Q&A: Appearance of Impropriety on the Sabbath
Appearance of Impropriety on the Sabbath
Question
Hello. In the Shulchan Arukh it is ruled that if you have a non-Jew do labor for you and agree with him on a fixed payment, there is no problem, since the non-Jew is working on his own behalf. But if you did not agree with him on a fixed payment, he may not do your work because of the concern for appearance of impropriety, lest people say that the non-Jew is your agent. I wanted to know: if the reason it is forbidden is appearance of impropriety, why does it make any difference whether he was given a fixed payment?
Answer
Hello Shachar. When you agree with him on a fixed payment, he is a contractor, and then he works on his own behalf and at the time he sees fit. It is his decision when to work. But if you did not agree on payment, then he is a laborer (a hired worker) and not a contractor, and then it looks like you are sending him to do labor on the Sabbath. See Mishnah Berurah, section 252, subsections 12 and 14.
Discussion on Answer
I explained. Because without a fixed payment it looks like wage labor rather than contract work, and then the appearance of impropriety is created.
Excuse me, but I still do not understand. How do other people know whether he agreed on a fixed payment or not? When there is a fixed payment, is it publicly known? If not, they would still come to suspect him.
First, they probably do know. Second, something forbidden because of appearance of impropriety is forbidden even in the innermost private rooms. And third, it is an appearance issue for the person himself as well: he may come to permit himself to send a non-Jew to work on the Sabbath, because he knows they allowed it for him when no fixed payment was agreed upon.
This whole issue of appearance of impropriety requires clarification—why should a Jew suspect his fellow of publicly desecrating the Sabbath?
First, in circumstances where it looks that way, people definitely do become suspicious.
Second, you are assuming that prohibitions of appearance of impropriety are meant to prevent suspicion. But that is not necessary. The suspicion may be a sign and not the reason: it is forbidden to be in circumstances that arouse suspicion of committing a prohibition, because that is a state close to the prohibition itself.
I looked into it. The whole problem is only because of appearance of impropriety, so I do not understand why agreeing on a fixed payment creates a substantive difference here.