What Should We Lain When We Get Back To Shul?

Shabbos HaGadol Drasha By Asher Schechter Congregation Ohr Moshe of Hillcrest

I would like to encourage you to print out this Drasha with its attachments and learn it with your Mishpacha over Shabbos HaGadol. Please feel to share this email with all your friends and contacts. Introduction

We all are missing our Shul experiences very much these days. Fascinating how true “absence makes the heart grow fonder” really is and how so many people (some of whom I might not have guessed) have been expressing to me their great yearning to get back to Shul.

So what will we do when we get back to Shul? First and foremost, we will (if the Medical Authorities allow) kiss the Mezuzas, Aron Kodesh, Sifrei , etc. with tears of joy and great emotion. We will Daven with such and of course be extremely careful with proper decorum and respect for our Mikdash Mi'at... This year I want to discuss a related question. What will we Lain the first Shabbos that we return to our beloved Shul? In our Shul we missed Laining starting from Vayakhel-Pikudei- HaChodesh. Other Shuls may have missed a bit more or a bit less. Is there any way to “make-up” the missing Laining? Should we? Are we required to? Are we allowed to? In anticipation of this Shayla being LiMaase very soon, IY”H, I would like to delve into this Inyan. The Takanah of Laining Every Shabbos

The Yerushalmi in Meseches Megilla (quoted by both the Rif and the Rosh in the 3rd Perek of Megilla) teaches us that the Takanah of Laining from the Torah on Shabbos morning was established by Moshe Rabbenu. According to most , it has the Din of a Takanas Chachamim (hence it is Midrabonon), but it dates back to the very beginning of . In the early days, there were divergent customs as to what exactly to read on each Shabbos. All customs were to go in order – starting from the beginning of the Torah and each Shabbos doing the next portion, etc. However, how long should it take to complete the cycle? There once was a custom to complete the Laining of the Torah once every three years! This custom was mentioned in the Gemara as a viable and acceptable custom. Their Laining each Shabbos morning was approximately 1/3 of ours! However, the Rambam, and virtually all the Poskim afterward, note that that custom has died out and that today only the one-year cycle is acceptable.

It would seem that the Takanah of Moshe Rabbenu was to Lain the Torah in its proper order in order to make sure that we Lain each and every single word of the Torah during each cycle. In fact, when a Shabbos cannot have its regularly scheduled Laining – Yom Tov, Rosh HaShana, , etc. the regularly scheduled Laining for that Shabbos is pushed off to the next available Shabbos. It is not skipped. This may require the doubling-up of future Parshios, but that is preferred over skipping any part of the Torah. The Shabbos They Didn't Lain In Cologne

The Ohr Zarua ( Yitzchok ben Moshe of Vienna lived in the 1200s - a Talmid of Rav Yehuda HaChasid, a of the Maharam MiRottenberg) in a Teshuva (Hilchos Shabbos 45 – see attached) tells the story that happened in the city of Cologne as follows. In those days there was a Minhag that if someone had a problem with a fellow congregant, he was allowed to air his complaints and try to get them resolved before Kriyas HaTorah. (This practice was established by Rabbenu Gershom Meor Hagolah and it is mentioned in the Teshuvos of Maharam MiRottenberg # 153 & # 1,022). On Shabbos Parshas Emor, a congregant delayed the Kriyas HaTorah with his complaints against a fellow congregant for such a long time that the Tzibbur did not get to Lain Parshas Emor at all! The question was asked of Rav Eliezer ben Shimon (one the great Poskim of that generation) what to do in that Shul the next Shabbos. He Paskened that they should read both Parshas Emor and Parshas Behar (the regularly scheduled Parsha for that week). Quoting the Yerushalmi mentioned above, he says, Moshe Rabbenu established a practice of reading the entire Torah from the beginning till the end - “you cannot skip Parsha Achas – one Parsha”. He adds that really the exact breakdown of the Parshios and their allocation to the various Shabbosos is somewhat flexible. What is important is the fact that the entire Torah is Lained during each cycle. So if one Shabbos gets more and another gets less it is fine as long as the entire Torah is ultimately Lained. (I would like to encourage you to see the Ohr Zarua inside – see attached. The story begins on the bottom of the first page and continues to the second page. It is written in fairly easy Hebrew. There is going to be a debate among the later Poskim (see below) as to how exactly to understand the Ohr Zarua, seeing it inside will give you better insight).

