Shabbat 3 and 4 – Should we do a Rabbinic prohibition instead of a Torah prohibition?

Shavua tov.

Today’s daf has a tiny introduction to a fascinating topic. Do we perform an act which we know is prohibited by the Rabbis so that we will not come to do an act which is prohibited by the Torah on Shabbat?

The case in the Talmud is as follows:

דבעי רב ביבי בר אביי: הדביק פת בתנור, התירו לו לרדותה קודם שיבא לידי חיוב חטאת או לא התירו?

Rav Beivai bar Abaye rasied the dilema: One who [unwittingly] stuck bread in the oven [on Shabbat] did they permit him to [override a rabbinic prohibition and] remove it [from the oven before it bakes, i.e.,] before he incurs liability [to bring a] sin-offering [for baking bread on Shabbat,] or did they not permit [him to do so?].

The answer is based on a shiur given by Rav Yehuda Amital zt’l

“In order to reconcile all the sources, the Rishonim proposed several principles. We will suffice with citing excerpts of these approaches from the Beit Yosef (OC 306):

The Rashba was asked about someone who was informed on Shabbat that his daughter had been forcibly removed from his home by an apostate Jew in order to remove her from the community of Israel, whether he should set out on Shabbat, lest they intimidate her into converting, whether he is permitted to go out even past three parsa’ot, according to the one who says that the Shabbat limit of three parsa’ot is by Torah law, and even to attain a royal seal approving his action. Is Shabbat set aside for this uncertainty, as it is set aside in the case of possible danger to human life?

And he answered: The matter requires study, but nevertheless I am inclined to say that Shabbat is not set aside to save a person from sin. For they said (Shabbat 4a) that we do not tell a person to sin so that another person should thereby merit, and we do not even permit a minor transgression in order to save the other person from [violating] a more serious prohibition. For they only said in chapter Ba-Kol me’arvin (Eiruvin 32b) that a scrupulous person prefers to commit a minor ritual offense in order that an ignorant person should not commit a major one when that prohibition comes to the ignorant person because of the scrupulous person. But otherwise this is not the case, as is proven in the first chapter of Shabbat regarding one who put a loaf of bread into the oven. The matter requires further study so that it can be clearly understood.

Tosafot (Shabbat 4a) first present the same position as the Rashba, but then raise an objection from a mishna which states:

One who is half a slave and half free works for his master and for himself on alternate days; these are the words of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said: You have made matters right for the master but not for the slave. It is impossible for him to marry a female slave because he is already half free. It is impossible for him to marry a free woman because he is half a slave. Shall he then remain unmarried? But was not the world only made to be populated, as it is stated: “He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited” (Yeshayahu 45:18). Rather for the better ordering of the world, his master is compelled to liberate him and he gives him a bond for half his purchase price. Beit Hillel thereupon retracted their opinion and ruled like Beit Shammai (Gittin 4:5).

Tosafot ask how this suggestion is to be reconciled with the fact that one who sets his slave free transgresses a positive commandment. And they suggest two answers: first, that procreation is a great mitzva and therefore it overrides the prohibition to free a slave. And second, that it is only in a case where the other person acted negligently, e.g., where he put the loaf of bread into the oven shortly before Shabbat, that one is forbidden to commit even a minor offence on his behalf. But in a case where the other person was not guilty of any negligence, one is permitted to commit a minor offence in order to save the other person from violating a more serious prohibition.

Based on this approach, if the other person’s prohibition did not come about because of him, and that other person came to the prohibition because of some negligence – then both according to the Rashba and according to Tosafot we do not say to a person that he should commit a minor offense and thereby save the other person from violating a more serious prohibition. If the other person’s prohibition came about because of him, then even if the other person had been negligent, we say to him that it is better that he should commit a minor offense. And if the other person’s prohibition did not come about because of him, and the other person had not been negligent, the Rashba and Tosafot disagree as to the law. According to the Rashba, we do not tell the person to commit the minor offense, whereas according to Tosafot, a person prefers to commit a minor offense in order that another person should not commit a major one.

The Beit Yosef decides the law in accordance with the viewpoint of Tosafot, and this is also the way he rules in the Shulchan Arukh (306:14):

If someone was informed that his daughter had been taken away on Shabbat, to remove her from the people of Israel, it is a mitzva for him to set out and try to save her, and he may even go out past three parsa’ot, and if he does not want to do this, we compel him to do so.

The Rema (ad loc.) refers to what he writes elsewhere:

If [non-Jews] wish to force a certain person to commit a severe transgression, one may not desecrate Shabbat in order to save him. See above 310 (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba). (RemaShulchan Arukh 328:10)

It would appear that the Rema disagrees with Rav Yosef Karo (the Shulchan Arukh) and rules in accordance with the Rashba. See, however, Magen Avraham (306:29) who writes that there is no dispute between the Rema and the Shulchan Arukh, because performing a labor that is forbidden on Shabbat by Torah law is regarded as a severe transgression, and it is only relative to conversion to another religion that it is considered a minor transgression, and the Vilna Gaon writes accordingly. The Magen Avraham adds: “The truth is that it depends on whether or not the other person was negligent” (254:21).

The Noda bi-Yehuda (second series, EH 37), however, writes that Rav Yosef Karo and the Rema disagree about the matter in dispute between Tosafot and the Rashba. According to him, we, who follow the Rema, accept the Rashba’s view that the critical question is whether the other person’s prohibition came about because of him, and that the other person’s negligence is not a factor. The Mishna Berura (306:56), however, decides in favor of the Magen Avraham:

For we maintain that if the other person had not been negligent, one is obligated to commit a minor offense in order that the other person should not commit a major one.

He further writes there, that in the case of a rabbinic prohibition, even if the other person had been negligent, there is room to be lenient and save him from committing a major offense. (And see there in Sha’ar ha-Tziyun 46, that it is not clear whether he means to be lenient about a rabbinic prohibition in all cases, or only to prevent conversion; and see Shulchan Arukh ha-Rav 306:29).”

Advertisements

About bookabazza

I am an Osteopath and University Lecturer who is trying to keep up with the 7 year daf yomi cycle. I thought I would try and share a few small thought on the daf each week.
This entry was posted in Shabbat. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s