Q&A: Prayer with a Minyan and the Status of the Shulchan Arukh
Prayer with a Minyan and the Status of the Shulchan Arukh
Question
In the past you were quoted as saying, “Even a minyan is not all that important from the standpoint of Jewish law. In the Shulchan Arukh it does not appear at all.”
This quote gives the impression that the Shulchan Arukh carries great significance for you.
On the other hand, it is known that you do not see it as a formal authority.
How does that fit together???
Answer
The fact that it has no formal authority does not mean it has no significance, and even great significance. I am not in favor of ignoring the great medieval and later authorities. My claim is that their words do not have formal status, but there is certainly importance to what they say.
Discussion on Answer
Itzik. What is your source from formal authority for an obligation to pray with a minyan? (I’m not talking about a source for the virtue of communal prayer.)
I’ve written here more than once what I think about childish thinking of this sort, which sees the world in black and white. Saying that some position or statement has significance means that I do not dismiss such statements, and at least if I don’t have a clear view against them, I may accept them. It doesn’t take a whole day of study to understand this “being lax.” What it does take is just listening a bit and not speaking from the gut and looking for mathematical rules where there are none. As for the rest of your claims (such as the marvelous remark about obligations that the Shulchan Arukh chose not to mention even though he agrees with them), I assume I’m exempt from answering. If you choose to listen and not insist, you’ll answer them yourself, and if not—then there’s no point in answering either. Good luck.
Ah yes, of course. Michi is allowed to “walk between the raindrops.” Free rein. And of course everything remains “logical.”
But woe to the atheist who tries to make even a quarter of an argument, for example on the subject of “morality” that doesn’t fit in Michi’s head.
He is immediately labeled inconsistent. And that’s in the best-case scenario.
I’ll conclude with a post published on Facebook by a smart Jew, when Michi distributed his “ideological-political” manifesto more than half a year ago in several synagogues.
Here is the quote from that dear Jew’s Facebook post:
**”Religious Jewish society: has been organizing itself for years in the Land of Israel and abroad in various ways.
Rabbi Michi Abraham: No, you’re mistaken! That’s not the correct division; it’s much more rational to divide things up in the way I’m outlining for you now, and it also fits my lifestyle and outlook.
Society: Okay, fine.” **
Pure delight!
It simply describes Michi so beautifully and precisely, in just a few lines.
So then, who said you can convey messages and ideas only through long writing?
Could you sketch out a roadmap for what it means to say “it has significance” and “I’m not in favor of ignoring it” in purely halakhic matters?
Formal authority does say that one must pray with a minyan. And I’ll note that there is no direct contradiction between the Shulchan Arukh and formal authority; the Shulchan Arukh simply chose not to mention the obligation of prayer with a minyan (but of course did not disagree with it either).
And still, in this case you gave priority to the Shulchan Arukh, which in your view has no formal authority, and you choose to be lax about prayer with a minyan.
When else can one be lax when there is not 100% overlap between formal authority and other authorities in purely halakhic matters (all the more so when there is a contradiction)???