The Rama (Shulchan Oruch Orach Chaim 135,2) quotes this Ohr Zarua as the Practical Halacha. He says, “If the Torah was not read in public during one Shabbos, the next Shabbos, both the missed Parsha and the current Parsha should be read” (see source attached). To the best of my knowledge, there are no Poskim who disagree with the Ohr Zarua and Rama on this issue. So, the partial answer to our question is that for sure we can and should “make-up” the most recent Parsha that wasn't Lained and Lain it along with the current Parsha on the first Shabbos that we return (unless an exception applies – see below). But what about all the other missed Parshios? Can we and should we Lain them too? History Repeats Itself in Worms

A very similar story takes place about 200 years later. The Maharam Mintz (Rav Moshe ben Yizchok HaLevi of Mainz, Germany, lived in the 1400s. He was a Talmid of Mahari Weil and a colleague of the Terumas HaDeshen). In his Teshuvos (# 85), he tells over a similar story as follows. In Worms, Germany on Shabbos Vayakhel-Pikudei which also was Parshas HaChodesh that year, a fight broke out after Shishi was completed. The Gabbai called up one individual for Shvii (Chazak) and another individual became very upset because he thought that he deserved that special Aliyah. The fight ensued so fiercely that it lasted about 2 hours! Most of the Tzibbur was frustrated by the fighting, so they eventually (after the 2 hours of frustration) took another Sefer Torah and went to another room outside of the Sanctuary (called the Youth Shul) and Lained Shvii and Parshas HaChodesh and completed the Davening. Only 4 or 5 individuals remained in the Sanctuary after that (to continue the fight) and eventually they realized that without a Minyan no one could have the coveted Chazak Aliyah! So the small group disbanded. The Shayla asked of the Maharam Mintz was whether or not the Shul needs to read Vayakhel-Pikudei (along with Vayikra) again the next week. If there is a Hefsek between Shishi and Shvii of approximately 2 hours (for the majority of the Tzibbur who went to the Youth Shul) were they Yotze? If not, maybe they have to Lain it again the next week. The Maharam Mintz Paskened that there is no problem of Hefsek (B'Dieved – although it is not the preferred situation) and since the Tzibbur was Yotze the Kriyas HaTorah (albeit in another place) there is no need to Lain Vayakhle-Pikudei again the next Shabbos.

Then the Maharam Mintz continues as follows. Even if the Tzibbur would not have finished the Laining in the Youth Shul and everyone in the Kehilla did not hear the complete Laining that Shabbos, still it would not be appropriate to Lain Vayakhel- Pikudei-Vayikra the next Shabbos. His argument is that in the words of the Ohr Zarua (quoted above) he only mentions “one Shabbos”. Why not mention three or four Shabbosos or more? The Ohr Zarua only mentions the remedy of a make-up of one Parshah being added to the current week's Parsha. Not two or more being added on. The Maharam Mintz says that if we would allow two or more to be added on then “Ain L'Davar Sof” - there would be no end to this... He emphatically states that we never Lain three or more Parshios on one Shabbos – hence only one Parsha can be added as a make-up - not more. Now, in the case presented to the Maharam Mintz both Vayakhel and Pikudei would have to be added to Vayikra, which he deems inappropriate. Breaking up Vayakhel and Pikudei and Laining just Pekudai and Vayikra wouldn't accomplish anything. Either the entire Laining of the previous week is added as make- up or none at all. Half a “make-up” doesn't accomplish anything... In addition, he continues, there is another reason why they can't make-up Parshios Vayakhel & Pikudei by Laining them together with Parshas Vayikra. Our custom is that whenever we Lain two Parshois together, we combine them by having one Aliyah span the end of the first Parsha and the beginning of the second Parsha. This demonstrates that for this Shabbos they are considered as one big Laining – not two disparate Lainings. That would not be possible in this case. After the Lainng of every Chumash (each one of the 5 Chumashim in the Torah) is completed we have several blank lines in the Torah to indicate a new Sefer of Chumash is about to begin. Our custom is to announce the end of each Chumash by declaring, “Chazak, Chazak, V'Nischazek”. It would be inappropriate to Lain straight from the end of Pekudei through the beginning of Vayikra without stopping and it would be inappropriate to combine these Parshios without having a combining Aliyah joining them together. Therefore, concludes the Maharam Mintz, since there is no solution, it should not be done at all.

