Volume 37 Number 03
Produced: Tue Sep 3 21:38:11 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew (7)
[Ralph Zwier, Harlan Braude, Yehonatan and Randy Chipman,
Gershon Dubin, Gershon Dubin, .cp., Daniel M Wells]
Criticism of the siddurim "Beit Tefila" and "VaYa'ater Yitzchak"
[David and Toby Curwin]
Lights in shul pre-electricity
[Carl Singer]
Telling A Non-Jew on Shabbos (2)
[Bill Bernstein, Gershon Dubin]
Too Many Rabbis
[David Olivestone]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ralph Zwier <ralph@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:34:02 +1000
Subject: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
> According to this our Rav also holds that if a goy is
> walking by an unlit Jewish house and realizing that the lights have
> failed, and without asking he restores the power out of the goodness of
> his heart, the Jewish owner is not allowed to benefit.
I feel like I must be missing something here: The Goy turns on my lights
for me on Shabbes without being asked to. I may not benefit from the
light, but neither may I tell him to turn the light off again. How does
one conduct oneself in an area of light without benefiting from the
light? Does the halacha instruct me to put on a blindfold?
Ralph Zwier
Double Z Computer
Tel +613 9521 2188
Fax +613 9521 3945
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:58:56 -0400
Subject: RE: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...> writes:
>> According to this our Rav also holds that if a goy is
>> walking by an unlit Jewish house and realizing that the lights have
>> failed, and without asking he restores the power out of the goodness of
>> his heart, the Jewish owner is not allowed to benefit.
>
> This is correct and does not contradict what I have written. In the
> case you cite, there is no benefit to the nonJew (except a good feeling,
> which does not count in this situation) from turning the lights on in
> your house and proceeding down the street. When he derives physical
> benefit from the act, AND it's the type as described where there's no
> chashash shemah yarbeh bishvilo, you may use the light or ramp.
There's a mishna in mes. Shabbos, daf 121a, that discusses a house on
fire (a case that's not life-threatening situation, as can be discerned
from what follows) and states that one cannot tell the non-Jewish person
to put out the blaze and one also doesn't need to tell the non-Jew to
stop if he decides to put it out. The reason given is that the non-Jew
isn't required (allowed?) to observe the Shabbos (Rashi clarifies as
long as he's not your "servant", as was mentioned in this thread).
The Gemara (very short...worth a peek!) :-) adds that the Sages
permitted the homeowner in this case to publicly declare that the
person(s) who put(s) out the fire "won't lose".
To me, the Gemara is clarifying the motivation of the non-Jew described
in the Mishna as doing it for his own sake, although the Jewish
homeowner is clearly the primary beneficiary. The Sages went so far as
to permit motivating someone to put out the fire by offering a reward to
the firefighter(s), although the wording of the offer is carefully
crafted to be both indirect and ambiguous (BTW, the Gemara doesn't
address whether the homeowner would then be obligated to actually pay a
reward, which would be an interesting discussion in and of itself.)
In the context of your discussion, could this suggest that there's some
middle-ground as to whether the Jew may be the beneficiary, even in the
case where the non-Jew performs a melacha and proceeds "down the
street"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehonatan and Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:20:52 +0300
Subject: Re: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
The original statement in this thread (I forget who made it) was that:
> Asking a gentile to ask a second gentile is a "Shvus de Shvus" which
> according to some is allowed.
Most of the discussion then got into a multitude of side issues about
"amirah le-nakhri," i.e., the issue of the "Shabbos goy," and the
definition of "shvus de-shvus" in general.
I would like to question the major assumption being made here:
that the definition "Shvut de-shvut" is in fact applicable to this
case. "Shvut de-shvut" usually applies to the confluence of two
independent Rabbinis issurim in one situation. Example: doing a
melakha de-rabanan during the twilight hour, when the status of the time
period as Shabbat is in doubt so that the issur melakha can be
interpreted as a kind of derabanan; or carrying an object in a manner
which is "kelaher yad," and in a place which is a karmelit, that is,
issur hotza'ah mishum shvut.
Here, the act involved in both cases is one of speech regarding
melakha on Shabbat. Does the act of doing so indirectly create an
additional level of shvut? I doubt it, and would like to see
confirmation from a trustworthy, preferably written source. Can any of
the discussants cite one?
Rav Yehonatan Chipman, Yerushalayim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:18:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:20:52 +0300 Yehonatan and Randy Chipman
<< Here, the act involved in both cases is one of speech regarding
melakha on Shabbat. Does the act of doing so indirectly create an
additional level of shvut? I doubt it, and would like to see
confirmation from a trustworthy, preferably written source. Can any
of the discussants cite one?>>
If you mean that amira le'akum for a derabanan makes it a shevus
dishevus, try O"Ch 37:5. Otherwise please clarify what you mean.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 01:27:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:00:59 +0300 Yehonatan and Randy Chipman
<yonarand@...> writes:
<<I think the original subject of the discussion has gotten lost.
What I think was being discussed is a case where I want Chris to light a
fire on Shabbat (one "shvut"), and thus ask Luke to tell Chris to do so,
which the original poster claims makes it a "shvut deshvut." >>
The cite for that is O"Ch 307, Mishna Berura S"K 24. In
summary, he quotes a machlokes acharonim and concludes that one may rely
upon one nonJew telling another nonJew as rendering the command a shevus
dishevus, bemakom hefsed gadol.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
}My point and it was endorsed by our Rav that even if he does it for
}himself, if he is aware that that a Jew may benefit from his action (and
}in most cases the goy knows this is the reason for the invitation) then
}there is a distinct possibility that the Jew may not benefit.
Number 1, saying "there is a distinct possibility that the Jew may not
benefit" is an empty statement.
