Q&A: A Baby Who Would Desecrate the Sabbath for My Benefit
A Baby Who Would Desecrate the Sabbath for My Benefit
Question
Hello Rabbi,
If I place a baby in front of a switch that I want turned off (or any other electrical action), and I didn't say anything, then ostensibly no transgression was committed here, right or not?
And does the metaphysical aspect for which the commandment was given really get harmed in such a case? Is a "red angel" created, as Dr. Nadav Schneur describes in his book "At an Angle"?
Answer
I am hardly an expert in understanding angels. In principle, causing a minor to perform a prohibition directly is a Torah prohibition of directly feeding / causing the act with one's own hands. In the situation you described, perhaps there is room to be lenient, since you are only placing him in front of the switch. This is similar to the passage in tractate Yevamot 113b–114a, about the child and the girl. And in our case this is literally a baby who does not know what he is doing. However, if in such a situation it is clear that this is what will happen (an inevitable result, "pesik reisha"), one should be stringent, because this may perhaps be considered your act indirectly.
Discussion on Answer
I don't see why there should be a difference. True, Rashba and Maimonides disagreed regarding the prohibition of directly causing this in the case of rabbinic prohibitions. Practically, the Shulchan Arukh ruled (sec. 343) like Maimonides, that this applies even to a rabbinic prohibition. As for the obligation to separate a minor from a prohibition, some distinguished and held that this is only rabbinic, but for a Torah-level prohibition one is indeed obligated to separate him from it (see the Rema's note there). But that too appears to be only rabbinic, so straightforwardly they did not say this regarding an actual baby.
The question is whether there is any direct prohibition here at all. Perhaps this is considered that the minor turns on the light as an unintentional act, in which case there is no prohibition here at all?
Also, the Torah says, "You shall not eat them, for they are detestable" (Leviticus 11:42), and the Talmud expounds on this (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Yevamot 114): "You shall not eat them" — "you shall not feed them" — to warn adults regarding minors. The Talmud's intent is to say that an adult is warned by the Torah not to directly place in a minor's hands something forbidden, meaning not to feed it to him with his own hands. And seemingly it would appear that this applies only to food prohibitions, and not to other prohibitions.
I also saw this written on Wikipedia:
If the light went out in a room, then where necessary it is permitted to place a minor who lacks understanding next to the switch, even in a case where we know that he is going to play with the switch and turn on the light. The reason is that in such a case there is no direct causing, because the minor did it on his own initiative and for his own enjoyment, and not because of the adult's command or instruction. (And there is no prohibition here of having one's child rest on the Sabbath, nor a prohibition of telling a minor, since he is acting for his own enjoyment and not for the sake of others; and there is also no commandment of education to teach him to refrain from the prohibition, since he lacks understanding.)
I already wrote all that (the source for the ruling brought in Wikipedia is the Talmud in Yevamot that I cited). But the prohibition of directly causing this is not only about food prohibitions. In the Talmud in Yevamot there are three sources: blood, creeping creatures, and ritual impurity. Ritual impurity is not related to food prohibitions.
Thank you.
Of course, "angel" is just an expression for the metaphysical component in fulfilling the commandment / transgression, beyond obeying / violating God's word.
In any case, interesting.
Would there be any difference in this situation between a Torah-level prohibition and a rabbinic prohibition?