Although the Maharam Mintz doesn't explain why we can't Lain three or more Parshios, I believe his reasoning is based upon the well known Halachik concept of Tircha D'Tzibbura (an inappropriate burden being placed upon the Tzibbur). More on this thought later.

I would like to encourage you to see the Maharam Mintz inside – see attached. It is written in fairly easy Hebrew/Aramaic and it is fascinating to read it in the original source. The Shayla is presented on the first page and the main part that we discussed above begins in the last paragraph of the third page beginning with “V'Hinei”. Later Authorities

The Knesses HaGedolah (Rav Chaim Benveniste of Smyrna, lived in the 1600s – a Talmid of the Mabi”t) in his Pirush on the Shulchan Oruch (Orach Chaim 282 – see attached) quotes and Paskens like Maharam Mintz' rulings. He also adds a logical extension to them. If the current Shabbos Laining consists of two combined Parshios then no “make-up” will be allowed. Only the current two Parshios may be Lained. The logic is the same. We never allow more than two Parshios on any Shabbos.

The Mogen Avraham (commenting on the above-mentioned Rama - Shulchan Oruch Orach Chaim 135,4 – see attached) quotes the Maharam Mintz on these two Halachos. First, we never Lain three Parshios. Second, we never combine Parshios from 2 different Chumashim. He does, however, bring down a dissenting opinion in parentheses, namely the opinion of the Hagahos Minhagim, who disagrees with the Maharam Mintz' positions. The way the Hagahos Minhagim sees it, we always should make-up all the Parshios that we missed no matter how many and it doesn't make a difference whether or not they straddle the end and the beginning of two different Chumashim. The Hagahos Minhagim reads the Ohr Zarua differently than the Maharam Mintz. The main emphasis he sees in the Ohr Zarua's presentation is that we must finish the entire Torah during each cycle and that we cannot miss “even one Parsha” and certainly we cannot miss more than one Parsha. The fact that the Ohr Zarua doesn't mention three or four Parshios doesn't bother him, since the Shayla that was asked to Rav Eliezer ben Shimon concerned only one Parsha. So he responded to the question asked without any intention of implying that in a situation where they missed more than one Parsha there would be a different Halacha. (I encourage you to take another look at the Ohr Zarua inside and see which interpretation you feel fits better into his words).

It would appear that the Mogen Avraham Paskens like the Maharam Mintz since he quotes him in the main body of his comments (as opposed to the parenthetic mention of the Hagahos Minhagim).

Later Acharonim line up on either side of this debate. To name a few, the Olas Tamid (Orach Chaim 282,4), Ateres Zekainim (Orach Chaim 135)& Ba'er Heitev (Orach Chaim 135,4) side with the Maharam Mintz. The Elya Rabba (Orach Chaim 135,2 – see attached), Mogen Gibborim (Orach Chaim 135,4) & Oruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 135,6) side with the Hagahos Minhagim. The Pri Megadim and the Mishna Berurah quote both sides of the Machlokes without giving an indication of the Psak Halacha.

So far, we got ourselves smack in the middle of a major Machlokes HaPoskim. Many say only to make-up the most recently missed Shabbos and that applies only if it is in the same Chumash as the current week's Laining, while many others say that we should go ahead and Lain all the missing Parshios no matter how many or where they are situated. What to do?

