ever applied gavra vs cheftza (eg) all across halakhah
until R' Chaim. But does that mean R' Chaim was wrong, or that he found
a way of illuminating ideas inherent but not consciously analyzed in
what the rishonim were already arguing?


Just today, Philologos argues that there is no classical Hebrew term
for spirituality. Philologos believes this is because Tanakh and Chazal
wouldn't have valued an inner spiritual life divorced from external
expression.

Notzrut had words even back in Greek and Latin, but we didn't coin
"ruchnius u"ntil the Middle Ages. And, he believes, because "ruchnius"
is about "ruach" rather than "neshamah" it means something closer to
"intellectual" rather than "spiritual".
https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2018/08/why-theres-no-word-in-the-hebrew-bible-for-spirituality

Reminds me of the discussion of whether we translate "Chovos haLvavos"
as "duties of the heart", or "of the mind".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Me:
> : Could you translate "rationalist" and "mystic" into Hebrew?

RMB:
> 
> I assume this is your way of pointing out that historically we couldn't
> have classified outselves this way; we didn't even think in those terms,
> at least not often enough to bother coining words for it.
> 
> I am not sure that matters. The Rambam could be a Rationalist (or not)
> whether or not he was aware of the fact. It may mean we are overly
> focused on a distinction that didn't matter to baalei mesorah. Ot it
> may mean that we found a useful way to model ideas that were inherently
> there all along, but never before consciously thought about and discusses.

Oxford Minidictionary (ROM???):

Mystic: A person who seeks spiritual truths or experiences

Rationalism: Practice of treating reason as the basis of knowledge and belief


On the face of it those categories are not mutually exclusive - - the Rambam and his son, R Avraham, easily
fit into both.  There is a history in Christian thought of treating them as exclusive, anachronistically say Aquinas vs. Tertullian.
And there is a strain in Kabbalah of denying the ability of human reason to penetrate certain matters
(compare MN II:11).

Not only were these categories generated by examples from outside of Judaism, but you need to distort
either them or Judaism to try to apply them to Jewish thinkers.  I was pushing you to delineate more appropriate
categories.

David Riceman

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 01:39:16AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote:
: The concept is that even in the animal world, there exists motherly
: feelings (which Rabbi Hirsch refers to as "the noblest profession in the
: world"), and the Torah wants us to be sensitive to these feelings...

According to the Ramban.

Back in the days when the siddur was more of a framework than a fixed text,
the mishnah rules that a sha"tz who says, "al kan tzipor yagi'u rachamekha"
should be replaced. (Among other such banned ideas.)

The gemara (Megillah 25a) asks why, and gives two answers:

a- It arouses jealousy of other animals.
b- Mitzvos are nothing but decrees.

(b) sounds like what philosophers call Divine Command Theory -- saying
that Morality is by definition that which G-d wants. So, I blogged about
it <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/divine-command-theory>

The Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch. 6) explains:

a- According to the first opinion in the gemara, it is because it arouses
jealousy of other animals. The implication is that G-d doesnt run all
of the world equally, and thus some species have a reason to be jealous
of others. It opens room for polytheism or incomplete theism. (Another
example in the gemara is a sha"tz who says "Modim Modim", and thus sounds
like Zoroastian dualism -- also a case of incomplete monotheism.)

b- The second opinion states that mitzvos are nothing but decrees. We
can not assign attributes to G-d. Hashem chose these mitzvos because of
pure Will, not because of this middah or that.

Real DCT. It seems that to the Maharal, din (law) is more than a middah
in contrast to chessed (compassion), since it means our following His
Will. It doesnt imply a trait of Divine Providence, but rather is closer
to G-dhood Itself as pure Will.

The Rambam (Guide III) uses this gemara and Bereishis Rabba (44:1) which
says that it can't matter to G-d whethere we do shechitah or meliqah,
and Rav holds that mitzvos are purely "letzareif ba es haberios". The
Rambam concludes that we needed a rite to elevate how we kill animals,
thats more significant than what the rite is. If Hashem said that we
should shecht from the back of the neck we could ask why not the front? Or
had he told us to take a pepper on Sukkos, we could ask why not an esrog?

The Ramban argues that its a dercree on us because shiluach haqen is
about developing our compassion, not an expression of Hashems. This is
reading the Bereishis Rabba, which explicitly says the difference in
how one slaughters for the sake of our middos, back into the gemara in
Megillah.

(Much more there on my blog.)

RSRH is not the only modern to take the Ramban's position for granted.
We just have to be honest that it's not the only possibility.

:               The only other positive mitzvah which the Torah specifies
: the same reward, is honoring one's parents -- which is considered one of
: the most difficult mitzvoth to observe...

