Q: I live in Israel but have a business in America. I speak with some of my managers after work hours. May I call non-Jewish workers on Saturday night, which is still Shabbat in America? A: It is correct to ask only about non-Jewish workers, as speaking to Jewish workers clearly violates, LIFNEI IVEIR LO TITEIN MICHSHOL" (not causing another to sin). A non-Jew is obviously not doing anything wrong, but would you violate the rabbinic prohibition against enlisting a non-Jew to do work for you on Shabbat (AMIRAL'NOCHRI)? One might claim that since at the time you want to talk to the non-Jew, it is not Shabbat for you, the laws of Shabbat, including AMIRA L'NOCHRI, do not bind you. However, we find that it is forbidden to ask a non-Jew before Shabbat to do work for you on Shabbat (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 307:2). In Bemareh Habazak (V, 43) we dealt with this issue by breaking AMIRA L'NOCHRI down into its components. There are three basic reasons brought to forbid AMIRA L'NOCHRI. One is that it violates the rule that one may not discuss matters that pertain to activities that are inappropriate on Shabbat, including melachot (forbidden activities on Shabbat) (Rashi, Avoda Zara 15a). This element stresses the Jew's involvement and is thus not an issue in our case. After all, your call, which you make after Shabbat, is appropriate for you. Another rationale for AMIRA L'NOCHRI is that when a non-Jew does work at a Jew's behest, it is, on a certain level, as if the Jew is doing it through his agent (Rashi, Shabbat 153a). This also should not be a problem, as even if you were to do the melacha yourself at the time that the non-Jew does it on your behalf, it would be permitted, as Shabbat is finished. Rambam (Shabbat 6:1) has another opinion regarding the idea of AMIRA L'NOCHRI. He says that it is "so that Shabbat will not be light in their eyes, and they [the Jews] will come to do it themselves." This also seems to not apply, as one who waits until after Shabbat to ask a non-Jew is not treating Shabbat lightly. Despite all of this, Rav Zilberstein (Melachim Omnayich 3:(15)) entertains the possibility that it is forbidden for a Jew to ask a non-Jew to do melacha for him when it is Shabbat only in the non-Jew's place. He tries to prove that a non-Jew's work on Shabbat is considered a (permitted) violation of Shabbat. His proof is from the halacha (Shulchan Aruch, OC 298:5) that one cannot make a b'racha at Havdala on a candle that a non-Jew lit on Shabbat, because it is a "light that did not rest." He does not fully explain his reasoning, but one could explain the stringency in two ways. First of all, the Rabbis forbade asking a non-Jew, even before Shabbat, to do melacha on Shabbat. Our case may fit under that prohibition's parameters, and it may not make a difference whether or not the prohibition's logic applies. (One of the most complicated issues in halacha is if and when a rabbinic injunction that was made under certain circumstances applies to cases where the original logic doesn't apply.) Another explanation may be based on the Rambam, that treating Shabbat lightly, by having a non-Jew do work on one's behalf, can lead to real violations. It is possible that as long as it is Shabbat in the non-Jew's place, there is an element of taking lightly. In the final analysis there is an understandable consensus of recent poskim that our case is permitted (see Bemareh Habazak, ibid.; Yisrael V'hazemanim 34:4) because the logic of the prohibition of AMIRA L'NOCHRI does not apply. We offer one proviso. If it is publicly known that it is a Jewish-owned business, then even non-Jewish workers should not do work on the premises when it is Shabbat locally, even if it is not Shabbat for the owner (Chelkat Ya'akov, OC 87). This is because the problem of work being done at such a business (Shulchan Aruch, OC 243) is based on the wrong impression to the public (mar'it ha'ayin), and that depends on the local populace. Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim,
the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this
section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at
www.ou.org or
www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by
email weekly, by sending an email to
info@eretzhemdah.org with
the message: Subscribe/English (for the English version) or
Subscribe/Hebrew (for the hebrew version). Please leave the subject
blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency
for Israel In 31:2, God commands Moshe: "Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites." But in 31:3, Moshe says to Bnei Israel: "Let men be picked from among you for a campaign and let them fall upon Midian to wreak the vengeance of God upon Midian." Rashi explains that these two objectives are two sides of the same coin, stating: "Whoever attacks Israel is as though he attacks the Holy One, blessed be He." This could be interpreted as meaning that when Midian enticed Israel to sin, they caused a desecration of God's name. Nevertheless, the thrust of the revenge upon Midian appears to imply that we are dealing here with more than just two sides of the same coin. While all mitzvot are the fulfillment of God's command, some are spiritually uplifting, while others - though right and just - contain elements that are spiritually difficult or perhaps even dangerous. On the joyous occasion of a Brit Mila we omit the words "she-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" from birkat ha-mazon in recognition of the fact that the child who has just entered Avraham's covenant is at the same time in pain. Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi was punished for not relating to the pain of an animal which was being sacrificed (Baba Metzia 85a). We do not recite the complete Hallel on Pesach, because at the moment of our joy and redemption the Egyptians were drowning. God told Moshe that the Midianites deserved punishment and that the children of Israel had His blessing to exact that punishment. Moshe felt that this revenge should be tempered with the idea that the revenge was intended to sanctify God's name. What an important message for out times. In our present situation of great trouble and difficulty, when the very physical and spiritual future of our beloved Eretz Israel is in danger, let us keep in mind that as important as our physical survival may be, our spiritual existence is no less threatened. May God grant that in both our struggles, the "war of Israel" and the "war of God," we will emerge victorious and achieve physical and spiritual peace in our beloved Eretz Israel. Rabbi Binyamin Walfish, Jerusalem [4] A Touch of Wisdom,
A Touch of Wit "That is a serious question," said R' Yoshe Ber gravely. He took down a thick volume and began leafing through it. He tugged at his beard and appeared deep in thought. After some time, he looked up and said, "The farfel may be eaten, but you must take care from now to make noodles for the last meal before the fast." When the woman had left, those who were there asked him, "Rebbe, what was that all about? Why did you make such a big to-do over something that was so unimportant?" "From her question I could see that the
woman was unlearned," said R' Yoshe Ber. "I felt that I must show
that I treated her question seriously. If I would have dismissed her
out-of-hand she would never come and ask me another question, even
when such a question might relate to a really important and serious
law." dogs and wolves. excellent hearing for
finding small prey... do not usually attack larger animals... eat a
lot of fruit for carnivores... possible danger from rabies... Representative (later Mayor) Ed Koch spoke to the assembled following 6 or 7 non-Jewish members of the House, all of whom expressed their admiration and warm support of Israel. Koch thanked his colleagues for their kind words and then turned to the audience of his fellow Jews. He said, "My message to you is the words of Hillel, who said 2000 years ago - If I am not for myself, who will be for me." U.S. financial (and other) support of
Israel has always been very substantial and significant. But
reliance on it has often put us in the situation of not being able
to do for ourselves what is in OUR best interest. 1) Commentaries explain that vows show the power that a human being has, the incredible power to make things prohibited upon himself through his speech. It is only fitting that the focus of the introduction to these laws be on the fact that Moshe, a human being, is the one transmitting these laws from G-d thereby showing the great heights that humans can achieve. 2) Ramban explains that while Moshe was not given the opportunity to perform the commandments of the Land of Israel, G-d was not going to deny him the chance to fulfill every mitzva he could outside of Israel. At this point, the only outstanding mitzva was avenging what the Midianite people did to the Jews and G-d's honor. Thus, after performing this last mitzva, Moshe could die. 3) Rav Dessler explains that these tribes
understood that everything in their possession was given to them by
G-d to use in His service. Thus, their herds and flocks which could
only be cared for properly in Trans-Jordan were given to them by
G-d. They understood that for some reason they were to sacrifice
their portion in Israel to tend to these flocks as their way of
serving G-d. Thus, it was not out of physical needs while ignoring
the spiritual that they requested to settle there and that Moshe
granted their wish. Through a Neder, one can prohibit to oneself something that the Torah permits (such as eating an apple) or one may obligate oneself to perform an optional Mitzva such as bringing an offering or giving charity. How- ever, one cannot obligate oneself to perform an act such as going to sleep on time, for such a declaration is not binding under the terms of Neder. In contrast, besides self-denial, an oath - or SH'VU'A - also affords an individual the possibility of under- taking a specific act, such as eating an apple a day. It changes the status of the individual, not the object. Here the obligation is on the person; halachically, the status of the apple has not changed. When Rosh HaShana comes around we may
stand in front of a Bet Din and annul (some of) our vows and oaths.
On Yom Kippur, we again declare our Nedarim as void. Clearly, we
often pledge without proper deliberation. So, no wonder the Torah
addresses the laws concerning oaths and vows first to the heads of
the tribes (B'midbar30:1-2)! Evidently, our leaders should be the
first to account for - or annul - their proclamations. [The Parshat Matot Homepage]
|
