Q&A: Benefit from Products Purchased on the Sabbath
Benefit from Products Purchased on the Sabbath
Question
Hello. We are a group of 25 Israelis going on a cruise abroad, from Sunday to Thursday, including 4 Sabbath-observant people. The secular members want to do the group's shared shopping for the trip on the Sabbath (food, cleaning supplies), because that is much more convenient. We can do the shopping on Friday or on Sunday. The question is whether we may use the products they buy (and share in the cost), or whether we need to buy separately and use separately, so as not to benefit from a product that was purchased on the Sabbath.
I’ll sharpen the point: the benefit is not really from the fact that the products are bought on the Sabbath itself (although perhaps there is some benefit in that it saves time and makes it possible to set sail early Sunday morning). The benefit is mainly from the fact that the large group organizes all the products together, and we as a small group do not need to organize the shopping list ourselves.
If it is permitted, I would appreciate a reasoned and well-sourced answer, so that I can persuade the other guys.
Answer
A difficult question. At first glance it seems forbidden. True, something done unintentionally is permitted to everyone after the Sabbath, and if done intentionally it is permitted to others after the Sabbath. But that is only if it was done incidentally. If it was done specifically for you, then plainly it is forbidden to you forever.
True, here it was done for the whole group and not only for you, but you are a partner and benefit from your share. All the more so since the entire group is Jewish.
There may perhaps be room to be lenient because a secular Jew is like a “captured infant,” meaning this is considered compulsion rather than unintentional violation. But that is a stretch.
In short, simply speaking, it seems forbidden.
Discussion on Answer
I saw that Peninei Halakha writes regarding benefiting from an act that did not change the object itself as follows:
Some say that if the prohibited labor did not change anything in the object itself, for example if one transferred an object from the public domain to the private domain, there is no prohibition on the object, and it is permitted to benefit from it on the Sabbath in the private domain (Rabbeinu Yonah and Ritva). And the same applies to foods that were brought by car on the Sabbath: since no change was made in the foods themselves, they are not prohibited. Others say (Tosafot, Nachmanides, and Rashba) that there is no difference between types of prohibited labor, and even if the labor did not change anything in the foods, it is forbidden to benefit from foods that were brought in a prohibited way. In practice, ideally one should be stringent, but in pressing circumstances one may rely on the lenient opinions, especially when it was done unintentionally.[6]
If by means of the prohibited labor another act was done that is itself permitted, one may benefit from that. For example, if a hammer was repaired on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to use it even for permitted purposes, such as cracking nuts. But if one transgressed and cracked nuts with it, it is permitted to benefit from the nuts, since the cracking itself involves no prohibition.
If a locked door was opened through a prohibited act, such as with a magnetic card, some say it is forbidden to enter through that doorway, since it was opened through a prohibition. Others say it is permitted, because opening the door did not create anything new, but only removed something that interfered with entry. After the fact, in a case of need, one may be lenient. If a refrigerator door was opened and a light turned on, it is permitted to take food out of the refrigerator (see above 17:9).
If a Jew who desecrates the Sabbath approached an electric door and thereby opened it, it is forbidden to go in through it. Only in pressing circumstances can one be lenient. But if a Jew passed by there and the door opened unintentionally, it is permitted to go in through it (see above 17:11).[7]
Would it also be correct here to say that buying products is an act that did not change the object itself, and therefore it would be possible to be lenient on that basis?
Possible, but in my humble opinion this is a strained approach, and it runs into contradictions from various places. In particular, on the Sabbath, carrying is an inferior category of prohibited labor, yet it is still forbidden. Meaning, a change of place is considered like a change in the object (and in my essays on carrying I explained that this is a change in the world — entropy).
As for adding more within the same measure, that is an interesting point, but in my humble opinion it is not relevant to our case. There we are talking about prohibited labor that is being done permissibly (such as cooking for a sick person, or harvesting for the omer), and then more is added to it. Here the whole thing is prohibited. And even there, some medieval authorities (Rishonim) hold that it is forbidden by Torah law.
I thought of two more possible grounds for permitting it, and I’d be glad to hear your opinion.
1. Bi’ur Halakha (318:1, s.v. "one") — what they forbade after the Sabbath is only in a case where there was a change in the object itself (though he concludes that one should be stringent regarding Torah-level prohibitions. And here there is a rabbinic prohibition in the purchase itself, a rabbinic prohibition in our public domain, which is only a karmelit, and a Torah prohibition if they use a car to transport the products).
2. Permission based on "adding more within the same measure" — they are not doing a separate prohibited labor for us, because the purchase is made all at once (maybe with one swipe of the credit card), and the same goes for the transport.