Actually this is a third -- Devarim 25:15:
    Even sheleimah vetzedeq yihyeh lekha
    Eifah sheleimah vetzedeq yihyeh lekha
    lemaan ya'arikhu yamekha al haadamah
    asher H' Elokekha nosein lakh.

I think it's just that Rabbi Yaaqov (Qiddushin 39b) mentions these two.
Perhaps because it were the two mitzvos in the story that turned his
grandfather, Achieir, off of Judaism. (A son was sent as a shaliach
mitzvah by his father to send away the mother bird, fell off the ladder
and died. In the middle of three things that promise protection.)

:                                         From the fact that the easiest
: and one of the hardest mitzvoth both receive the same reward, we realize
: that the reward for mitzvoth or the punishment for aveirot is beyond
: our ability to rate or even understand.

This is from the Yerushalmi. R' Abba bar Kahanah on Pei'ah 1:1 (bottom of
3b).

This contrast two would single out these mitzvos as a pair.

But not because they are the only ones promising the samer reward.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:25:00AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
: Oxford Minidictionary (ROM???):
: Mystic: A person who seeks spiritual truths or experiences
: Rationalism: Practice of treating reason as the basis of knowledge and belief

Notice in these definitions they are values, not categories of
philosophical schools of thought. A mystic is someone who finds meaning
in the experiential. Often emphasizing how deeply the universe and
G-d are beyond what we can articulate. A rationalist finds meaning in
understanding.

: On the face of it those categories are not mutually exclusive - - the
: Rambam and his son, R Avraham, easily fit into both...

As per the above note, R' Avraham yes. The Rambam less so, as he considers
the religious experience a means of clarifying knowledge. (In particular,
see the last paragraphs of the Moreh.)

..
: Not only were these categories generated by examples from outside of
: Judaism, but you need to distort either them or Judaism to try to apply
: them to Jewish thinkers. I was pushing you to delineate more appropriate
: categories.

Not me personally. My pony in this race is that (1) the labels
[as noramlly understood not Oxford] are too broad to be applied
meaningfully. (I cited the example of the Ramchal.) And (2) their meaning
evolved over time. Once the scientific method is invented, much of what
the Rambam would have called rational and Natural Philosophy is not
thought of as aethesticism -- what theory has the appeal of elegance --
and appeal to authority (generally an Ancient Greek).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             How wonderful it is that
mi...@aishdas.org        nobody need wait a single moment
http://www.aishdas.org   before starting to improve the world.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Anne Frank Hy"d

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 01:32:55PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: A talk on this topic given by Rabbi [Manis Friedman] is at
: https://youtu.be/YzFUXKk2B4I
...
: Beginning at about 9 minutes and 30 seconds into the talk, Rabbi [Friedman]
: talks about how the soul needs us to say Yizkor and will not allow people
: "pull strings" to get people l to say Yizkor.

What he says is that if the soul is to get anything out of Qaddish,
Yizkor, or tzedaqah, it must be done by those the person was in
relationship with.

If you listen with an ear to figure out what is obvious intent is, how
he makes sense (rather than someone trying to find flaws), he means "need"
in the same way people talk about "needing" coffee. Does this mean the
person will literally die if they don't get their coffee?

Similarly, the dead manipulate even quite assimilated descendents into
getting to shul for Yizkor because they need Yizkor.

Where in his tone or context do you get a justification for insisting he
couldn't have meant it idiomatically?

(If RMFriedman weren't chassidish, I wonder if you wouldn't have cut
him more slack. This post reads like yet another in your tiresome string
of misnagdishe threads.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Imagine waking up tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        with only the things
http://www.aishdas.org   we thanked Hashem for today!
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:21:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: The Rambam [codified in S"A E"H 22:7] states that, if a man's business is
: such that he can't avoid even "only" rabbinic yichud issues, he should
: yifneh l'mlacha acheret (find another line of work)...

: Does HKB"H view it as equivalent to any other choice one could've made or
: is one dinged for the original choice when it was made? [is moving into
: an apartment building knowing one will need to use a manned elevator on
: Shabbat another example? How about certain medical specialties ]

Questions like these are unanswerable, since we can't know how Hashem
judges.

And if He truly judges "baasher hu sham" and "chai gever al chata'av",
then it's the results of the chain of history on the soul, and one can't
isolate the judgment on this decision or that action.

