Q&A: A Few Questions That Came Up for Me During the Holiday
A Few Questions That Came Up for Me During the Holiday
Question
Hello Rabbi, during the holiday a few questions came up for me.
1) During the holiday we arrived at a house and discovered that we had forgotten to plug the hot plate into an outlet that operates on a Sabbath timer. Is it permitted to plug it into the outlet when I know that only a few hours later it will start operating? If this is forbidden, then given a situation where someone plugged it in on his own initiative, is it permitted to benefit from the hot plate?
2) I was in several synagogues over the holiday, and I was very bothered by the trend of synagogue wardens to take advantage of the holiday and sell anything that moves. In the past they used to sell aliyot, but today they literally sell everything—for example, a blessing for the week’s Torah study, for Saturday night Zohar study, for Psalms, a weekly/monthly/annual blessing, and so on. The warden of course promises whoever buys it a flourishing and successful year, etc. It gives a bit of the feeling of amulet sellers, and of course it wastes a huge amount of the congregation’s time (the sale lasted about fifteen minutes!). I wanted to know the Rabbi’s opinion about this.
Answer
Sorry for the delay. It slipped my mind.
- In my opinion this is permitted. At most, this is kindling indirectly. Certainly when it is for holiday enjoyment (for the holiday meal). This assumes that the timer is already connected and you are only plugging the hot plate into it. Connecting the timer itself causes it to start moving immediately, and that is forbidden.
- I also don’t like it. So I would suggest that if it bothers you, offer the wardens all the money they need and have them give up the sales. If you don’t have the money or don’t want to give it, I don’t see room for criticism. As for the blessings for a successful year, I assume these are wishes and not promises. It is always permitted to wish someone well. When you say “have a good year” to your friend, you are wishing him the same thing.
Discussion on Answer
I meant that the prohibition could be, at most, indirect kindling.
And what I mean to ask is whether it is also at least indirect kindling, or whether perhaps it is not even that.
I don’t think it is less than indirect causation.
Why “at most”? Could it be less than indirect causation?