8

Inspired by this question.

Can lepers form a Minyan, or is that an inherent contradiction in the status of a Metzora'?

Community
  • 1
Seth J
  • 41,606
  • 7
  • 85
  • 245
  • 1
    [tag:halacha-theory]? – Double AA Jul 09 '12 at 23:18
  • I think so. It's about the status of a leper as much as it is about the practical application. – Seth J Jul 09 '12 at 23:38
  • 2
    I think [tag:halachah-theory] is bandied about a bit much: it's becoming a near-synonym to [tag:halacha]. – msh210 Jul 09 '12 at 23:49
  • Also, what about a zimun? – msh210 Jul 09 '12 at 23:49
  • @SethJ I think the tag you want is [tag:lomdus] even as it is poorly defined. [tag:halacha-theory] is IMO reserved for question about the halchik process. Perhaps a new meta post is in order? – Double AA Jul 10 '12 at 00:13
  • 1
    @DoubleAA No need, we have one already. We just need to implement it. – msh210 Jul 10 '12 at 00:16
  • I assumed lomdus was more about Shakla VeTarya. Also, I forgot it existed. :-\ – Seth J Jul 10 '12 at 00:35
  • @SethJ I think that's more [tag:talmud-gemara]. [tag:lomdus] is for conceptual understandings of various halchot. IMO. – Double AA Jul 10 '12 at 01:56
  • DoubleAA and @msh210, upon further reflection, IMHO, this is not a question of Halachah at all. The question is not whether one may form such a Minyan, but whether it has a status of a Minyan (there is no real Nafka Minah so far as I can tell, except the classification of this question with respect to tagging). – Seth J Jul 27 '12 at 14:32
  • @SethJ, "whether it has a status of a Minyan" = "not a question of Halachah at all"? Why? – msh210 Jul 27 '12 at 15:46
  • @msh210, Halachah would dictate whether the Minyan may recite Kaddish, et al. Theory of Halachah would tell us whether it is a Minyan for purposes of determining the Halachah as above. Hence, no Nafka Minah other than for tagging. That's how I see it, anyway. – Seth J Jul 27 '12 at 17:15
  • @SethJ http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/17611/can-there-be-a-minyan-of-lepers#comment40482_17611 – msh210 Jul 27 '12 at 17:21
  • @msh210 but I've pointed out the difference. I think the lines are pretty clear in this case. Especially since the only Nafka Minah is the tag. The Theory leads to the application of the Halachah. It's Meta.Halachah. – Seth J Jul 27 '12 at 17:44

1 Answers1

3

I think that the answer is yes.

I base my answer on Mishnah N'ga`im 13:12:

נכנס לבית הכנסת, עושים לו מחיצה גבוהה עשרה טפחים על רחב ארבע אמות.‏

נכנס ראשון, ויוצא אחרון.‏

(Informal translation: If [the leper] goes into the synagogue, they make him a barrier [mechitza] ten handbreadths high by four cubits wide. He enters first, and leaves last.)

The commentaries I've seen indicate that the problem is that if the leper is in the same room as someone, he transmits tum'ah (ritual impurity) to the other person.

(So far, BTW, all I've written applies equally to men and women; the Mishnah usually uses the male form for gender-neutral laws.)

In any case, there is no problem, according to this Mishnah, for lepers to be in the synagogue at the same time as other people. I don't think it is a stretch to say that the purpose of entering the synagogue is to pray with the congregation.

Because of other minyan considerations, all members must be present in the same space. So I don't think that lepers and non-lepers can combine to form a minyan, at least not an indoors minyan.

The Mishna seems to say that lepers can pray together with a pre-existing minyan, in shul. Therefore, their isolation doesn't have to be total. That's why I assume they can make their own minyan.

JXG
  • 3,130
  • 18
  • 20
  • 1
    So, to be clear, I'm asking if it would work, ie, if they can be counted among the community, and whether, therefore, they can effectively create a community amongst themselves. You are saying yes? – Seth J Aug 02 '12 at 12:24
  • +1 for the answer, and IMO the content of your comment, JXG, deserves to be in the answer also. – msh210 Aug 02 '12 at 13:19
  • Hmm, I'm still not 100% convinced. It's a good answer, but I'm not sure the thesis follows from the argument. Just because the Mishnah explains what to do if a leper goes to Shul, that does not mean that lepers can form a Minyan. He may be permitted to go, so long as he's still kept separate from the congregation. Maybe he is being allowed to go because he doesn't know the prayers and wants to hear them and answer Amen. Maybe he is allowed to go to hear Parashath Zachor. Maybe he is allowed to go to hear a Shi'ur. The Mishnah just tells us what to do if he goes: still keep him apart. – Seth J Aug 02 '12 at 14:36
  • Very creative idea! I'm not sure though that we wouldn't let him combine to form a minyan over only a ten tefach mechitza; that isn't so different from just a table. – Double AA Aug 02 '12 at 15:53
  • @SethJ, the Mishnah isn't telling us to keep him "apart." The Mishnah is telling us how to prevent a shul-going leper from transmitting tum'ah to the rest of the congregation. (I suggest seeing the Mishnah in context.) It seems to me that if the rest of the minyan were already impure by contact with lepers, there would be no limitations at all. There should certainly be no limitations on how many lepers are in the lepers' section. – JXG Aug 05 '12 at 06:36
  • @DoubleAA, it's not very high, but the requirement is for the entire minyan to be in the same place; see Orach Chayyim 55. Actually, Seth J, that Siman says that a m'nudeh does not count for a minyan, but there are many types of niduyim (Yoreh De`ah 334), and the Rambam says that the leper can learn and teach Torah (Tum'at Tzara`at 10:6). – JXG Aug 05 '12 at 07:05
  • @JXG I still don't see why the metzora's fence makes them not in the same place as regards a minyan. See particularly Seif 19 – Double AA Aug 05 '12 at 07:38
  • @DoubleAA, the bimah (seif 19) is part of the shul in a way that the women's section (seif 18) is not. The metzora's mechitzah is a mechitzah matteret, unlike the women's mechitzah, so it follows that it should be more stringent. – JXG Aug 05 '12 at 09:19
  • @JXG The Rambam 10:12 implies that the mechitza is just there to prevent him from intermingling with the others and making them Tamei. Sounds a lot like a women's mechitza to me :) And IAE many of the achronim to 55:17-19 say that if they can see each other, they for sure combine in all those cases. – Double AA Aug 05 '12 at 09:33