Along these lines, think of how sekhar va'onesh works if one accepts
REED's notion of nequdas habechirah. Someone is tempted and lifts
something from a store counter. It r"l never crossed that person's mind
not to. There never was a conscious decision about it, so bechirah chofshi
wasn't involved. How much onesh does he get for shoplifting? How much
onesh does he get for whatever moved his nequdas habechirah to the point
where he is in that sorry state? And, what if he didn't do the moving,
it was a product of nature or nurture? Then he would be a tinoq shenishba,
which is an application of oneis in the gemara, and oneis Rachmana patrei?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 01:59:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis:
:> Q. How do we know that a minyan must consist of ten adult men?
:> A. The Gemara (Brachos 21b) writes that a davar shebikedusha (certain
:> prayers that sanctify G-d's name) may only be recited in the presence
:> of ten men. The source for this is the verse, "V'nikdashti b'soch Bnei
:> Yisrael" (Vayikra 22:32 -- "and I will be sanctified in the midst
:> of the children of Israel"). How many people must be present to be
:> considered "in the midst"? The Gemara points out that the term "in the
:> midst" is also used to refer to the ten spies who explored the Land of
:> Israel...

The Yerushalmi (Berakhos 7:3, Megillah 4:4) brings this as the position
of R' Ba and Yasa besheim R' Yochanan. 

R' Simon says it's tokh - tokh from Bereishis 42:5, the brother going down
to Mitzrayim "lishbor besokh haba'im".

R' Yosi bei Rabbi Bun objects, and brings "Benei Yisrael" from the same
pasuq.

In any case, it's interesting that whether we are speaking of the meraglim
or the brothers who sold Yoseif, it's an eidah who gathered for something
quite different than tefillah.

:> Prayers such as Kaddish, Barchu, Chazaras Hashatz and Kriyas Hatorah may
:> only be recited in the presence of a minyan (Shulchan Aruch OC 55:1). If
:> one began to recite a davar shebikedusha in the presence of a minyan...

Nor Chazaras haShatz. The need for a minyan for ChS isn't davar shebiqdushah,
but simply that it is there to add a tzibbur aspect, which is impossible
without a tzibbur.

:> even if up to four of the members walked out, one may still complete
:> that prayer...

Including the closing qaddish. Similarly if there were a minyan for
Pesuqei deZimar, but not by the end of Borkhu.

The machloqes between the MB and AhS is how we defing "closing qaddish"
when it comes to Shemoneh Esrei.

:> however beyond that point there is a disagreement between the Mishnah
:> Berurah (55:18,19) and the Aruch Hashulchan (55:7). The Mishnah Berurah
:> says one can still say both the Kaddish after Tachanun and the Kaddish
:> after Uva L'tziyon Goel. While the Aruch Hashulchan opines that only one
:> Kaddish should be recited after Tachanun and that Kaddish should now be
:> a Kaddish Shetiskabel...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 06:10:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: If one views him as not a baal bechira but a mere merkava to Hashem
: then it makes no sense to ask him for anything.  Speak to the
: driver, not to the car.  But if one views him as completely batel to
: Hashem, not like a car but like a telephone, or like a robot that
: serves as its Maker's eyes and ears, then it becomes OK to treat him
: like the One with Whom he so completely identifies, to bow down to
: him, pray to him, and ask for his supernatural help, because one is
: not really speaking to him at all but to Him. Thus Hashem called
: Yaacov Avinu with His own name, and thus the Zohar says "Who is 'the
: face of the L-rd G-d'? This is Rashbi".

I would distinguish between:

1- Who gets reflected kavod. We could in theory be asked to show kavod for
the Torah the person contains, whether as ideas of talmud Torah or as
middos and life lived.

2- Who we ask for tefillos or berakhos from.

3- Who we ask to invervene supernaturally, causing things directly.

The quote from the Zohar doesn't necessarily imply the third or this
whole robot thing. For that matter, since even Moshe sinned (and the
four who didn't sin didn't reach Moshe Rabbeinu's godliness in other
ways), what rabbinical robots have there ever been? I would think,
as you implied elsewhere, that the Tanya's "tzadiq" was meant as an
archetype to strive for. But if this is your standard, an archetype
noone has ever and can ever fully embody.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The meaning of life is to find your gift.
mi...@aishdas.org        The purpose of life
http://www.aishdas.org   is to give it away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Pablo Picasso

: Does HKB"H view it as equivalent to any other choice one could've made or
: is one dinged for the original choice when it was made? [is moving into
: an apartment building knowing one will need to use a manned elevator on
: Shabbat another example? How about certain medical specialties ]

Questions like these are unanswerable, since we can't know how Hashem
judges.
===================================
True-yet we assumedly need to make our best guess when deciding on a course of action.
=====================================
How much
onesh does he get for whatever moved his nequdas habechirah to the point
where he is in that sorry state? And, what if he didn't do the moving,
it was a product of nature or nurture? Then he would be a tinoq shenishba,
which is an application of oneis in the gemara, and oneis Rachmana patrei?
===============================
Oneis rachmana is an interesting concept - does it mean going to a neutral
status or crediting as if one did a positive action?  And how sure should
we be that nkudas habechira is actionable and you get a pass on other items
(iirc r' Dessler is not the only opinion on the matter)
KVCT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 22/08/18 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> I would think,
> as you implied elsewhere, that the Tanya's "tzadiq" was meant as an
> archetype to strive for. But if this is your standard, an archetype
> noone has ever and can ever fully embody.

