Oberlander Báruch rabbi (szerk.): A rabbi válaszol. Modern kérdések, hagyományos válaszok 4 - Zsidó Ismeretek Tára 38. A rabbi válaszol 4. (Budapest, 2021)
I. rész. Kérdezd a rabbit világjárvány idején - Zsinagóga és imádkozás
Zsidó ismeretek tára 34 public, reading the Torah, and any other gathering, whether for the sake of a Mitzva or not. Meaning, that one who is lenient, even in the slightest manner, in matters of life and death, just so that he should merit the answering of “Omein, Yehei Shmei Raba”, and praying with a Minyan, merits nothing in actuality. Furthermore, he brought bad upon himself, for he transgressed a Halacha pertaining to the severe matters of life and death. We may further say, that just as we explained the above regarding the observance of Shabbat, this type of prayer may not even be considered praying with a Minyan at all. When the actual gathering endangered the public, we surely can not say that the congregants “united” in prayer, for this “gathering” was, in fact, a case in which the individuals gathering were actually acting against one another. Therefore, the repetition made by the Chazan would be considered a string of Blessings in Vain, which according to some opinions is a transgression אתיירואד (on a Torah level). Furthermore, in this case we would also have to take into consideration the possible problem of “A Mitzvah came about via a sin” (האר ת״וש גנוע םוי בוט ׳יס אמ). MAY WE NOT RELY ON THE GOVERNMENTS WHEN THEY PERMIT CONGREGATING One may say: When the government themselves rule that people may not congregate at all, I can understand that someone who under those circumstances decides to pray with a Minyan, and therefore “transgresses” the government rulings, does not merit a Mitzvah. He may even have been part of Blessings in Vain, etc. However, when the government allows leniencies, and says that people may begin to congregate again under certain conditions, we should apply the Talmudic rule: “They said it was dangerous, and they are now saying that it is NOT dangerous anymore”. Sadly, the answer to that claim is very simple. The government has not ruled that these situations are in fact not dangerous anymore, but rather they ruled that since there are a variety of mitigating circumstances, they recognize the need to loosen up the restrictions. However, all along they themselves are admitting that the danger is still present, as we will see below.
