Korach: Is Praying With a Minyan Mandatory?
The Gemara learns that matters of sanctity require ten men, that is, a minyan. On that basis, this week we will discuss the dispute among the halakhic decisors over whether one is obligated to pray with a minyan. We will look at the arguments on both sides and the practical implications of this dispute (weekly portion) Prayer with a minyan (Photo: Aharon Krohn/Flash90)
Opening in the weekly portion, the Torah writes (16:21), regarding the sin of Korach and his assembly and the Holy One, Blessed be He’s desire to destroy the people, and regarding Moshe’s response: “Separate yourselves from this congregation, and I will consume them in an instant. And they fell on their faces and said... ‘One man sins, and You become angry with the whole congregation?’” Ramban (there) asked: if only Korach and the people around him sinned, why did the Holy One, Blessed be He, even think of destroying all of Israel? He did not accept Rabbeinu Chananel’s claim that the Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted only to destroy Korach and the people with him, since a small number of people cannot be called an “edah” (congregation). For that reason, he explained that initially the hearts of Israel were with Moshe and Aharon, but when Korach claimed he would return the Temple service from the priests and Levites to the firstborns, and in effect intended to honor all of Israel, the people liked the idea, began to question Moshe and Aharon, and כולם רצו בהצלחת קרח. And although they did not act in practice, since they wanted Korach to succeed against Moshe and Aharon, they were worthy of death, like one who harbors doubts about a prophet. Therefore Moshe and Aharon argued that Korach himself was the main instigator, and only he should be punished. In his words: “And Rabbeinu Chananel wrote, ‘Separate yourselves from this congregation,’ the congregation of Korach and not the congregation of the children of Israel... and these are not correct, because it was not fitting to say of Korach, Dathan and Abiram, three people, ‘separate yourselves from the congregation,’ for they are not a congregation... but the explanation is... Korach called to all the congregation and said to them that he was jealous for the honor of all of them, and the matter pleased them, and they all gathered to see whether it would be pleasing in God’s eyes and the service would return to their firstborns, and behold, they became liable to destruction because they were thinking after their teacher... and Moshe and Aharon found a merit for them, that only Korach sinned in action.’”
The battle over “Brichot Shlomo” has begun: the jump of the religious MK into the water and the Palestinian response. Israel Shapira | 14:46 >> To the full magazine, click here
It appears that, unlike Ramban’s words, the Gemara in tractate Berakhot (21b) understands that the “congregation” indeed refers only to Korach’s assembly, which consisted of only ten people, just as the congregation of the spies consisted of only ten. From these verses and another verse, “and I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel,” the Gemara learns that matters of sanctity require ten, that is, a minyan. On this basis, this week we will deal with the dispute among the decisors, which we have seen briefly in the past, over whether one is obligated to pray with a minyan. We will look at the evidence for each side and the implications of this dispute.
Walking four mil
The Gemara in tractate Pesachim (46a) brings three things for which one is required to walk four mil, or a mil when walking back, for kneading, for prayer, and for washing hands. Among the early authorities it is fairly agreed that “for kneading” refers to separating dough in purity, meaning that if there is a ritually impure person and a mikveh four mil away, he must walk there to immerse his utensils so that he will not prepare his dough in impurity. It is also fairly agreed that washing hands refers to a meal, that one must walk this distance in order to avoid eating without washing.
The early authorities dispute what the “prayer” mentioned by the Gemara is:
a. The Arukh (Tosafot there) and Rambam (Prayer 4:2) explained that just as the Gemara’s discussion of kneading and washing hands deals with matters of purity, so too the Gemara’s discussion of prayer deals with matters of purity. Its intent is to teach that one who knows there is water for washing before prayer four mil away must walk there in order to wash his hands, since that is one of the obligations of prayer. This is also implied by the Gemara in Berakhot (15a), which writes that although Rav Chisda cursed one who looks for water in order to wash his hands, he cursed only one who looks for water at the time he must recite Shema, not one who looks before prayer.
b. Tosafot (Berakhot there, s.v. amanan) and Rashi (there, s.v.) disagreed and explained that the intention of the Gemara in Pesachim is to teach that if there is prayer with a minyan, one must walk that distance in order to be part of that prayer, and this was ruled by Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 90:16). They held that the Gemara in Berakhot should be read differently, and argued that Rav Chisda also cursed one who looks for water for washing at prayer time, since just as it is logical not to look for water during Shema lest the time for reciting it pass, so too one should not look for water during prayer lest its time pass. In their words: “And there are books that read, this applies to Shema, but not to prayer, for Reish Lakish said (Pesachim 46a), for kneading and for prayer, four mil. And it appears we should not read it so, for the same is true regarding prayer too, because of the concern that the time for prayer will pass, and what difference is there between Shema and prayer? Also, later in chapter Mi Shemeito they abolished washing in accordance with Rav Chisda, who cursed one who looks for water during prayer, and since it does not mention Shema there, it appears that in all cases it is permitted. And the statement of Reish Lakish, who said, and for prayer, four mil, Rashi explained, to pray there with a minyan.”