On the contrary, the Tanya insists there have been and are tzadikim, who 
have no yetzer hara at all, or else the world could not exist. "HKBH saw 
that tzadikim are few, so He planted them in each generation."

The example from whom the Tanya (ch 1) derives its definition of a 
tzadik is David, who wrote "my heart is hollow within me", and its 
source for the difficulty in determining whether one is a tzadik or a 
benoni is Rabba, who mistook himself for a benoni until Abaye objected 
that he must be a tzadik for if he was not then there must be no 
tzadikim at all, and nothing could live in such a world.  The iconic 
example of the merkava, the "car" that responds completely to its 
Driver, is the Avos.  "Avos hein hein hamerkava."

What it says is that one cannot achieve this by ones own effort; one 
must try to come as close as one can, and ask for Divine help to take 
one the rest of the way. But this help is not always forthcoming, and 
if/when it does come one does not perceive it, so one can never be sure 
whether one got it.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 04:46:28PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> I would think,
:> as you implied elsewhere, that the Tanya's "tzadiq" was meant as an
:> archetype to strive for. But if this is your standard, an archetype
:> noone has ever and can ever fully embody.

: On the contrary, the Tanya insists there have been and are tzadikim,
: who have no yetzer hara at all, or else the world could not exist.
: "HKBH saw that tzadikim are few, so He planted them in each
: generation."

Yes, but this doesn't answer my question how there can be any tzadiqim
by this standard.

If a tzadiq is someone who so nullified  his yh"r that he has no free
will, everything he does is Hashem's, then even Moshe Rabbeinu doesn't
qualify. "Ein tzadiq baaretz asher ya'aseh tov velo yechtah."

(Side note, an interesting pasuq for Shelomo haMelekh, a Ben Yishei to
write, no?)

Speaking of which, none of the people under discussion are the four who
didn't sin.

Someone with no yh"r, who purely does Hashem's Will, couldn't have
done whatever it was with Bas Sheva that Uriah told David Hashem hadn't
wanted. So is that really what having "libi chalal beqirbi means"?

For that matter, Avraham wouldn't have had to be told Hashem's Will when
it came to expelling Yishma'el. Or, if you follow the Ramban (Bereishis
12:10) his choice of "achosi hi" was "ki Avraham chata chaeit gadol"
(with Sarah as victim), "vehayah lo livtoach Bashem".

So if tzadiq really is someone without a yh"r, indeed, who qualified?

I asked how that line of reasoning is flawed. Not a reassertion of the
position the reasoning is inconsistent with.

: The example from whom the Tanya (ch 1) derives its definition of a
: tzadik is David, who wrote "my heart is hollow within me", and its
: source for the difficulty in determining whether one is a tzadik or
: a benoni is Rabba, who mistook himself for a benoni until Abaye
: objected that he must be a tzadik for if he was not then there must
: be no tzadikim at all, and nothing could live in such a world.  The
: iconic example of the merkava, the "car" that responds completely to
: its Driver, is the Avos.  "Avos hein hein hamerkava."

While the Tanya explains Rabbah's interaction with Abayei, it is an
elaboration / explanation of his shitah, not a proof. A more common
understanding of beinoni, something closer to the Rambam's line in Hil'
Teshuvah, would also have Abayei saying that if if Rabbah were a beinoni
there couldn't be any tzadiqim in the world.

One is still left asking whether Abayei actually meant Rabbah had no
yh"r.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. May a non-observant Jew be counted towards a minyan?



A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 55:11) rules that a Jew who is not observant may be
counted towards a minyan. However, the Pri Migadim (OC 55:4) writes that
this ruling of Shulchan Aruch is only true for one who believes in the
validity of the Torah, though he fails to be observant in practice.
However, one who denies the legitimacy of Torah and mitzvos may not be
counted towards a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (55:46) rules this way as
well. Nevertheless, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt?l (Igros Moshe OC 1:23) writes
that if no one else is available one may include a non-believer as well in
a minyan and recite Kaddish, Kedusha and Barchu. Rav Moshe reasons that the
basis for a minyan is derived from the ten spies. The ten spies rebelled
against G-d, and yet they constituted a minyan. If so, we see that all Jews
may be included in a minyan, especially a Jew that was never taught to be
observant (tinok she'nishbah).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180823/15f9e3f5/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.)