חדש באתר: עוזר בינה מלאכותית המבוסס על כתביו ושיעוריו של הרב מיכאל אברהם

Q&A: Sabbath Delight versus Insulting the Hosts

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

Sabbath Delight versus Insulting the Hosts

Question

The Beit Yosef in section 249 wrote: “One should not travel on Sabbath eve more than three parasangs,” etc. At the beginning of the chapter Lulav and Aravah it says: Ivu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok, “A person should not walk on Friday eve more than three parasangs.” Rav Kahana said: “We said this only when going to his home, but when going to an inn, why not? Since he relies on what is available there.” Another version says: “This was necessary only even regarding his home.” And Rav Kahana said: “This happened to me personally, and I did not even find a cup of fish brine.” The Rif and the Rosh wrote this at the beginning of the first chapter of tractate Shabbat, and it seems that we rule in accordance with the latter version. And so Maimonides ruled in chapter 30, and these are also the words of Rabbenu. And it appears to me that this is when he is in an inhabited place where he can prepare Sabbath needs; but if he is in a place where it is impossible to prepare Sabbath needs, it is preferable that he come home—perhaps he will be able to prepare Sabbath needs—rather than remain there, where he certainly will not be able to prepare Sabbath needs. And even if he is going to stay with others, it is permitted for this reason. And although Maimonides wrote that the reason for the prohibition when staying with others is because he embarrasses them, since they did not prepare something suitable for guests, since he is in a place where he cannot prepare Sabbath needs, there is no concern for that.
And my question is:
Is Sabbath delight preferable, or is the issue that he will fast on the Sabbath outweighed by the fact that there will be insult here:
A. Because that is certain and this is only a doubt.
B. Because it is more important—1. because the insult is not so great, whereas the problem of lacking Sabbath needs is great. 2. Even if the insult is great, Sabbath needs come first. (And not like the case of the Sabbath lamp versus the Hanukkah lamp.)
So there are three possible sides here.

Answer

Anything is possible. I don’t know how to decide. From this you can understand that this is not a fixed halakhic ruling; rather, in every situation one must examine the presence of these three factors, and decide accordingly.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button