The 's Shita

The Biur HaGra (Orach Chaim 135,2) commenting on the above-mentioned Rama says the following six words, “Kmo Shekasav B'Tefilah, Taah Vlo Hispalel...” - just as the Halacha is by Tefilah if one forgot to Daven.... The Gra is adding another dimension to this discussion. There is a very well known Halacha, found in the Gemara Brachos (26a) and Shulchan Oruch (Orach Chaim 108), that if someone forgot to Daven one Tefilah (say Mincha) then they are given an opportunity to Daven a make-up Tefilah in the next Tefilah slot by Davening two Shmoneh Esrays (in our case 2 Maariv Shmoneh Esrays). This make-up Tefilah is called a Tashlumin. The Gra is saying that the ruling of the Ohr Zarua works under the same theory. If a Shabbos Laining was missed, then on the next Shabbos we can have a Tashlumin and make-up the missing Laining and get credit for it similar to the make-up for a missed Tefilah. The Mishna Berurah in his Biur Halacha (Orach Chaim 135) quotes this Gra and points out that following this concept, only in cases of Shogeg or Ones (negligence or circumstances beyond one's control) are we permitted to do a make-up Laining. However, if it was, Chas V'Shalom, B'Maizid (with intention) that the Shabbos Laining was missed, then no such make-up is allowed. This mirrors the Halacha of Tefilah. If one misses a Tefilah B'Maizid he does not get a chance to Daven a Tashlumin Tefilah. The Biur Halacha quotes the Ateres Zekainim who is Mesupok (unsure) in this case and he further quotes the Pri Migadim and the Shulchan Atzi Shittim who Pasken that even B'Maizid there still is an opportunity for a make-up Laining the next Shabbos.

The Mishna Berurah (ibid, with further explanation in his Shaar HaTziyun) mentions that he believes the Gra Paskens like the Maharam Mintz. In the case of Tefilah you can only make-up for the most recent Tefilah. So for example, if someone missed both Shacharis and Mincha he can only make-up Mincha (by Davening two Maariv Shmoneh Esrays) and he cannot do any make-up for Shacharis. Therefore, since the Gra compares Laining to Tefilah, it would follow that we could only make-up one Parsha of Laining - not more. This argument doesn't address the situation of a double Parsha. It is quite possible that the Gra would allow Laining three Parshios if the missed Shabbos was a double Parsha. So, the Gra doesn't necessarily agree with the Maharam Mintz completely. In addition, one could question the Mishna Berurah's assertions because it is obvious that the Gra doesn't mean to equate the missed Laining Halachos and the missed Tefila Halachos exactly. For Tefilah, the Halacha is that when someone Davens two Tefilos for make-up purposes, the first Shmoneh Esray is for the current obligation and the second one is for the make-up. In the case of Laining, surely the Gra would agree with the Ohr Zarua that the Parshios should be read in their proper order – namely, last Shabbos' Laining first and then this Shabbos' Laining. So, it is possible that the Gra just meant to give a Mashal (a similar example) but it might not have been his intention to claim that the Halachos of the Laining make-up are directly derived from (and hence equivalent to) the Halachos of Tashlumin of Tefilah. Finally, we don't have any clue from the Gra what he would hold pertaining to reading two Parshios across two Chumashim. The Vilna Gaon Released From Prison

