Q&A: Benefiting on Saturday Night from the Work of a Secular Jew
Benefiting on Saturday Night from the Work of a Secular Jew
Question
Hello Rabbi,
What do you think of this Jewish law ruling (it seems to me it might make you smile):
In the previous ruling we saw, based on Tzitz Eliezer (vol. 11, no. 34), that it is permitted to ride with a secular driver on Saturday night, even though it is obvious that he did not recite Havdalah, nor even say “Blessed is He who distinguishes between holy and ordinary” (the formula that permits doing labor on Saturday night). And we should note that this permission is also brought in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhatah, chapter 59, סעיף 8.
Let us add here that some are careful to arrange things so that the driver will in fact fulfill his obligation of saying “the One who distinguishes,” by saying to the driver “Have a good week,” and he answers “Have a good week,” and by saying “Have a good week” he thereby fulfills the obligation of saying “Blessed is He who distinguishes between holy and ordinary” [Tzitz Eliezer, in the above-mentioned section, cites that this is the view of Rabbi Y. Cohen, and Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhatah, chapter 59 section 8, also mentions it as “some are careful,” in the following language: “And some are careful, upon boarding the bus, to say to the driver ‘Have a good week,’ so that he will answer him in that same expression, and thereby fulfill the Torah obligation of Havdalah.” In footnote 28 the author refers to the above words of Rabbi Y. Cohen cited in Tzitz Eliezer]. However, many other halakhic authorities, including Tzitz Eliezer, disagree and hold that saying “Have a good week” is not equivalent to saying “the One who distinguishes” [Tzitz Eliezer, in the above-mentioned section, rejects the view of Rabbi Y. Cohen regarding “saying ‘Have a good week,’” and emphasizes that even if we accept the well-known view of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, according to which a person fulfills the Torah obligation of Kiddush by saying “Shabbat Shalom” (as brought in Bi’ur Halakhah on section 273, end of s.v. de-itkash, though Bi’ur Halakhah itself there questions it), one cannot say the same regarding “Have a good week.” For the whole idea of Havdalah is to mention the Sabbath as it departs, and by saying “Have a good week” a person does not mention the Sabbath at all, nor its distinction from the weekday; see there. And so too Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held (cited in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhatah, chapter 58 note 31 and chapter 59 note 28), that saying “Have a good week” is not like saying “the One who distinguishes between holy and ordinary”; from Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhatah itself it seems that he hesitates on the matter; see chapter 58 note 31 and chapter 59 note 28].
Practically speaking, from examining the sources it appears that the accepted and prevalent view among the halakhic authorities is that one may ride on Saturday night with a secular driver even if he does not say “the One who distinguishes” at all, nor any other formula (for the reason we explained last time based on Tzitz Eliezer, along with other considerations brought by Tzitz Eliezer himself; see also Piskei Teshuvot, 299, note 114). And this is also what Piskei Teshuvot writes (299, note 114), except that he adds that nevertheless, if possible, it is proper to tell him to say “the One who distinguishes,” or at least exchange “Have a good week” with him, so that at least according to certain opinions he will have fulfilled the obligation of “the One who distinguishes,” as explained above.
Answer
Indeed. At first glance this is utter nonsense, since this particular fellow’s Havdalah is worth absolutely nothing. Havdalah is not just moving one’s lips, but a statement that has halakhic significance. If someone were to say the whole Havdalah merely to sing himself a cheerful tune on Saturday night, he would not fulfill his obligation. Certainly according to the view that commandments require intention, and in my humble opinion even according to the view that they do not. And certainly if he does not believe in any of this and is not bound by it, then it is just meaningless chirping.
Still, one can judge it favorably and say that perhaps they mean a person who does believe, but just didn’t recite Havdalah because he is sloppy. Even then, at most this would be a mindless, unintentional Havdalah.