As Rabbi Moshe Feinstein noted (Igrot Moshe 2:27), their words imply that one is obligated to pray with a minyan, for if praying with a minyan were merely a preferred mitzvah, it would not be reasonable to walk four mil for it. From the Rambam’s words, however, it may be inferred that he understood there is an element and mitzvah in praying with a minyan, but not a full obligation. This understanding also seems to emerge from the Gemara in Berakhot (7b), which writes that Rav Nachman did not gather ten people for prayer at his home because it was burdensome. If it were a full obligation, it is not likely that he would have refrained merely because of the burden.
Prayer in the place of study
There is, seemingly, a contradiction to the understanding of the Rambam in a sugya we saw in the past (Balak, year 8) about how to weigh prayer in the place of study. As we saw, the Gemara in Berakhot (8a) tells that although Tiberias had thirteen synagogues, Rav Ami and Rav Assi would pray between the pillars in the place where they studied. The early authorities disagree about the case involved:
a. Rabbeinu Yonah (4a in Rif pages) wrote בשם the French sages that although by praying where they studied they would not pray with a minyan, nevertheless prayer in the place where one studies is preferable. On the face of it, this implies that praying with a minyan is not obligatory, since although there is a mitzvah to pray where one studies, it is certainly not a full obligation but a virtue, and if praying with a minyan were a full obligation, it would not be set aside for a mere virtue.
b. The Rambam (Prayer 8:3) disagreed and held that they preferred prayer in the place where they studied only on the condition that there was a minyan there. If so, what is the novelty in preferring that prayer over prayer in a synagogue? Rabbeinu Yonah answered (there) that although in the synagogue there was a larger crowd, and there is a mitzvah to pray with a large crowd, the advantage of praying in the place where they studied was greater. It is possible that the Rambam held that praying with a minyan is an obligation, and therefore it overrides prayer in the place of study without a minyan. But it is also plausible that he held it is only a virtue, and nevertheless this virtue overrides the virtue of praying in the place of study. In his words: “The prayer of the community is always heard, and even if there are sinners among them, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not despise the prayer of the many; therefore a person should join himself to the community and not pray alone as long as he can pray with the community... A house of study is greater than a synagogue, and great sages, although there were many synagogues in their cities, would not pray אלא במקום שהיו עוסקים שם בתורה, provided that they prayed there a communal prayer.”
Other early authorities from whom it appears that praying with a minyan is not mandatory are Ramban and Rashba. The Gemara in Berakhot (21b) writes that if a person arrived at the synagogue and found that the congregation was already in the middle of the Amidah, if he can begin his own prayer and finish before the congregation reaches Kedushah and Modim, he should begin praying; if not, he should wait until the congregation says those sections. Tosafot (there) added that although even while praying he can remain silent and listen to Kedushah and Modim under the rule of “one who hears is like one who answers,” nevertheless actually saying them aloud is preferable. In Tzeror HaChayim (Errors in Prayer, no. 13), it is written בשם his teacher the Rashba, who ruled in the name of Ramban, that if a person wants to pray immediately and not wait to hear Kaddish and Kedushah, he may pray in the synagogue courtyard. The reason given is that if he had wanted from the outset to go pray at home, he would have been permitted to do so; if so, certainly he may pray in the courtyard. And why may one initially pray at home? Is there not an obligation to pray with a minyan? Rather, there is a mitzvah, since one hears Kaddish and Kedushah and the community’s prayer is heard more favorably, but it is not an obligation.
