Enjoying secular work on Saturday
Hello Rabbi,
What do you think about this halacha (I think it will make you smile):
In the previous halacha, we saw that according to Tzitz Eliezer (Part 11, Section 34), it is permissible to travel with a secular driver on Satsav, even though it is clear that he did not distinguish and did not say, “Blessed is He who distinguishes between the sacred and the profane” (the wording that permits performing work on Satsav). And we should note that this permission is also stated in Shimirat Shabbat Kehilatah, Chapter 99, Section 8.
We will add here that there are those who are careful to twist things in such a way that the driver will fulfill the obligation to say “Hambaddil”, and this is by saying to the driver “Shva Tov”, and he will answer “Shva Tov”, and by saying “Shva Tov”, he will fulfill the obligation to say “Baruch HaMabaddil bin Kodesh le Sholom” [Hatzitz Eliezer, in the above reference, states that this is the opinion of “Hagari Cohen”, and this is also noted in Shamirat Shabbat Kahalita, Chapter 95, Section 8, as “There are those who are careful”, and in his words – “And there are those who are careful to say to the driver upon entering the bus “Shva Tov”, so that he will answer him in this language, and the obligation to make a distinction arises from the Torah.” And in footnote 28, the author refers to the words of the aforementioned Rabbi Cohen, cited in Tzitz Eliezer]. However, many other poskim, including Tzitz Eliezer, disagree with this and believe that saying “Shvave Tov” is not equivalent to saying “Hambadil” [Tzitz Eliezer, in the above-mentioned note, rejects the words of the aforementioned Rabbi Cohen regarding “saying Shvave Tov”, and he emphasizes that even if we accept the well-known method of the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger, according to which a person departs from the Torah by sanctification by saying “Shabbat Shalom” (as is cited in the commentary on the halakhah in the note Reg Suf D’Etkesh, although the commentary on the halakhah itself there is confused about this), it is not appropriate to say this in relation to “Shvave Tov”. Indeed, the idea of havdalah is to mention Shvave Tov at its departure, and in saying “Shvave Tov”, a person does not mention Shvave Tov at all and its separation from the world, see ibid. This is also the opinion of the Rabbisz Auerbach. (cited in Observing Shabbat as Its Law, Chapter Noah, note 3, and Chapter 5, note 28), that the statement “Shva Tov” is not the same as the statement that distinguishes between the sacred and the profane; from Observing Shabbat as Its Law itself, it seems that he is undecided on the matter, see Chapter Noah, note 3, and Chapter 5, note 28].
In fact, from the study, it appears that the accepted and widespread opinion among the poskim is that a person is permitted to travel on Saturday with a secular driver even without saying “hambadil” at all or any other version (and this is for the reason we explained last time according to Tzitz Eliezer, and other opinions presented by Tzitz Eliezer himself, and see also Paski Teshuvot, cited, note 114). This is also how Paski Teshuvot writes (cited, note 114), but adds that in any case, if it is possible, it is correct to tell him to say “hambadil”, or at least to exchange “shva Tov” with him, so that at least according to certain opinions he will fulfill the obligation of “hambadil”, and so on.
Indeed. On the surface, this is pure nonsense, since the havdalah of a certain person is worth nothing. Havdalah is not lip service, but a statement that has halakhic significance. If someone says the entire havdalah just to sing a cheerful song for himself on Saturday, he is not a yadach. Certainly, the mitzvot require intention, and the anad also requires a mitzvot that does not. And certainly, if he does not believe and is obligated to all of this, then it is like the chirping of a starling.
Although one should teach a virtue and say that perhaps they mean a person who does believe but has not distinguished because he is overlapping. And yet, at most, this is a distinction in the case of a person who is busy.
It reminds me a bit of the debate among poskim about the end of the blessing of the three-part prayer whether to also say “and about the economy,” and in order to fulfill the obligation of the method of the Gra, which he ordered to omit, they say the following: “About living and about the economy, the Gaon said not to say.” Again, of course, this is nonsense from scholars in the Grose.
——————————————————————————————
Shua:
The scholastic exegesis of ‘Va’el Ha’Kho’im reminds me of the old question about ‘I will make you, and he will make you, with your firstborn’, which Rashi (Midrash) interpreted as ‘I will bring you, and he will make you with your firstborn’ (false speech + false intention is not enough, lest it be equal to truth in moderation). Jacob also said ‘The people you will find your God will not live’, as in his heart and in the heart of every person who did not think that it would be applied to Rachel, and Rashi there wrote ‘And from that curse Rachel died on the way’ (a gratuitous curse without intention for an active result). And most of all, the halacha of concluding Baruch You, the Lord in ‘Lamdani Ho’ik’ seems to me quite similar to the addition ‘The gaon said not to say’ (or that the whole problem with pronouncing the name of the Lord without justification is external). The difference is clear in the difference between Ha’dela and Ha’Kho’im. Pronouncing a sound without intention is meaningless, but there is room to understand (with wonder) that the sounds (whatever is intended for the pronunciation and their literal meaning) are referred to in themselves.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Beautiful examples indeed.
But still, I think there is a difference. In the case of “On the Economy,” there is nothing wrong with the person who says it, except that he does not say the correct wording according to the Gra. But a lie is an invalid statement by all accounts, even when it has justification (rejected). Likewise, a blessing for nothing is a forbidden statement (do not hear a falsehood), and therefore there is a place to tell a person to add something, even if it is meaningless in itself, if only to educate himself not to disparage a lie or a blessing for nothing. It is intended to educate him himself. But in the case of “On the Economy,” I find it difficult to see what the benefit of this meaningless addition is. What is he supposed to correct? After all, he did something that he believes is right.
Hello,
So what is the halacha regarding this, why is it supposedly permissible to enjoy a taxi ride if he did not differentiate?
He mentions sources there and you can read them. In my opinion, the secular driver does not violate Shabbat if he does not understand that he is obligated. A baby who was captured. In any case, it is clear that the application of Shabbat to him does not depend on his statement, which is meaningless anyway.
So why here – https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%94
You wrote –
A secular person's act is a Sabbath act for all intents and purposes. The fact that a secular person is a baby who was captured does not change this. Although he is not intentional but raped/accidental and the laws of an accidental Sabbath act apply to this
I didn't quite understand..
Even if it is a Shabbat act, it is done by rape. But I am not sure that there is a barrier to this at all as a Shabbat act because if he is an atheist, there is no desecration of Shabbat here at all. In any case, there are several reasons to permit it: There is no desecration of Shabbat here. Even if there is, we are now on our Shabbat and there is no prohibition on enjoying a Shabbat act. And when it is done accidentally, there are poskim who permit others (and even oneself) to do so on the same day. What is more, in the journey, no object is created, and there are poskim who have ruled that in this way there is no prohibition on performing a Shabbat act.
Hello,
If you search Google for phrases like reading the news on Shabbat night, you see many answers that say you have to wait about half an hour after Shabbat ends to see the news. Is this true? And if so, what's the difference between this and the other chores?
And what's the point of waiting half an hour? After all, if it's clear that it was prepared on Shabbat, then what's the "point"? And there are also articles and other things that clearly take much longer than half an hour.
Waiting “for them to do it” is said of a Gentile’s work. According to most opinions, this law does not apply to a Jew’s work. I don’t know where they got the half-hour lesson from. In my opinion, it is not necessary.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
