Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,200
edits
Benefiting from a Violation of Shabbat: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Benefiting from a Violation of Shabbat (view source)
Revision as of 23:11, 29 June 2023
, 29 June 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==A Non-Observant Jew== | ==A Non-Observant Jew== | ||
# If a Jew does a melacha intentionally neither him or any other Jew may benefit from his actions on Shabbat. Others may benefit from it immediately after Shabbat but he may not benefit from it forever.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 318:1</ref> Even those for whom he did the melacha are considered like others for whom it is permitted after Shabbat.<Ref>Magen Avraham 318:2 initially extends the category of the one who did the melacha to include for whom he did the melacha for. The intention was for them to all directly benefit from the melacha, therefore, the penalty applies to them. However, he notes that the Bet Yosef disagrees and holds that only for nullifying something prohibited are those for whom it was nullified considered like the transgressor himself, however, for Shabbat they are not because there's no concern he is going to continually violate Shabbat for others. Therefore, the Mishna Brurah 318:5, Kaf Hachayim on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 318:12, and Yalkut Yosef 318:6 all permit others to benefit from the violation of Shabbat right after Shabbat.</ref> | # If a Jew does a melacha intentionally neither him or any other Jew may benefit from his actions on Shabbat. Others may benefit from it immediately after Shabbat but he may not benefit from it forever.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 318:1</ref> Even those for whom he did the melacha are considered like others for whom it is permitted after Shabbat.<Ref>Magen Avraham 318:2 initially extends the category of the one who did the melacha to include for whom he did the melacha for. The intention was for them to all directly benefit from the melacha, therefore, the penalty applies to them. However, he notes that the Bet Yosef disagrees and holds that only for nullifying something prohibited are those for whom it was nullified considered like the transgressor himself, however, for Shabbat they are not because there's no concern he is going to continually violate Shabbat for others. Therefore, the Mishna Brurah 318:5, Kaf Hachayim on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 318:12, and Yalkut Yosef 318:6 all permit others to benefit from the violation of Shabbat right after Shabbat.</ref> | ||
# It is permitted to benefit from an action of a non-observant Jew on Shabbat if one doesn't get a direct benefit from the melacha.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 1:34:7 introduction based on Shulchan Aruch O.C. 257:1</ref> | # It is permitted to benefit from an action of a non-observant Jew on Shabbat if one doesn't get a direct benefit from the melacha.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 1:34:7 introduction based on Shulchan Aruch O.C. 257:1</ref> | ||
## If a non-observant Jew turned on a light in the room one doesn't have to leave the room but one shouldn't read by that light if one couldn't read beforehand.<ref>Hilchot Sava (Rav Zecharya Ben Shlomo 5748 p. 179)</ref> | ## If a non-observant Jew turned on a light in the room one doesn't have to leave the room but one shouldn't read by that light if one couldn't read beforehand.<ref>Hilchot Sava (Rav Zecharya Ben Shlomo 5748 p. 179)</ref> | ||
| Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
# If a Jew walked through an electric door on Shabbat one may not follow them since it is considered benefitting from a Jew's transgression of Shabbat.<ref>Byom Hashabbat 32:18 based on Rav Elyashiv's ruling that it is forbidden to benefit from the contents of a bottle if it was opened by a Jew in a forbidden way, unless there was a permitted way to access it as well.</ref> | # If a Jew walked through an electric door on Shabbat one may not follow them since it is considered benefitting from a Jew's transgression of Shabbat.<ref>Byom Hashabbat 32:18 based on Rav Elyashiv's ruling that it is forbidden to benefit from the contents of a bottle if it was opened by a Jew in a forbidden way, unless there was a permitted way to access it as well.</ref> | ||
# Someone who was brought up non-religious and now did teshuva doesn't need to worry about benefitting from everything in his house that he fixed over the years.