Implications in later authorities
As noted above, on the face of it Shulchan Aruch held that praying with a minyan is an obligation, since he ruled like Rashi and Tosafot, that one must walk four mil in order to pray with a minyan. And although in section 90 he wrote, “A person should strive to pray in the synagogue with the congregation,” which suggests it is not a full obligation but an optimal mitzvah, this inference can be rejected.[1]
However, not all later authorities agreed with his view, and there are several practical consequences:
a. Eruvin for a mitzvah: As we saw in the past, on Shabbat a person may walk outside his city only 2,000 cubits, even if he is not carrying anything in his pocket. The Gemara in Eruvin (82a) writes that this walking range can be extended by placing an eruv techumin, but this is allowed only for a mitzvah. In explaining the term “mitzvah,” Shulchan Aruch and the Rema (415:1) wrote that even extending the limit for a Shabbat outing or for going to greet one’s teacher counts as a mitzvah situation. What is the law regarding prayer with a minyan? The later authorities disagree. According to the Magen Avraham (there, 2), this is a mitzvah for which one may make an eruv, since we saw that one must walk four mil for prayer with a minyan. By contrast, the Chavat Yair (no. 115) disagreed and held that one should not make eruvin so that one can pray with a minyan, because although there is a mitzvah, there is no obligation. He added that there is no difficulty from the Gemara in Berakhot, which tells that Rabbi Eliezer freed his slave for the sake of praying with a minyan, since there is a merit in public sanctification of God’s name, for which the slave was freed, but there is no obligation. In his words: “In any case, even praying with ten is not such a great mitzvah, and in Mahari”l, the laws of eruvin, regarding ‘one makes an eruv only for a mitzvah,’ praying with ten is less severe than going to a wedding feast. Heaven forbid that we should diminish the positive commandment of ‘and I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel,’ which is kaddish and barechu with ten, and the reward for faithfulness and for answering Amen, Yehei Shmei Rabbah, still it is not a positive commandment incumbent upon him, nor is it canceled if he stands outside. Therefore one cannot learn from the Gemara in Berakhot about Rabbi Eliezer... who was public sanctification of God’s name, and if he had not freed him, the mitzvah would have been annulled for all those many people.”
Nevertheless, it should be noted that even according to the Magen Avraham, who held that there is an obligation to pray with a minyan, certainly there are more important mitzvot that can override this mitzvah. Therefore, for example, he ruled (66:12) that it is preferable to recite the Amidah with tefillin in private rather than pray with a minyan, since if it is preferable to connect redemption to prayer than to pray with a minyan, and prayer with tefillin is preferable to connecting redemption to prayer, then certainly prayer with tefillin is preferable to prayer with a minyan.
b. Private prayer: The Gemara in Berakhot (34b) writes that one must have proper intention in all of the Amidah, but the first blessing is unique, since one who did not have proper intention in it must repeat the prayer. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe 3:7) wrote that if a person can concentrate in the congregation during the first blessing, he should not pray at home in private even if he feels he prays better there, because praying with a minyan is obligatory. He added that a person must ensure the greatest chance that his prayer will be accepted, and that chance increases when one prays with a minyan. In Shu”t Or L’Tzion (2:7), he disagreed and held that prayer in private with concentration is preferable to prayer in public, so one who wishes to pray in private with concentration should do so rather than pray in public, provided he does not do so regularly. He may have understood that prayer with a minyan is not obligatory, and therefore prayer with concentration is preferable to prayer with a minyan. However, it is also possible that he held prayer with a minyan is obligatory, but its mitzvah level is lower than prayer with concentration. In his words: “Question: If communal prayer interferes with a person’s ability to pray with concentration, may he pray in private in order to pray with concentration? Answer: Prayer with concentration and in private is preferable to prayer in public without concentration, but this should be done only occasionally, and one should not make a habit of praying in private for this reason.”
c. Prayer before the proper time: The Gemara in Berakhot brings a tannaitic dispute as to when the time for prayer begins. In any case, it is fairly agreed that prayer before sunrise is only acceptable after the fact. What is the law when a person has two choices, prayer before the proper time with a minyan, or prayer at the proper time in private? Rabbi Ovadia (Yabia Omer, O.C. 9:108) understood that it is better to pray in private. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, O.C. 4:6) and the Minchat Yitzchak (9:9) disagreed and held that praying with a minyan is preferable, even though the prayer time is only acceptable after the fact.
>> To the full magazine, click here
[1] For example, the Minchat Yitzchak, who held that prayer with a minyan is obligatory, argued that the word “strive” does not refer to the obligation to pray with ten, but to the duty of praying in a synagogue. That is, one must pray with ten, and one should strive that this prayer be specifically in a synagogue and not, for example, at home, because of the synagogue’s special merit. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein took a different approach and wrote that the expression “strive” can sometimes also function as an expression of obligation. The reason Shulchan Aruch did not use unambiguous language is that there are other burdens that exempt one from going to pray with a minyan, and for that he wrote that one should strive not to be lenient on this matter for oneself.
