By Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California –The question has come up: May one may participate in a virtual minyan on the Internet? Many of my colleagues tend to rule against such a possibility for a variety of reasons.
- Judaic law specifies the importance of ten people (we count women in the Conservative Movement) must be clustered in one central place. Even if they are in another room, but within hearing distance of the place where people are praying, they may not be counted as part of the minyan.[1]
- In one respect, the question whether our rabbinical scholars would have approved of an internet minyan seems almost a silly proposition to consider. How can one compare the world of pre-modernity to our postmodern and technological world that has so little in common with the social reality of our ancestors? Yet, rabbinical tradition was not completely unaware of such a situation arising. The Sages said, “Jephthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation”[2] in order to teach us that even an unworthy person, when appointed to a position of importance has to be regarded as one of the greatest,”[3]
In my opinion, the Sages wished to teach us that no future generation of Jewish leaders can afford the luxury to wonder how the previous generation of Jewish leadership would respond to a crisis or situation in their time. In the final analysis, that decision belongs exclusively with the leadership of the future—even if the quality and caliber of the leadership pales in comparison. Readers may recall how Jephthah made a rash and boneheaded decision to offer the first thing out of his house as a burnt-offering to God (Judges 11:30-31), and in the end, his daughter:
- When Jephthah arrived at his home in Mizpah, there was his daughter coming out to meet him, with timbrel and dance! She was an only child; he had no other son or daughter. On seeing her, he rent his clothes and said, “Alas, daughter! You have brought me low; you have become my troubler! For I have uttered a vow to the LORD and I cannot retract.”[4]
Had the Talmudic rabbis been familiar with Winnie-the-Pooh, they would have declared, Jephthah was a leader who was “of very little brain,” As it was, the Rabbis exclaimed, “What would he have done had a pig left his house?” Would he have offered it as a burnt-offering to God? Therefore, Jephthah is considered to be a classical example of a “pious ignoramus.”
The point of this digression is that today’s rabbinical leaders must make decisions based upon the exigencies defined by today’s problems—not necessarily those of the past. When we take into consideration how the most pious synagogues across the world have closed their doors to enable social distancing, the idea of a virtual minyan is not such an implausible idea at all.
In Los Angeles, the Kabbalah Center streams it services every week for people across the country to participate. I am certain this is done through the help of non-Jews, but it is still a permitted way to reach out to those who cannot attend the services.
Now, an examination of the relevant Halakhic texts from the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) will show how the rabbis often applied an elastic principle of what I call “flexidoxity” when determining practical Jewish law. I added the relevant footnotes from the Mishnah Berurah.
OH 55:13: Those constituting a minyan must be in one specific place with the prayer leader being amongst them. In the event, someone is standing in the doorway from the threshold and outward, i.e., where the door is closed, from the point where the interior of the door’s face rests and is outward, it is treated as the outside. [which according to certain authorities may still be considered part of the minyan—MB.[5]]
OH 55:14: In the event someone was standing outside the synagogue and there was a window looking downward several stories below, but could still see the individuals below—that person(s) may still be counted. However, this does not apply to someone standing upon a roof or an upper floor. Such persons may not be counted. [even though there is a partition separating them, if one can see their face(s), they may be counted as a part of the minyan] [6]
OH 55:15: If some of the potential participants were inside and a few were outside, and the prayer leader is standing at the entrance; his visual gaze is sufficient to help him form the minyan. But if part of the ten worshipers stood in the courtyard, while others were in the synagogue—they do not constitute a minyan.
As the reader may see, an internet minyan could conceivably be put together; the concept of “place” is not as rigid as some scholars think; especially since the halakhot cited above does not even take into consideration whether those people who are within visual range are aware that they are participating in a minyan.
The problem with the halakhah is the rabbis did not consider the anthropological concept of a participation mystique, where everyone is conscious that one is participating with the collective (minyan).
With online participants, the faces of the participants are not a two-dimensional image; they reflect living and willing participants. This in my view should not be considered inferior to the cases in OH 55:13 and OH 55:14.
With respect to the use of a computer on the Sabbath, this is a whole different subject. Rav Shlomo Auerbach, arguably one of Haredi Judaism’s most original halakhic scholars of the 21st century ruled that there is no prohibition to turning solid state appliances on the Shabbat since any creation of “sparks” should not be considered as “fire,” and does not even qualify as a rabbinical prohibition in the unintentional creation of sparks.”
