Volume 20 Number 73
                       Produced: Thu Jul 27 20:46:23 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Ma'arit 'Ayin vs. Chillul Hashem
         [David Charlap]
Mar'it Ayin
         [S.H. Schwartz]
Maris Ayin
         [Jan David Meisler]
Marit Ayin
         [Michael J Broyde]
Saving a Life on Shabbat (2)
         [Hayim Hendeles, Carl Sherer]
Wearing a Tallis when Driving on Shabbos
         [Laurie Solomon]


From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 23:12:35 EDT
Subject: Ma'arit 'Ayin vs. Chillul Hashem

I noticed that on the recent thread of using the bathroom in a
McDonalds, etc. that people are confusing Ma'arit 'Ayin with Chillul
Hashem (publicly disgracing God).  There is a big difference.

If you refrain from a permitted action because Jews might see you and
think you're really doing some other (forbidden) action, that's Ma'arit
'Ayin.  You should refrain from these actions because your fellow Jew
might think the action they think you're doing is OK.  This is like the
case of driving to the hospital on Shabbat.

On the other hand, if you refrain from an action because non-Jews would
see you and criticize the Jewish people, thinking you're violating
halacha (such as going into the McDonalds restroom), that's a case of
avoiding Chillul Hashem.

It may just be nitpicking, but I think we should be careful to
differentiate among the two.


From: <shimmy@...> (S.H. Schwartz)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 22:18:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Mar'it Ayin

We need to distinguish between a non-kosher restaurant in a highway rest
area, and one on a local street.  It is customary for travelers on, e.g.,
the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) to stop at McDonald's -on the Turnpike-
merely to use the bathrooms.  There should be no question of mar'it ayin,
since entering without eating is common.  This would not be the case for a
restaurant on a local street: entering without eating is the exception.

        Shimon Schwartz


From: Jan David Meisler <jm8o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 13:52:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Maris Ayin

There are a number of points that I have read that have prompted me to
post this.  I'm not sending it to respond to a particular point, but as
a general comment.  In a gemara shir in Beitzah we discussed the issue
of Maris Ayin.  We came out that Maris Ayin applies in a case where a
person is doing something that is permitted, however, it can be
misinterpreted as doing something wrong.  The disucssion arose from
Beitzah 9A where the issue of Maris Ayin is touched upon.  In the Gemara
over there it is even brought down (I think the reference was to
Shabbos, check on the side of the page in Beitzah for the exact
location) that issues of Maris Ayin, "Afilu b'chadrei chadarim" ("even
in the rooms inside rooms" -- in very private locations), is still
So, even if no one sees you, issues of Maris Ayin are still forbidden. 
Part of the issue, if I remember correctly, dealt with preventing the
person performing the action from doing this same action in public
locations too.  And, another part, dealt with preventing the person from
performing the wrong action in the future.


From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Marit Ayin

The various posting on marit ayin seem to use that term to cover two
very different halachic problems, which the halachic literature refers
to in different ways.
	The first is called chashad and it refers to the possibility
that a person will do something that is permissible, but which resembles
something which is prohibited, and people will see him or her, and think
that the person is doing the prohibited act, and is not as religious as
he or she appears to be.  The chashad, fear, is that people will think
you are a sinner.
	The second is called marit ayin, and refers to a case when a
person does something that is permissible, but resembles something that
is prohibited, and we are afraid that people will see this person doing
the permitted thing, think the person is doing the other act, and
conclude that the other act also is permissible.
	Let me give you an application.  When a religious Jew goes into
a McDonald's in America -- and I do not care how observant the person is
-- no one will think that the McDonalds is really kosher; rather they
might think that this person is not really as observant as he appears.
That is a case of chashad.  When a religious person goes into a "kosher
style" restaurant, which appears to be kosher, but actually is not, the
watcher might think that this restaurant really is kosher and eat in it
himself.  That is marit ayin.
	The rules relating to these two different problems are
completely different, with the general rule being that chashad -- since
it only effects the reputation of one person -- is more leinint than
marit ayin -- which runs the risk of creating significant
misunderstandings of halacha generally.  For a detailed look at the
various principles, see the fine article entitled chashad in the
encyclopedia talmudit.  

Michael Broyde


From: <hayim@...> (Hayim Hendeles)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 11:09:59 -0700
Subject: Re:  Saving a Life on Shabbat

> >From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
> One writer states:
> >  Therefore if there was ANY pikuach nefesh here (highly doubtful) it
> >  was CAUSED by a chilul Shabbos in the first place.  Not exactly a
> >  circumstance permitting chillul Shabbos.
> One could imply from this that a Jew who causes danger to his own life 
> through chillul shabbat may not be saved if such a saving causes chillul 
> shabbat.  That would be a very serious mistake of halacha.  A Jew who 
> ...

Let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not a Rabbi, nor am I
qualified to rule on Halacha - particularly in an area as severe as
chillul Shabbos. My remarks are to be understood in a theoretical sense

Unfortunately, Rabbi Broyde fails to provide any proof or support for
his assertion, and I don't know on what basis he makes his assertion. I
am aware of a Hagahos Yaavetz who says the exact opposite - i.e. that
one may not desecrate the Shabbos to save the life of one who endangered
his own life.

The Yaavetz proves this from the famous Talmudic story of the great Sage
Hillel, unable to pay for a seat in the Study Hall, climbed on top of
the roof, and was forced to listen to the lectures from there. While on
the roof, he nearly froze to death, and the next morning the Rabbi's lit
a fire to save Hillel's life, although it was on the Sabbath. The Rabbis
commented "kdai HU ZEH lchallel" - lt. THIS PERSON is worthwhile to
desecrate the Shabbas on his behalf.

Says the Yaavetz, the proof is from the words THIS ONE, implying that
only for the pious Hillel who unintentionally risked his life for sake
of learning Torah was it worthwhile to desecrate the Sabbath, but for
another individual it would not be worthwhile to desecrate the Sabbath.

Now on a practical matter, this issue may be moot, as perhaps, most
(contemporary) Jews who desecrate the Sabbath r"l might be considered
Tinuk Shenishba - i.e. one who doesn't know any better and doesn't
understand the severity of their actions. Perhaps this is not considered
as a wanton desecration of the Sabbath in the first place.

Of course, as always, the bottom line is CYQLOR - Consult your qualified
local Orthodox Rabbi.

Hayim Hendeles

From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 0:02:45 IDT
Subject: Saving a Life on Shabbat

In his post of July 21, Rabbi Broyde takes me to task for seemingly
implying that it is not permitted to save the life of one whose pikuach
nefesh is caused by violating the Shabbos.  He gives two examples;
saving the life of a person who was in a car accident on Shabbos and (if
one fails to convince a person not to drive on Shabbos) telling one who
is driving on Shabbos to turn on his lights when necessary.  Clearly, in
both of these cases the actions which Rabbi Broyde proposes would be
permitted.  However, I submit that there is a difference between saving
the life of one who has been (lo aleinu) involved in a car accident when
the person went out without the expectation that his life would need to
be saved and without the expectation that as a result of his chilul
Shabbos (driving) he would cause others to have to violate Shabbos (to
save him) and one who goes out and violates the Shabbos (by getting into
a helicopter - which was the example given) with the *expectation* that
others will have to be mechalel Shabbos whether or not his life is
immediately at stake (i.e.  to protect him just in case...).  My
understanding of the Israeli army's standards for what dati soldiers may
and may not be asked to do on Shabbos indicates that they see a
difference as well, although again if anyone has sources that give a
halachic standard for this I'd be interested in seeing them.  The second
example Rabbi Broyde gives would seem much simpler because it is "amira"
(saying something to the person) and does not constitute violating the
Shabbos with one's own hands.

-- Carl Sherer
	Adina and Carl Sherer
		You can reach us both at:


From: Laurie Solomon <0002557272@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 12:53 EST
Subject: Re: Wearing a Tallis when Driving on Shabbos

One additional idea I'd like to bring up, that I don't think has been
posted on this thread.  This is from my memory/notes of a Shabbos class
from Rabbi Berkowitz in Israel, so I'm sorry I don't have the exact

If in fact, it is for Pekuach Nefesh (life threatening situation) and
one needs to be driven to the hospital on Shabbos, and there are several
people readily available to choose from, who should drive?

This is the order:
- religious jew
- non-religious jew
- non-jew

You might ask: why have the religious jew drive, when the non-religious
jew wouldn't mind breaking Shabbos?  Because it is a mitzvah to save a
life and this is to show that it is o.k. to drive for this reason.  If
you asked a non-religious jew, people would think that you couldn't
drive on Shabbos--ever.  And if they were ever in this same kind of
predicament, they could have undue delay trying to find a non-jew to
drive them to the hospital.  Of course, if it were not allowed, you also
would not want to cause someone to break Shabbos either (whether or not
they care, doesn't matter, you shouldn't be the reason for it).

Why not the non-jew first?  Two reasons: First, I have learned that
jews, religious or not, have an inner drive or spark (our neshama)
towards life and respecting life.  You could argue that you know some
very pious non-jews that respect life or that you trust more with your
life than some religious jews.  Again, like most halachas, they weren't
decided for individuals, they were decided for the whole-- the line I
always use is "you can't confuse Jews with Judaism").  Also, for the
same reason as stated for choosing the religious jew first, you wouldn't
want anyone to think that only a non-jew could drive and cause undue
delay the next time, if it were to happen to them.

This all assumes that you don't have to take extra time/delay choosing
the right person.  If time is a great factor, choose whomever is the
most readily available, as quickly as possible. To save a life, you do
what ever you have to.

One additional point, however.  the reverse is true as well.  If it
could be considered Pekuach Nefesh, but you have the time to wait a bit
(for example, you go into labor and you need to get to the hospital),
you should call a taxi.  Using the taxi is best because you are reducing
the amount of issurim involved.  For instance, if you drove to the
hospital on Shabbos, you can't turn the car off when you get there,
according to many opinions if not all opinions.  On the other hand, you
are forced to make a phone call to the taxi.  However, if you have your
wits about you and there is time to plan and react then there are a
number of options.  It is always best to break only the Rabbinical
prohibitions, but not the Torah prohibitions-- if you don't have to.
You would have to clearly know what the differences are. If you can save
a life with minimal breaking of halacha, it would be best with all
things being equal. For most of us, it is not all things being equal.
That is why it is important to plan it out, if possible.  With something
like a pregnancy, most of the time, you can plan things out ahead of

Our Rabbi told us to call the taxi if I went into labor on Shabbos; this
psak is also a very practical one.  Because you can even ask a non-jew
to call the taxi.  You can have the money ready in an envelope.  You
also avoid some of the issues with frum jew vs. non-religious and

The scenario is when G-D forbid something happens unexpectedly, what do
you do?  That is where dealing with a frum jew is best and non-religious
and then non-jew.  However,if you know of a non-jew who is "elevated"
than that could be just as good.  Alot depends on the criticality of the
situation and your emotions at the time.  Again, if delay would at all
put the life more at risk, break Torah as well as Rabbinic prohibitions
as needed.

I'm posting this as a stepping stone for discussion or as a general
guide from what I learned, not to paskin.  Obviously if you know you may
have this situation (e.g., a pregnancy or a sick individual in your
home, etc.), CYLOR.

Laurie Cohen


End of Volume 20 Issue 73