Number 2, I would be most interested in reading from your Rav where he
learns out that a goy doing something by which its very nature can not be
divided up as to who benefits by which part (turning on a light being a
classic example) is not allowed to be used by anyone who feels like it.
Number 3, according to your Rav and you, I am not allowed to go to shul
on Shabos. I live in a city where pedestrians have the right-of-way, so
by my entering into the street in order to cross it I am causing the
goyim driving cars to do `melachos`.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel M Wells <wells@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:20:37 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
> Number 1, saying "there is a distinct possibility that the Jew may not
> benefit" is an empty statement.
I should have said that its forbidden to have benefit.
FYI see the following:
http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/dafyomi2/shabbos/insites/sh-dt-122.htm
> Number 2, I would be most interested in reading from your Rav where he
> learns out that a goy doing something by which its very nature can not be
> divided up as to who benefits by which part (turning on a light being a
> classic example) is not allowed to be used by anyone who feels like it.
Even if a goy does a melacha for himself and knows that you would be happy
to benefit from his labor, that is enough to make it forbidden. See above
reference.
> Number 3, according to your Rav and you, I am not allowed to go to shul
> on Shabos. I live in a city where pedestrians have the right-of-way, so
> by my entering into the street in order to cross it I am causing the
> goyim driving cars to do `melachos`.
The question is if by stopping for you he is doing a melacha that you
are benefitting from. It would appear to be more indirect.
However if it is a melacha and if the majority in the city are Goyim and
other goyim are crossing with you then there is NO problem. So if you
have right of way, wait until there are other goyim ready to cross.
And in the worst scenario...better stay at home and not be a cause of
Hillul Shabbat. I remember the story of some old guy telling a Rav he
was not able to come to shul during the week and would only come on
Shabbat if he was able to drive. You can guess the Rav's reply.
Daniel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David and Toby Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:25:04 +0300
Subject: Criticism of the siddurim "Beit Tefila" and "VaYa'ater Yitzchak"
In David Cohen's introduction to the "Ezor Eliahu" siddur (according to
the traditions of the Vilna Gaon), there is significant criticism of two
siddurim - Beit Tefila by R' Shlomo Katz - known as R' Zalman Henne -
and "VaYa'ater Yitzchak" by Yitzchak Satanov. The author accuses them of
forgery, changes made from their own opinions, disregard for the sages,
irresponsibility and more. This despite the fact that many of these
changes are widely included in our siddurim today, and many of us would
be surprised to find some of our most familiar parts of the liturgy
instituted by figures who received such criticism.
Are there any (widely) available articles or books discussing this
controversy? Cohen brings many prominent rabbis in his criticisms
including R' Yaakov Emden and the Noda B'Yehuda. Were there other major
rabbis who defended these siddurim?
-David Curwin
Efrat, Israel
<tobyndave@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:48:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Lights in shul pre-electricity
Sure. They also davened a hundred years ago without electric
lights (and therefore with none, late Shabbos afternoon). Many
places do not have an eruv; who says it's permitted to repair an
eruv for the benefit of the public (it is)?
My Mother told me that in pre-war Poland her synagogue used candles --
they did not daven in the dark. She remembered spending all of Yom
Kippur night in shule (perhaps it wasn't safe to go home late at night.)
to the light of candles.
Kol Tuv
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:03:00 -0500
Subject: Telling A Non-Jew on Shabbos
I have to admit that I have not been following this thread at all, but the
following exchange caught my eye:
> According to this our Rav also holds that if a goy is
> walking by an unlit Jewish house and realizing that the lights have
> failed, and without asking he restores the power out of the goodness of
> his heart, the Jewish owner is not allowed to benefit.
So I am trying to imagine the scenario where it is, say, 6:30 in
December and dark (at least in my part of the country). The power goes
out and in whatever way it happens a non-Jew happens by and relights it
in the Jewish home. All the lights in the dining room, living room etc
are now on. Now what? Move into the basement? Does everyone put on
blindfolds until morning? Close your eyes (no peeking)?
The whole thing sounds absurd. It seems more reasonable that you are
not accountable for the non-Jew's actions where you had no effect on
them. Further, the non-Jew must be getting some additional light,
however brief, and thus some benefit.
Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:06:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Telling A Non-Jew on Shabbos
Absurd as it seems, you cannot have enjoyment from the light
which was lit for the benefit of a Jew. I suggest you ask your LOR for
specific guidance as to what to do should such a situation occur.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Olivestone <dmlo@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:59:15 -0400
Subject: Too Many Rabbis
My father-in-law, a"h, was niftar about two weeks ago and, of necessity,
my wife and I have been discussing various scenarios in the laws of
aveilut and how she / we will handle them.
The last time she was in aveilut, for her mother, a"h, was twenty five
years ago, when we lived in community A and asked our she'eilot of its
rav, who shall be identified for the purposes of this discussion as
Rabbi A. Some years later, after we had moved to community B, my father,
a"h, was niftar. We mostly continued what Rabbi A had told us, but
asked our she'eilot of our new rav, Rabbi B. Now, we live in community
C, and ask all our regular she'eilot of our current rav, whom we shall
call Rabbi C.
My question is this: What happens when you move to a new community--or
even to a new shul in the same neighborhood? Do you now have to adopt
the chumrot and the kulot of your new rav, or, as I believe is more
often the actual case in practice, do you continue what you were taught
previously and only ask about new situations? In other words, should my
wife continue to follow what Rabbis A and B told us? But if so, how does
she ask a she'eilah of Rabbi C, when we know that his shita on aveilut
is very different from that of Rabbi A (and somewhat different from that
of Rabbi B)? There are many nuances in the halachot of aveilut, and she
may come to ask Rabbi C about a specific nuance in a situation in which
he would think she should not be involved in the first place.
David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 3
