Traffic jam on Saturday
Hello, Your Honor,
Last Shabbat, we were in Jerusalem with another couple of friends – two families together. During Shabbat, the circuit breaker tripped, causing both the hotplate and the refrigerator to turn off, and a pot of bread and water that had been prepared for Shabbat broke.
To solve the problem, we turned to a foreign worker who we don't know personally, but we know that she works for someone who observes Shabbat and therefore knows the way to conduct herself and the hints. We hinted to her to lift the cork, she understood and did so, and then we gave her a bottle of orange juice as a gift.
As I understand it, to permit such a situation, the gentile must receive a direct benefit from his action. Here she lifted the cork but did not actually open the refrigerator. My friend argues that it is permissible because her landlady encouraged her, and she accepted the bottle of juice.
Did we act correctly according to Halacha, especially in light of the fact that there was a great need – both the hotplate and the refrigerator were turned off, the food could have spoiled, and we were dealing with two families with small children?
In principle, only a statement to a non-Jew is permitted under a rabbinic prohibition. A hint is no different from a statement. In cases of great necessity, one should rely on the method that also permitted a statement under a Torah prohibition.
Thank you Rabbi for the answer.
In our case, there are many small children.
Is this a big need or did we just have to eat cold and let the refrigerator break down?
The benefit that must come from the person who performs the act is a direct benefit, for example, the food he needs will not spoil if he lifts the fuse on the refrigerator, etc. The orange juice he received after the act is not considered a benefit, because this type of benefit always exists (in the form of a bottle of orange juice or in the form of gratitude).
It certainly seems to me to be a great necessity. The source that permits a statement in Dauraita deals with lighting a candle for the light, which seems much less essential.
Rabbi, why is eating hot food such a big necessity? People eat cold food every day. You can eat cold food and still be fine even if hot food is considered tastier, right?
A candle for light at night, at least in their time, was indeed more needed because it was impossible to see at night (there was no city night lighting outside, etc. that could penetrate the house a little). It is possible that nowadays it is actually less of a need (depending of course on location, etc.).
First of all, the refrigerator also went out. Second, nowadays, cooked food that is not hot is definitely a great need, especially for children. In their days, they lived in darkness, so I think the need for a candle was not really that acute. There was natural light from the moon and the stars and other people's candles. If I think about us today, it seems to me that the vast majority would prefer darkness at dinner than the absence of a hot plate and a refrigerator.
Assuming the problem was only with the plate (say the refrigerator was connected to a different power source), would you still think so?
I don't know, Rabbi, I think even children could manage on one Shabbat with lukewarm food. Like eating a sandwich, or a cold schnitzel, or a cold pizza. Not the end of the world, certainly not if it's a one-time occurrence.
If the problem was just a plate, there is room for discussion. It depends on what food is available, and what the children eat. I don't have a general answer.
According to most poskim, there is no problem here with the lighting of electricity by rabbis (except that according to Rav Michi, it is from the Torah).
Although the plate is a Torah command, its intention in lifting the plug is not to the plate but to the general electricity, so with regard to the plate, this is a rishya comma that is permissible when said to a non-Jew.
The truth is, I had a disagreement with a friend of mine about something that happened to us.
We originally went out on the street looking for someone who had a Shabbat plate, and we found a nice woman who offered us the use of her plate.
My friend asked her if she knew a foreign worker, and she said yes.
I thought it would be better to use that woman's palette, and not ask the foreign worker to lift the cork. As we noted here, the foreign worker did not receive any direct compensation for lifting the cork — she was only indirectly given orange juice.
My question:
If in such a case we have an alternative to heating the food, or even the option of eating it cold, would it still be permissible to ask the Gentile to lift the cork on cue?
And is the mere request from a Gentile to violate the Sabbath by implication considered a prohibition from the Torah (Da'oraita) or from the rabbis?
The rabbi noted that he does not distinguish between a hint and an explicit statement to a Gentile.
But according to the content of this video
There is a difference, if I understood the video correctly. The rabbi there (in the context of alluding to a non-Jew for permissible work) implies that it is permissible to refer to a non-Jew for the purpose of heating Shabbat, for example, to light a hot plate to heat food for small children — and for us to enjoy the hot food too.
This is a rabbinical prohibition. This is a statement about a Torah prohibition (in my opinion), and therefore one should not be lenient except in cases of great necessity. In stating a rabbinical prohibition, they permitted instead of a mitzvah, and the pleasure of Shabbat is a mitzvah. The Rama wrote that there is no difference between a statement and an allusion, and this is the opinion of most poskim. The Bahá'í Church does, however, divide.
Thank you to the rabbi for the response. I would also like to hear the rabbi's opinion on the situation and my previous question.
My question:
If in such a case we have an alternative to heating the food, or even the option of eating it cold, would it still be permissible to ask the Gentile to lift the cork on cue?
And is the mere request from a Gentile to violate the Sabbath by implication considered a prohibition from the Torah (Da'oraita) or from the rabbis?
I answered everything. Saying something to a non-Jew is a rabbinical prohibition. Simply put, there is no difference between saying something and implying something.
There is a difference between telling a non-Jew to commit a rabbinic prohibition (shevut deshvot) and telling him to commit a Torah prohibition (shevut da'Oriyata).
Shvut Dashvot are permitted in place of a mitzvah (i.e. for the purpose of a mitzvah). Shvut Da'ariyya is usually permitted for a very great need.
Using a brace, in my opinion, is a Torah prohibition, but many poskim believe that this is only rabbinical.
The need for hot food is a mitzvah need (a Shabbat pleasure) but not a very great need.
Hence, in my opinion, this is a return from the Torah for the purpose of a mitzvah (and not a very great need), and is prohibited. However, according to many jurists, this is a return from the Torah and is permitted for the purpose of a mitzvah.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer