someone told me that he stopped davening in a certain shul because he saw members driving to shul on shabbos (the shul doesnt close their parking lot on shabbos.)

is there a makkor in halacha not to daven in a shul that some members are mechalel shabbos befarhesya (desecrating the Sabbath in public) (even though they might have the geder of being a "tinok shenishba" (a child that was lost among the nations ie. brought up in a non-religious house))?

  • 2
    Is there a minyan without them? – Double AA Jun 5 '15 at 5:00
  • lets say yes there is a minyan without him – wondering jew Jun 5 '15 at 5:21
  • @DoubleAA I heard a certain posek say that "it isn't k'dai" (if I recall his terminology) for Reuven to help make a minyan if Shimon (one of the only ten attendees) will specifically drive to join that minyan as a result. (There were some complicating factors in the specific case the posek was addressing, but it seemed to me that he would likely agree that it's a general rule. I can imagine various halachic arguments to potentially technically get around prohibitions like lifnei 'iver and mitzva haba'a ba'aveira, so maybe that's why he didn't expressly say it's forbidden). – Fred Jun 5 '15 at 5:31
  • @Fred The OP's question wasn't only about Shabbat services... Also that sounds similar to considerations here: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/15666/759 – Double AA Jun 5 '15 at 5:54
  • @DoubleAA Yes, I was thinking that, too. But I imagine that even the lenient positions would at least frown on having a minyan that only takes place because someone drives there, essentially building the minyan on the back of chillul Shabbos. יצא שכרו בהפסידו, I think. – Fred Jun 5 '15 at 6:20

I'll try to explain the permissibility of including any Jew as part of the minyan at all times, summarizing answers I got on this discussion from 3 notable Orthodox rabbis.

Rabbi #1 had a small shul and on Shabbat many of them drove. A number of the walkers asked him why he allows this. He answered that he does not explicitly tell them to drive to shul on SHabbat. But, if he excluded them, inevitably, they would rive to the Reform shul in the next neighborhood. There, they would be less likely to be exposed to Shomrei Shabbat & Shomrei Mitzvot people. Thus, in a sense, the rabbi was concerned about kiruv. He felt that by encouraging them to come to his shul, when they see the beauty of the shul and Shabbat, hopefully, on their own, they would become Shomer Shabbat - of course with some assistance from him.

The other two rabbis concurred with his viewpoint, as they had similar problems in their own shuls.

In Rabbi #1's case, because he was in a small community, he stated that if the drivers didn't come on Shabbat, there would be no minyan at all, at in a sense, that would penalize him as well as the other walkers / Shomrei Shabbat people who attend shul. And, then, what would be the point of having his shul in the first place if no one came? I.e. - a firm "No" would have repercussions as he feared that to find SOME minyan on Shabbat, the Shomrei Shabbat people would daven in the Conservative or Reform shul. So, should his shul always remain empty on Shabbat while the other shuls "pick up the slack"?

The other 2 rabbis agreed with the 1st rabbi's view. As for the rest of the week, ALL 3 shuls have had a problem with getting a minyan, even now. All 3 rabbis are happy when any Jew davens with a minyan. He cared enough to daven and he helped others daven with a minyan, esp. those who have to say Kaddish. For many of them saying Kaddish, alone is what makes them attend a minyan in the first place! All 3 rabbis have stated that in the majority of cases, when those that said Kaddish were not Shomer Shabbat, it was directly because of their 11-month experience of attending the minyan daily that many of them became Shomer Shabbat - something that almost certainly would NOT have happened on its own had the rabbi excluded them from the minyan.

And, one rabbi pointed out that while Gentiles are not included in a minyan, they are invited to come to a shul and pray with us, if they wish. So, we should welcome a Gentile, but exclude a non-Shomer Shabbat Jew? (By excluding, he didn't mean that he would expel him from the shul. But he meant that they would exclude themselves because we made them feel unwelcome.)

In brief, I have no direct halachic proof from any of these rabbis. But, I think that their view of kiruv and their insight into solidifying an often weak community by finding some leniency is notable and encouraging.

If you'd like me to inquire further about any specific aspect, inform me as I am very much in contact with 2 of the 3 rabbis.

|improve this answer|||||
  • thats a nice feeling to include all jews (and the idea how it will help bring them to be shomer shabbos) but if it will be against halacha then its not the correct thing to do. so is there a halachic source backing up either side? – wondering jew Jun 7 '15 at 2:37
  • 1
    @wonderingjew - I implicitly trust rabbinical decisions, esp. in this case. Some rabbis are "schmendricks". I personally know all 3 of them extremely well. So, when they make a decision such as this, I trust that they have researched halacha quite well. Furthermore, in this case 3 rabbis - all knowledgeable and trustworthy have concurred, and I made no mention to any one of what the other said, so there was no bias. While I understand your skeptcism, and that's fair, all I'm stating is that I feel that 3 opinions from 3 notable rabbis in their positions, I feel is very reliable. – DanF Jun 7 '15 at 3:06
  • @wonderingjew As stated in my answer, if there is a very specific question that you want me to ask, let me know and I shall try to obtain the answer. – DanF Jun 7 '15 at 3:07
  • honestly i agree with your rabbis answer but i want to know on what halachic source they based their answer on (where in halacha does it speak about this?) – wondering jew Jun 8 '15 at 3:13
  • @wonderingjew B"N, I'll see what I can discover – DanF Jun 8 '15 at 14:28

Do you know the person well enough? Maybe it is pikuach nefesh regarding an injury they themselves sustain, or regarding medical support that they give to a gravely ill person.

|improve this answer|||||

Yes a simple proof. We say in kol nidrai that we are matir to daven with evildoers that shows that the whole year we must't

|improve this answer|||||
  • Maybe the permission of Kol Nidrei lasts Ad Yom Kippurim HaBa – Double AA Jun 5 '15 at 5:02
  • No that sounds ridiculous, sorry. If that would be the case why should permission be necessary @DoubleAA – cham Jun 5 '15 at 5:06
  • Same reason you do Kol Nidrei every year. – Double AA Jun 5 '15 at 5:13
  • who said evildoers means chilul shabbos? – wondering jew Jun 5 '15 at 5:17
  • and even if it does include chilul shabbos, if someone was brought up in a non frum house is he begeder tinok shenishbah? if yes then hes definitely not considered an evildoer (at least you cant blame him its not his fault) – wondering jew Jun 5 '15 at 5:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .