Perhaps I'm Not Truly Orthodox After All?

Due to the recent earthquake in Haiti and the efforts of ZAKA to provide help, a lot of attention has been paid to the question of whether or not one is allowed to do melacha on Shabbos in order to save the life of a non-Jew.

I'm not going to pretend that I have the answer to that question. I have to state up front that I am not a rabbi and not a posek. A commentator on a previous post of mine said that it's an explicit halacha in Shulchan Aruch that one may not perform melacha on Shabbos to save the life of a non-Jew. He may well be right, but he may also be wrong in that circumstances have changed since the SA was written. Others have indicated and brought sources that this may not be the contemporary halacha. In short, I simply don't know.

But there are some things that I am fairly certain of -- and one of them is this: I don't think I would be able to avoid saving a life on Shabbos if the situation presented itself.

Imagine the scenario: It's 11PM on a pleasant summer Friday night and you are sitting on your front porch. Most of your neighbors have left for the country, giving your block an unusually quiet and peaceful Shabbos evening. In the place of the usual sounds of neighbors, pedestrians and the various other noises in your community, you can actually hear the crickets chirping. It's a welcome change.

Suddenly, the peacefulness is broken by a careening car that appears from down the street and appears out of control. Loud honks fill the air as the car swerves from one lane to the other, clearly out of control. You worry as it starts to head in your direction, but at the last minute, the car swerves and hits a telephone pole right in front of your house with enormous force.

It takes you a minute or so to get over the shock of the accident. The car is a wreck -- the front is totally crumpled. Thank heavens the telephone pole withstood the crash, or it might have gone right into your home. There's a fair amount of smoke coming from under the hood and rear and you think you might have seen a flame as well. Rushing over to the car, you quickly note that there are two occupants -- a barely conscious driver and an eighteen month old toddler strapped into a car seat in the back screaming hysterically. Both are obviously not Jewish.

You quickly glance around to see if anyone else is coming who might be able to help the crash victims or at least call 911. No one appears -- it looks like it's just you and the crash victims.

Through the broken window, you can quickly sum up the situation. The driver is hurt - bad. Blunt trauma for certain, possible (probable?) spinal injury. Bleeding coming from somewhere on his torso, but you can't see where. A nice gash on his head where his skull met the windshield. Moving him would almost certainly be a bad move but for the fact that you're now certain that you smell smoke and see flames coming up under the hood. Nonetheless, whether you move him or not, he needs an ambulance and a doctor - and quickly. The child, while frightened and screaming, seems to be okay. You're no automotive expert... is the car about to blow? You have no way of knowing for sure... but you know that smoke and flames in a car can't be good.

The guy groans and grabs your attention. He holds out his phone and begs you to get his daughter and himself out of the car before it blows and call 911 for an ambulance.

What would you do? Make the following assumptions:

• There are no non-Jews (or even other Jews) around to do any prohibited actions.
• No one else saw the accident. No one else is calling 911.
• There is no question of aiveh (hatred) as there is no one else around and you could (if so were so inclined) just waltz back into your house and claim you were sleeping and missed the whole accident should anyone question you.
• In order to save them, you will have to perform an action that is a melacha d'oreissa.

Could you just look the guy in the eyes and say "Sorry, my religion doesn't allow me to get you out of the car or call 911." Could you just walk away and almost certainly doom the man to death from his injuries and possibly the kid from an explosion? Could you ignore his pleas and just walk away? Could you be so callous if your religion demanded it of you?

Not me. Even if you told me the halacha is that I have to walk away and let him (or them) die. I just couldn't do it. Of course, I would do what I could to minimize the melacha done, but if push came to shove and I had to open the door to grab the kid (thereby turning on the lights in the car) before the car went kaboom, I'd do it. In an instant. May God never give me such a test.

That being said, I'm curious what that says about me.

Let's assume, for the moment, that the halacha is that it is absolutely forbidden to save their lives. I have just admitted that, under a certain set of circumstances, I would violate Shabbos - knowingly. That being the case, perhaps I should not be considered Orthodox anymore. Yes, I'll grant you that (despite having been an EMT in a former life) I haven't actually been in this circumstance yet (and let's hope I never am) and therefore I haven't actually knowingly been mechallel Shabbos. So perhaps for now, as long as I don't act on my beliefs/feelings/impulses I'm still "in the clear." But let's say that this coming Shabbos I am put in the situation? Should I call my rav after Shabbos, tell him that I'm no longer shomer Shabbos so that he can get a new ba'al kriah?* Should I just consider myself non-shomer shabbos even though 99.9999% of the time I do not knowingly perform melacha on Shabbos?**

At first, I thought about this in terms of some of the recent scandals that we have seen in our community. We still call people who commit financial crimes (and even, in some cases worse crimes) "frum" despite their transgressions. For the most part (and, granted, there are exceptions) they don't get thrown out of shul or suffer other communal punishments. Certainly, then, I might still be considered frum.