The Vilna Gaon was wrongly accused of crimes by the enemies of Traditional Yiddishkeit and he was imprisoned by the authorities for about a month. When he was released he summoned the Baal Koreh and instructed him to Lain for him the last four Parshios that he missed. (This story is documented in the Pirush Tosfos Maaseh Rav [note # 34 – see attached] on the Sefer Maaseh Rav which records many of the practices and behaviors of the Vilna Gaon). At first glance, it might be interpreted as a private reading for the Vilna Gaon not related to Shabbos Davening. But that opens up a question as to whether or not it is permitted to take out a Sefer Torah for a private Laining without a Chiyuv of Kriyas HaTorah (See Shach, Yoreh Dai'ah 270,5 - that discussion is for another time – not within the scope of this Drasha). However, it appears that Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach might have understood this passage as a real Laining, i.e. the Vilna Gaon asked the Baal Koreh to Lain an additional four Parshios before he Lained the regular Parsha that first Shabbos that the Vilna Gaon returned from prison. This implication can be seen in Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach's Sefer Halichos Shlomoh (Hilchos Pesach, Chapter 10, note 90 – see attached) where he Paskens that Kriyas HaTorah is not an individual Chiyuv, but rather a communal Chyuv. If an individual misses a Parsha because he travels from America to Eretz Yisrael (during certain times) and loses a Parsha along the way, he has no obligation to make it up. Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach did not think it was necessary to have a special Minyan with a Laining of both Parshios for those travelers. A Bochur asked Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, “What about the Vilna Gaon who made-up all four missing Parshoios when he was released from prison?”. Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach responded, “Do you consider yourself to be on the level of the Vilna Gaon that you want to accept upon yourself all of his behaviors?” The implication is that for the Vilna Gaon it was appropriate but not for everyone else. Since you are an individual (who is not on the level of the Vilna Gaon) – not a Tzibbur - therefore you are not obligated to make up the missing Laining. You shouldn't be wasting your time and effort on it. I believe that Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach understood that what the Gra did was unique for someone on his level because he was an individual, not a Tzibbur. It is quite possible that he would hold that had there been an entire Tzibbur in that situation, it would have been necessary to Lain all the missing Parshios (in accordance with the Hagahos Minhagim).

In addition, I believe that Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach understood the Laining of the four extra Parsios for the Vilna Gaon to have been on Shabbos morning before the regular Parsha was Lained. If not, why didn't he simply tell the Bachur, “the Vilna Gaon did not have a public Laining of those Parshios, just a private Laining which was not considered an official Kriyas HaTorah and had no Halachik consequence.”

This leads to an apparent contradiction between the Biur HaGra (the way the Mishna Berurah understands it) and the story told in the Tosfos Maaseh Rav. If the Gra Paskens like the Maharam Mintz, then he should have only made-up one Parsha, not all four? Possible Resolution

To present a possible resolution and guidance for our Kehilla for when we return to our beloved Shul, I would like to present the following possibility. As I commented above, I believe the issue that the Maharam Mintz was concerned about was Tircha D'Tzibbura (an inappropriate burden being placed upon the Tzibbur). If a Tzibbur was to Lain many Parshios, the people would feel burdened to sit through it and that would be inappropriate. However, regarding Kavod HaTzibur (honor for the Tzibbur) and Tircha D'Tzibbura (which are terms that are sometimes interchanged by the Halachik Sources and the Poskim) there is a consensus that the Tzibbur can sometimes be Mochel (forgo) their Kavod (honor) and Tircha. The Mogen Avraham (144,7), Taz (53,2) and Hagahos Rabbi Akiva Eiger (143,2) mention that if the Kavod and Tircha is purely associated with human type of issues (like forcing the Tzibbur to remain in Shul extra time, etc.) then the Tzibbur can be Mochel on their Kavod and Tircha. However, if the issue is also related to Hashem's honor (like in the case of a Chazan who lacks proper spiritual qualities, etc.) then the Tzibbur cannot be Mochel on Hashem's honor. Laining extra Parshios is strictly a human type of issue. Some people might get restless and find it difficult to sit quietly for such a long time. Some might get hungry and would rather go downstairs for Kiddush... Certainly, it is not an issue of Hashem's honor, Aderabba (just the opposite) the extra Laining is an expression of our love for Hashem and His Torah.

