X hits on this document

Word document






86 / 157

therein), who writes: “Ein osin ela kakh ve-kakh – kegon ‘ein korin ela be-asara’ – mashma ikuva…”; Tehilla le-Yona, Megilla (Lakewood, N.J.: Makhon Be’er haTorah, 5759), Megilla 23b, s.v.Ein ve-khu pahot me-asara p. 234. Interestingly, the noted halakhist, R. Ezekiel Segel Landau, Resp. Noda biYhuda, Mahadura Kama, Even haEzer [henceforth E.H.] 56, suggests that performing a ritual requiring a minyan—in the absence of such a quorum—may, nevertheless, be valid ex post facto. The actual question raised dealt with the seven nuptial blessings included in the list in the Mishna in Megilla (supra, note 48). Although R. Landau himself questions the compelling nature of his arguments (see ibid., s.v.veDa she-haKesef”), his lenient position is cited by various aharonim: R. Abraham Zvi Hirsch Eisenstadt, Pit’hei Teshuva, H.M. sec. 62, no. 7; R. Abraham Danzig, Hokhmat Adam, sec. 129, no, 3; R. Abraham Adadi, Resp. VaYikra Avraham, sec. 11; R. Isaac Abulafia, Resp. Penei Yitshak, sec. 98; R. Isaac Joseph Zilberberg, Resp. Atsei Zayyit, II, sec. 37; Resp. Mishne Halakhot, Mahadura Tinyana, II, H.M. sec. 343; R. Isaac Zilbershtein, Neis le-hitNoses, Part 2, sec. 48; R. Gedalia Felder, Yesodei Yeshurun, II, p. 168. This view actually finds some precedent: see the opinion of “Raboteinu ha-Tsorfatim” cited by Ran (on Rif, Mishna, Megilla 23b, end of s.v.Matnitin Ein porsin”); see also Masekhet Soferim 10:7, “Rabboteinu she-bi-ma’arav omrim be-shiva…ve-yesh omrim afilu be-shisha” and the comments of R. Samuel Nota Wassershtein, Beiurei Soferim, ad loc. As R. Wassershtein himself notes, Tosafot, Megilla 23b, s.v. “ve-Ein,” have interpreted the Masekhet Soferim otherwise, namely that ten are present, but some have already fulfilled their obligation. See also, Resp. Mishpetei Uziel, III, O.H., sec. 14, no. 1, s.v.ve-Yesh le-histapek” who suggests that were keri’at haTorah not a davar she-bi-kedusha (contrary to the halakhic consensus) one might be able to carry it out with benedictions even in the absence of a minyan quorum.

Nevertheless, the majority of posekim reject this position: R. Eleazar Segel Landau (the grandson of Noda biYhuda), Yad haMelekh, Hilkhot Ishut 10:5; R. Joseph Saul Nathanson and R. Mordechai Zev Eitinge, Magen Gibborim, O.H. sec. 143, no. 1, Shiltei haGibborim note 2; R. Jacob Shalom Sofer, Torat Hayyim, O.H. sec. 143, no. 1; R. Israel Eisenstein, Resp. Amudei Eish, sec. 3, no. 3; Arukh haShulhan, E.H. sec. 62, no. 13—“This does not seem so from any of the codifiers”; R. Matsliah Mazuz, Resp. Ish Matsliah, I, O.H. sec. 13, no. 12, s.v.veOd” (end) and Table of Contents, no. 41; Resp. Sheivet haLevi, IV, secs. 7 and 14 and X, sec. 17, no. 1; Resp. Yabia Omer, II, E.H., sec.

Document info
Document views533
Page views534
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 08:14:55 UTC 2017