The Modern Orthodox scholar Rabbi Michael Broyde & Rabbi Howard Jachter wrote in their online responsa:
- Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo 74, 84), after rejecting all the potential sources discussed above for prohibiting the use of electricity when no light or heat is generated, concludes that, at least in theory, electrical appliances that use no heat or light (e.g., a fan) are permitted on Shabbat and Yom Tov. However, he declines actually to permit their use absent urgent need. He states, “In my opinion there is no prohibition [to use electricity] on Shabbat or Yom Tov… There is no prohibition of ma’keh bepatish or molid… (However, I [Rabbi Auerbach] am afraid that the masses will err and turn on incandescent lights on Shabbat, and thus I do not permit electricity absent great need…) … This matter requires further analysis.[7]
While one may disagree with the use of solid-state computer technology on the Sabbath, this writer is of the view that the halakhah—when interpreted beyond a classical literalist perspective–can allow for a flexidox interpretation. By the way, the human brain runs on electricity and it is every bit as complicated as a solid-state computer.
I suppose cryogenic stasis will always be an option for those not wishing to utilize electricity on Shabbat, but I do not recommend it.
Again, let us reiterate the guiding principle here: “ The Sages said, “Jephthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation”[8] We can only rule in accordance with our understanding of how a halakhah might apply here. No scholarly rabbi is any worse than Jephthah was in his time.
Although the ancient and medieval rabbis did not anticipate of the modern reality of a “Virtual Presence,” the principles discussed above allow for a new postmodern idea of the minyan in cyberspace. The concept of “space” and especially “cyberspace” can arguably be incorporated into the traditional understanding of “space.” Visual consciousness of other participants is far more compelling than the examples cited from above.
Still, I will add one last caveat to our discussion based upon one of my favorite stories. Once a congregant went to his rabbi on the Eve of Yom Kippur and said, “Rabbi: I have a dilemma. Tonight is Kol Nidrei and it is also the first night of the World Series. What should I do?” The rabbi did not look amused; he replied, “Have you ever heard of the VCR?” The congregant thanked the rabbi profusely, “Thank you Rabbi, thank you! I did not know I could record Kol Nidre! Back to the game!”
Obviously, due to the seriousness of the coronavirus, we must not use the Internet to excuse ourselves from participating in a real minyan with real people you can touch and interact with. This responsa of mine only applies to our present emergency. Once normalcy is established, minyans will occur in real time with real people.
*
NOTES
[1] OH 55:15.
[2] יְרוּבַעַל בְדוֹרוֹ כְמֹשֶׁה בְדוֹרוֹ; בְדָן בְדוֹרוֹ כְאַהֲרֹן בְדוֹרוֹ; יִפְתָּח בְדוֹרוֹ כִשְׁמוּאֵל בְדוֹרוֹ. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ קַל שֶׁבְקַלִין וְנִתְמַנָה פְַּרנָס עַל הַצִבּוּר הֲֵרי הוּא כְאַבִיר שֶׁבְאַבִיִרים
[3] Rosh Hashanah 25b.
[4] Judges. 11:34-35.
[5] שפה פנימית – ר”ל דמקום סגירת הדלת הוי כלחוץ אף שעכשיו היה הפתח פתוח ועיין במ”א שכתב שיש שחולקין ע”ז ומכריע כמותם דמקום זה הוי כלפנים ועיין בספר אבן העוזר שפסק ג”כ בפשיטות דהיכא דהמיעוט עומדים תוך המקום הזה מצטרפים לעשרה דלא גרע מחצר קטנה שנפרצה לגדולה המבואר בסט”ז וכן משמע מביאור הגר”א
[6] דאף דיש הפסק מחיצה ביניהם כיון דמראה להם פניו דומה למה שמבואר לקמן בסימן קצ”ה לענין זימון דאם מקצתן רואין אלו את אלו דמצטרפין וא”כ לפ”ז פשוט העומדים בעזרת נשים ובמחיצה המפסקת יש חלון ומראה להם פניו משם מצטרף עמהם לעשרה וכ”ש דאם יש בלעדו עשרה נחשב תפלה בצבור עי”ז ואעפ”כ יותר טוב אם בנקל הוא לו לירד לבהכ”נ שירד דיש מהאחרונים שחולקין על עיקר הדין וסוברין דענינינו אינו דומה כלל לזימון
[7] Journal of Halacha & Contemporary Society, No. XXI – Spring 91 – Pesach 5751. For the online edition of this study, see: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm
[8] יְרוּבַעַל בְדוֹרוֹ כְמֹשֶׁה בְדוֹרוֹ; בְדָן בְדוֹרוֹ כְאַהֲרֹן בְדוֹרוֹ; יִפְתָּח בְדוֹרוֹ כִשְׁמוּאֵל בְדוֹרוֹ. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ קַל שֶׁבְקַלִין וְנִתְמַנָה פְַּרנָס עַל הַצִבּוּר הֲֵרי הוּא כְאַבִיר שֶׁבְאַבִיִרים
*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted via michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com