Berakhot 095

1:
The subject of our mishnah is Musaf, the Additional Amidah. This Amidah is recited, some time after the Shaĥarit [morning] Amidah, on all those days on which a special, additional, sacrifice was offered in the Bet Mikdash. For the sake of clarity let us enumerate those days: every Shabbat, every Rosh Ĥodesh, and all the days of Pesaĥ, Shavu'ot, Rosh ha-Shanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot respectively.

2:
The language of our mishnah is not the clearest possible, and I have tried to reflect that fact in the translation. The Gemara [Berakhot 30a] clarifies that there are only two views presented in this mishnah: that of Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah and that of the rest of the sages; Rabbi Yehudah [ben Ilai] is merely rewording the statement of Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah. Furthermore, it is by no means clear what the term "municipal community" [Ĥever-Ir] means precisely. This confusion is compounded by the fact that some even read the term differently in Hebrew: Chaver-Ir. However, the general import of the mishnah is reasonably clear: the "maĥloket" [difference of opinion] between Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah and the sages is concerned with whether the Musaf Amidah is only a duty of the community – a duty which the individual can discharge only as part of the communal totality, and from which he is excused when worshipping in private – or whether the individual worshipper also has a religious duty to recite the Musaf Amidah.

3:
The term we have translated "municipal community" has been given two explanations, though they both eventually reduce to a similar intent. According to those who read the Hebrew text as Ĥever-Ir, the term indicates a township or settlement over which there is a rabbinical presidium (not necessarily a Bet Din) that supervises the religious life of the community. (This presidium, or council, would be different from the lay administration that in mishnaic times in Eretz-Israel was called the Boule [pronounced 'boo-lay'], a Greek word meaning council or tribunal.) According to those who read the Hebrew text as Ĥaver-Ir, the term reflects a township or settlement that has what we would now call a communal Rabbi or Chief Rabbi.

4:
The view of Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah (as clarified by Rabbi Yehudah) is that Musaf is only to be recited (by the individual citizens) in a township that has rabbinical leadership, and that where such leadership is absent both the [public quorum of the] community and the individual citizens are excused this duty. The sages reject this view: according to them Musaf is to be recited even by individuals under all circumstances. Halakhah follows the opinion of the sages.

Mitch Bruntel takes issue with an argument put forward by Rick Dinitz in Berakhot 091:

If we argue that the cellular machinery that unfolds DNA from a single cell into a full-blown human infant is indeed a Mal'akh [angel] – faithfully (and mechanistically) executing God's will in the physical world… then how do we reconcile God's rejection of those who cannot perform this mitzvah due to infertility? I consider myself grateful that I do have one biological child, but my adopted son is no less a miracle either.

I respond:

But even an adopted child is created in the manner described by Rick! I think that it is rather simplistic to equate infertility with rejection by God. But I think that both Mitch and Rick would agree that Mitch's adopted son is no less a miracle than any other child. However, there is an added value in this case: while it is not a religious duty, the adoption of a child and giving it the love and care that should be the lot of every child, is considered in our tradition to be a very great virtue.

Aimée Yermish writes on the same topic:

I've been saying precisely the same thing [as Rick Dinitz said] for many years, in trying to explain to people how I can be both a religious Jew and a serious scientist at the same time. Lots of people thought that I must have to carry the two ideas in two different pockets, and only take out one at a time, but I disagree – when I learn something amazing about the natural world, I am moved to bless God for creating a world that creates itself with such beauty. To me, a God who must directly intervene in every aspect of creation is far less awesome than a God who could build something that builds itself constantly, without needing to be pushed. It's wonderful to realize that I'm not a heretic.

I respond:

I once heard that Albert Einstein, whenever he came to understand a new principle of physics, would say to himself, "Ah! so that's how God did it!" I would be grateful if anyone can direct me to a reliable source.