<ref>Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Derech Sicha v. 2 p. 277), Shevet Halevi 8:62. They explain that if he was a tinok she'nishba (a child brought up among those who don't know about Torah) then he is considered as though he violated Shabbat unintentionally. Even if he isn't a tinok she'nishba, still he might not have been aware of the particular melachot he violated and thought that they were allowed. Also, he can rely on the Gra who paskens like Rabbi Meir.</ref> | # Someone who was brought up non-religious and now did teshuva doesn't need to worry about benefitting from everything in his house that he fixed over the years.<ref>Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Derech Sicha v. 2 p. 277), Shevet Halevi 8:62. They explain that if he was a tinok she'nishba (a child brought up among those who don't know about Torah) then he is considered as though he violated Shabbat unintentionally. Even if he isn't a tinok she'nishba, still he might not have been aware of the particular melachot he violated and thought that they were allowed. Also, he can rely on the Gra who paskens like Rabbi Meir.</ref> | ||
==Non-observant Jew== | |||
# If a non-observant Jew violates Shabbat consistently every week there is a large dispute whether others may benefit from the melacha even after Shabbat. For example, if a Jewish restaurant is open every week the food is forbidden for everyone.<ref>Kaf Hachayim on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 318:12 cites the Ketav Sofer OC 50 who holds that only if someone violates Shabbat once do we say that it is permitted for others, however, if he does it every week then the product is forbidden for everyone even after Shabbat. Yalkut Yosef 318:6 is strict. Har Tzvi OC 180 seems to disagree with the Ketav Sofer.</ref> | |||
#Some poskim are stricter regarding a non-observant Jew who violates Shabbat every week. They forbid benefitting from his melacha for everyone even after Shabbat. According to that view it is forbidden to buy products from a company that runs on Shabbat. Even though he doesn't know if the product he's buying was made on Shabbat or not, he may not rely on a majority since it is considered ''kavuah''. However, he may buy products in at a store. Once it left the company and entered into new hands he may rely on a majority of the products being produced not on Shabbat during the week.<Ref>[https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=51974#p=45&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut Shani v. 2 p. 41)]</ref> | |||
#According to the strict view, poskim offer suggestions as to why it is permissible to use the streets or trains in Israel since the streets were paved and train tracks laid even on Shabbat. However, they are strict not to benefit from a private house that was constructed on Shabbat.<ref>[https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=51974#p=51&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut Shani v. 2 p. 47)] suggests that those who built the streets, trains, and bridges on Shabbat don't have the ability to make it forbidden for the masses. The concept he is referring to is ''ein adam dvar sheino shelo'' (Avoda Zara 53b).</ref> | |||
==Something that is a Dispute== | ==Something that is a Dispute== | ||
# One may benefit from his actions of a Jew who does something which is a dispute whether it is permitted on Shabbat on Shabbat.<Ref>Mishna Brurah 318:2, Leviat Chen n. 43. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Meor Lyisrael Shabbat 38a asks why we're not strict based on the principle that dvar sheyesh lo matirin is forbidden whenever there is a safek derabbanan. He answers that the Pri Chadash 497:3 writes that we're only strict about a doubt and not if there's dispute in the poskim. Also, he cited the Mordechai beitzah ch. 3 that if there's no chazaka of isur we can be lenient about a doubt. Lastly he cited Zayit Ranan 2:5 who said that there's no dvar sheyesh lo matirin for the penalty of maaseh Shabbat which isn't as serious a regular rabbinic prohibition.</ref> | # One may benefit from his actions of a Jew who does something which is a dispute whether it is permitted on Shabbat on Shabbat.<Ref>Mishna Brurah 318:2, Leviat Chen n. 43. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Meor Lyisrael Shabbat 38a asks why we're not strict based on the principle that dvar sheyesh lo matirin is forbidden whenever there is a safek derabbanan. He answers that the Pri Chadash 497:3 writes that we're only strict about a doubt and not if there's dispute in the poskim. Also, he cited the Mordechai beitzah ch. 3 that if there's no chazaka of isur we can be lenient about a doubt. Lastly he cited Zayit Ranan 2:5 who said that there's no dvar sheyesh lo matirin for the penalty of maaseh Shabbat which isn't as serious a regular rabbinic prohibition.</ref> | ||