In a regular Shul that attracts many diverse individuals from around the community, it is difficult to get a consensus of Mechila from the Tzibbur. Therefore the Maharam Mintz Paskens that more than two Parshios are inappropriate – there generally would be no consensus of Mechila so it is a Tircha D'Tzibbura and should not be done. In the case of the Vilna Gaon, he didn't Daven in a regular Shul. He had Klois (a small private Beis Medrash) that was open to people by invitation only and he surrounded himself with a small number of exemplary Talmidim. So, in essence, everyone who was in the Klois was happy to be there with their Rebbe, the Gra, and it can be assumed that they would certainly be Mochel any Tircha D'Tzibbura that might arise from the Gra catching up on the four Parshios that he missed. Aderabba, they must have been elated that their Rebbe was back home and they were certainly pleased to share the make-up Laining with him. So in that situation, the Gra held that it was appropriate to make-up all the missing Parshios.

As far as the Biur HaGra's statement that the make-up for Laining is like the make-up for Davening, and the question arises, why did the Gra allow the make-up Laining of more than one Parsha, we can present two possible answers. One is as we mentioned above, that the Gra might be just giving a Mashal, and the Halachos are not identical. Therefore the Gra held that if it isn't a Tircha D'Tzibbura (assuming he Paskens like the Maharam Mintz which is not necessary according to this explanation) then it is permissible and even laudable to make-up all the missing Parshios.

Another possibility is the use of the concept of a Tefilas Nedava. In the Gemara Brachos (21a) and Shulchan Oruch (Orach Chaim 107) we find that a person may offer an extra Tefilla on their own as a gesture of subservience to Hashem (provided, under most circumstances, that they add additional suplications within the Tefilah). The concept is not common today, because the Shulchan Oruch and the Poskim frown upon doing it unless you are absolutely sure that you can have perfect Kavanah in that extra Tefilah (and who today can be so sure of himself?). Tefilah (which includes Brachos) without Kavanah can be considered Brachos LiVatalah, which is a severe Aveira. Nevertheless, officially, on the books, it is an acceptable option, even if it is not currently practiced. Maybe the Gra held that regarding Laining as in Tefilah there might be a concept of Nedava. Just like if someone missed Shacharis and Mincha they can make-up Mincha with a second Maariv Shmoneh Esray and then they may choose to add a Tefilah Nedava to compensate for the missed Shacharis (although there are some comparisons mentioned in the Poskim regarding Tashlumin & Nedava, nowhere in Halacha do we find that a Tefilas Nedava would actually be acceptable as an official make-up for a missed Tefila – nevertheless as an spiritual and emotional response, not necessarily a Halachikly sanctioned one, it would allow the individual to connect with Hashem and apologize for the missed Tefila) so too if several Parshios were missed and there was no issue of Tircha D'Tzibbura, then as a Nedava, it would be permitted and appropriate to Lain all the missing Parshios. The downside of Tefilas Nedava doesn't apply to Laining. There is no Bracha LiVatala to worry about so Laining without Kavanah (while not ideal) is not an Aveira. So What Should We Do?

If my above rationale is correct, the following practice should be adopted in our Shuls. If the entire Tzibbur is willing to be Mochel and they are so excited to be back in Shul that they want to experience all the Laining that they missed, then the full Laining should be read. I believe all Shitos (Maharam Mintz, Hagahos Minhagim and The Gra) would agree on this point. If, on the other hand, there is no consensus of Mechila within the Kehilla, then it would be up to the Rav (in consultation with his Poskim) to decide according to which Shita to Pasken – The Maharam Mintz (who says just one extra Parsha) or the Hagahos Minhagim (who says to Lain all the missing Parshios). This presentation is not intended to be a Psak Halacha. I, personally, will IY”H consult with Gedolei HaPoskim before any decision is made for our Shul. Meanwhile, I encourage you to respond to this Drasha by indicating your personal feeling regarding Mechila of the Tircha D'Tzibbura of Laining all the missed Parshios in our Shul. Interesting Related Halachos

What if we get back to Shul for Shabbos Mincha for the first time? Answer: If there is enough time to Lain the entire Parsha (and whatever make-up that is appropriate) then we should Lain it before Mincha with the regular seven Aliyos (Mishna Berurah 135,5), otherwise wait for next Shabbos.

