X hits on this document

Word document

NOT FOR CIRCULATION WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED - page 104 / 157

402 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

104 / 157

Zilber, Resp. Az Nidberu, XIV, secs. 37-38; R. Moses Malka, Resp. Mikve haMayyim, V, E.H. sec. 3, no. 4; R. Fuchs, ibid. pp. 33-34; R. Haim David Halevi, Resp. Mayyim Hayyim, III, sec. 2; Resp. Tsits Eliezer, XXII, sec. 6; R. Nathan Ortner, “Tefilla beTsibbur – Hiyyuva, Ra’ayona, veGidra,haMa’ayan, 5:1 (Tishrei 5725), pp. 50-62; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yom haShishi, 8 Tammuz 5760 (July 21, 2000), p. 26; R. Mishal Rubin, haMorim beKeshet – Shu”t beInyanei Tsava, Resp. 101; R. Nadav Perets, Nidvat Perets, Megilla 23b, p. 49 s.v.Hinei be-ikar”; R. Yehuda Gershuni, “He’arot haRav beGilyonei Sefarav” in Afikei Yehuda – Sefer Zikaron leRav Yehuda Gershuni Zatsa”l, R. Itamar Warhaftig, ed. (Hotsa’at Ariel, Jerusalem: 5765), pp. 419-424 - see esp. Hilkhot Tefilla 8:1, p. 420; R. Asher Weiss, “Shiur Moreinu haRav Shlita,” Parashat Bo 5767, Vol. 5, Kovets 14 (209), secs. 1d and 4; R. Asher Weiss, “Shiur Moreinu haRav Shlita,” Parashat vaYera 5769, Vol. 7, Kovets 4 (276), pp. 7-8. R. Ahron Soloveichik, in a conversation with Dov I. Frimer, July 8, 1997, indicated that this was also the view of his grandfather, R. Hayyim Soloveitchik of Brisk. R. Aharon Lichtenstein stated to the authors that this position of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik was often cited approvingly by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik as well (see, however, below note 244). (Interestingly, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik also records that his father, R. Moses Soloveichik, maintained that tefilla be-tsibbur is not merely a better mode of private prayer, but an inherently different prayer form; see Reshimot Shiurim, Sukka 38a, p. 184, s.v.Dimyon.” This does not, of course, preclude the possibility, that tefilla be-tsibbur is optional).

R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, Lev Ivra, pp. 158-159, and R. Eliezer Deitch, Pri haSade, I, sec. 107, emphasize, though, that even according to this hiddur mitsvah school, tefilla be-tsibbur is a communal obligation (hovat ha-tsibbur), i.e., the men of the community are obligated to ensure that a minyan is available for public prayer; only when such has been secured does actually praying within a minyan become a hiddur mitsvah. A similar analysis has been proffered by R. Henkin, Lev Ivra, p. 50 and 159, and R. Joseph Rosen (“The Rogatchover”), Tsafnat Panei’ah, M.T., Hilkhot Tefilla, 12:5, with regard to keriat haTorah. See also: R. Abraham Aaron Price, Mishnat Avraham, I, to Sefer Hasidim, sec. 410, pp. 410-411; Resp. Ginat Veradim II, sec. 21; Binyan Shelomo 35; Levushai Mordechai II, sec. 99; R. Meir Arik, Resp. Imrei Yosher, sec. 171, no. 2 and 3, and Resp. Imrei Yosher heHadash, sec. 8; R. Eliezer Silver, Tsemakh Erez, Megilla 3a, p. 368, s.v. veHinei;” R. Ben-Tsiyon Lichtman, Benei Tsiyyon, III, O.H. sec. 139, no. 7; R. Haim David Halevi, Resp. Mayyim Hayyim, II, sec. 42; R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach cited by

Document info
Document views402
Page views403
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 20:34:05 UTC 2016
Pages157
Paragraphs741
Words67521

Comments