It reminds me a bit of the dispute among the halakhic authorities about the ending of the blessing Me’ein Shalosh, whether one should also say “and for sustenance,” and in order to satisfy the view of the Vilna Gaon, who ruled to omit it, people say the formula: “for sustenance and for livelihood, the Gaon said not to say it.” And again, of course, this is just penny-ante scholastic nonsense.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
The penny-ante scholasticism of “and for sustenance” reminds me of the old question about “I am Esau your firstborn,” which Rashi explains (from the midrash): “I am the one bringing it to you, and Esau is your firstborn” (false speech plus false intent isn’t enough, because perhaps in Media it counts as truth). Jacob also said, “Whoever is found with your gods shall not live,” when in his own heart and in everyone’s mind he certainly did not think it would apply to Rachel, and Rashi there wrote, “And from that curse Rachel died on the way” (a gratuitous curse without intent for that outcome still takes effect). And especially, the Jewish law of ending “Blessed are You, Lord” with “teach me Your statutes” seems to me very similar to adding “the Gaon said not to say it” (unless the whole problem of uttering God’s name without justification is only from the outside). The difference is clear: in Havdalah and “and for sustenance,” making a sound without intention is meaningless, but there is room to understand, however surprisingly, that people relate to the sounds themselves (as long as one intends their utterance and literal meaning).
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Indeed, nice examples.
But still, it seems to me there is a difference. In the case of “and for sustenance,” there is nothing inherently invalid about someone saying it, except that according to the Vilna Gaon he is not using the correct text. But falsehood is a flawed statement according to everyone, even when there is justification for it, and similarly a blessing in vain is a forbidden statement (“You shall not bear a false report” / taking God’s name in vain), so there is room to tell a person to add something, even if meaningless in itself, if only to train himself not to treat falsehood or a blessing in vain lightly. That is meant to educate the person himself. But in the case of “and for sustenance,” I have a hard time seeing what this meaningless addition accomplishes. What is he supposed to be fixing? After all, he did something that in his view was correct.
Discussion on Answer
He mentions sources there, and you can read them. In my opinion, a secular driver is not desecrating the Sabbath if he does not understand that he is obligated. He is like a captive child. In any case, it is clear that the applicability of the Sabbath to him does not depend on his saying anything, which in any event is meaningless.
So why did you write 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:
An act done by a secular Jew is an act of Sabbath desecration in every respect. The fact that a secular Jew is like a captive child does not change that. True, he is not intentional but coerced / unwitting, and therefore the laws of benefiting from Sabbath labor done unwittingly apply.
I didn’t really understand..
Even if it is considered an act of Sabbath desecration, it was done under compulsion. But I am not sure that it has the category of an act of Sabbath desecration at all, because if he is an atheist then there is no Sabbath desecration here in the first place. In any case, there are several reasons to permit it: there is no Sabbath desecration here. Even if there is, as far as we are concerned it is already Saturday night, and there is no prohibition on benefiting from Sabbath labor then. And when it was done unwittingly, there are halakhic authorities who permit it for others (and even for the person himself) even on that same day. Also, in a ride no object is produced, and there are authorities who ruled that in such a case there is no prohibition of benefiting from Sabbath labor.
Hello,
If you search Google for phrases like reading the news on Saturday night, you see many answers saying that one must wait about half an hour after the end of the Sabbath before watching the news. Is that correct? And if so, what is the difference between that and other kinds of labor?
And what is this business of waiting half an hour? If it is obvious that it was prepared on the Sabbath, then what exactly is the point? And there are also articles and other things where it is obvious that they take much more than half an hour.
Waiting the amount of time it would take to do the work was said regarding labor done by a non-Jew. According to most opinions, with labor done by a Jew this rule does not apply. I do not know where they got the measure of half an hour from. In my opinion, there is no need for it.
Hello,
So what is the actual Jewish law here? Why is it apparently permitted to benefit from a taxi driver if he did not recite Havdalah?