What if we get back during the week? Answer: Only Lain the regular normal weekday portion (the beginning part of the upcoming Parsha). People have to go to work! (Mishna Berurah 135,5).

What if we come back on a Tuesday? Should we Lain Monday's Laining on Tuesday to avoid “Three days without Torah”? ( tell us that Ezra HaSofer established the Laining on Monday & Thursday so that we will never go three days without Kriyas HaTorah). Answer: Despite the Ateres Zekainim's opinion, most Poskim rule that we should not Lain on Tuesday. It was not established as a Laining day by Chazal (Biur Halacha (135).

What about the missed Haftoras? Answer: The Oruch HaShulchan (who Paskens in accordance with the Hagahos Minhagim) says that we should make-up all the missing Haftoras as well. In other words, the one who gets Maftir on that first Shabbos back would read several Haftoras all together within one set of Brachos. I could not find any other to discuss this question and it would appear to me to possibly be a Tircha D'Tzibbura that it might not be so easy to get Mechila for doing so...

What if there was a Shul in the community that was still open and some Mispalelim heard Laining there? Answer: The Mishna Berurah (135, 7) quotes the Shaarei Ephraim who says that certainly the individuals who heard Kriyas HaTorah in another Shul are not required to hear it again. However, if the majority of the Mispalelim in a particular Shul did not hear the Laining then that Shul is required to do the make-up Laining. Conclusion

It is my intention with this Drasha to raise the issue and begin the discussion within the Kehila and to prepare ourselves for our return to Shul. In addition to the Halachik parameters discussed above, we need to be spiritually prepared to return to Shul. Davening, Learning & Performance of Mitzvos B'Tzibbur cannot be routine and taken for granted anymore. We have to appreciate every opportunity that Hashem gives us to get closer to Him through Avodas Hashem B'Tzibbur. We hope to have a Kinus (as soon as permitted) within our community to raise the level of appreciation for these sacred opportunities that we had become so accustomed to (and might not have appreciated enough). As we sit alone in our homes these days (especially Shabbos & Yom Tov) longing for the “normal” days of old, let us commit to using the “social closeness” that will IY”H come back soon, to love each other, cherish each other, and share our Avodas Hashem with each other, uplifting each other to higher spheres of Kedusha.

I find it interesting that these Halachos came about through strife within the Jewish communities of yesteryear in Cologne and Worms. Now, as we suffer through the Corona Virus pandemic we are once again facing this complicated Shayla. Maybe it is Hashem's subtle message to us that the current strife within the Jewish communities has recently risen to an unacceptable level and therefore we must revisit these Halachos LiMaase again. Now is an excellent time for each of us individually and communally to re-evaluate our relationships and focus on Ahavas Yisrael. Is Hashem be proud of us when we disrespect individual Yidden and entire Kehilos of Yidden who are Shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos to the best of their understanding and abilities but are of another “stripe or color” or hat/yamulke/head-covering type, etc. than us.? Why can't Yidden who have a 95%+ correlation in values with other Yidden of a different style (we all believe in the supremacy of Hashem's Torah, the 613 Mitzvos, The Mishna, Gemara and Shulchan Oruch, etc. etc.) focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us? Why focus on the less than 5% that divides us which is mostly Minhagim and nuances of interpretation of Halacha that have evolved over the years of separation in Galus? Why can't we respect and cherish Torah Leaders who have a different Mesorah than us? Are they not Talmidei Chachamim because they have a slightly different outlook than us???

May it be Hashem's Will that we should get out from under this terrible Machla quickly, and that Klal Yisrael will have a new appreciation for our Shuls, Kehillos, and especially that most important and Chiyuv of Ahavas Yisrael. May Hashem send Yeshuos & Refuos to Klal Yisrael and may we be Zoche to B'Nissan Asidin L'higa'el.

I would appreciate any and all of your comments & questions etc. I can be reached at [email protected].

Attachments Ohr Zarua Maharam Mintz Knesses HaGedolah Mogen Avraham Elya Rabba Maase Rav (with Tosfos Maase Rav) Halichos Shlomoh