But then I thought about it again and realized that there is a fundamental difference between myself and the other cases we've seen. In the case of the Spinka Rebbe, for example, he certainly didn't mean to sin publicly. It was only the fact that the authorities discovered the crime that led to the public knowledge of his actions. Otherwise, he certainly would have continued hiding it. I, on the other hand, have no such defense. In the above situation, given the assumption that saving the driver and his daughter is forbidden, I would probably sin and so publicly and openly. That's a far cry from those who simply give into temptation once in a while and do so secretly and wish that they wouldn't do it.

Orthodoxy (in the modern sense) is usually defined by the "big three" mitzvos. We tend to consider people Orthodox if they publicly keep Shabbos, kashrus and taharas haMishpacha. Now that I find my status of being a shomer Shabbos in potential jeopardy, I wonder if I can, in all honesty, consider myself Orthodox anymore.

The Wolf


* The question of whether or not a non-shomer shabbos person can serve as a ba'al kriah aside, I'm willing to bet that most Orthodox shuls would want their official functionaries to be Orthodox and shomrei shabbos.

** Would you consider someone to be shomer Shabbos if they refrained from melacha most of the time but occasionally cooked a meal in public?

When Does "Dan L'Kaf Z'Chus" Apply?

It seems that some Jews have a very interesting mindset as to when to extend the benefit of the doubt to someone and when not to. See some of the comments about this VIN story about the ZAKA workers who worked through Shabbos to save lives:

WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

can any 1 tell me which "posek " gave them "heter" 2 desecratShabbat

and

Chilul Shabbos! Plain and simple.

and

There is no machlokes here; there is NO opinion that permits this.

In other words, according to some of the commentators, there is absolutely no possible way that ZAKA could have done what they did without violating halacha. Seems fairly harsh. Of course, there were other commentators who were presenting the possibility that the actions of the ZAKA team were fine and commendable. Eventually, after some arguing, one commentator said the following:

How wonderful. If its a child molester, someone who steals from the government, or Tropper all we hear is 'dan l'chaf zechus!!!'. But when it comes to people saving lives all we get is righteous indignation and outrage from some people. Disgusting.

And it struck me that he was right. It would not surprise me at all to find that some of the very same people who condemn the ZAKA crew would be the same ones yelling "dan l'kaf z'chus" or "you don't know all the facts!" with regard to Tropper or the Spinka Rebbe or any other similar situation. Personally, I believe there are sufficient grounds to be dan l'kaf z'chus here as I have little doubt that ZAKA is in consultation with rabbinic authorities with regard to what they can and cannot do. Do I *know* that? No, but I highly doubt that they went there and acted completely on their own vis-a-vis Shabbos.

I gave the matter some thought and wondered why this case is so different that the "righteous" are out there screaming bloody murder (or chillul shabbos, as the case may be) here and not in the other cases. And then the answer struck me -- in this case, unlike the others, the beneficiaries of the actions in question are non-Jews. It seems to be that whenever a Rav is the "beneficiary" of an action that may be against the law (and halacha) we hear warnings from people to give them the benefit of the doubt. But when the benefactor is a non-Jew, all of a sudden there is no possible halachic justification and any possibility of "dan l'kaf z'chus" gets tossed out the window.

Or am I viewing this wrong?

The Wolf

OK, But Why Is It Forbidden?

Yeshiva World News is reporting that several rabbanim in Israel (including Rav Wosner, Rav Eliyashiv and others) have ruled that one is not permitted to use Shabbos elevators. In their statement, they state that using such elevators on Shabbos violates an issur d'orissa (a Torah prohibition -- as opposed to a "mere" rabbinic prohibition).

The decree states that the ruling was reached after consulting with technicians and engineers that work on such systems. Personally, that's fine... I'm glad to see that the rabbonim are doing due diligience to ascertain the halacha (although please see the comment by Rav Rosen of the Zomet Institute in the original article). However, I was disappointed to see that there was no actual explaination given for the decree.

I know that there are some of you who will scream and yell "Rav Wosner doesn't owe you an explaination! He knows more Torah in his pinky than you'll know in your lifetime..." On the surface, I suppose that's true. Rav Wosner et al don't owe me an explanation. They don't *have* to tell me how they arrived at their conclusion that Shabbos elevators are forbidden.

Nonetheless, I think that an explaination of how the ruling was arrived at would be highly beneficial for several reasons:

1. It will increase compliance. Let's face it, today we're living in a world where you can freely choose to listen to the gedolim or ignore them. There will be those who will blindly listen to Rav Wosner and those who will choose to ignore him and continue using the elevators. But there's also a group in the middle - a group that won't blindly listen to the gedolim because of past (real or imagined) instences of "chumra abuse," but will listen to them where there are sound halachic reasons to do so. They may look at this latest decree as merely another chumra (despite the fact that the decree says it's an issur d'orissa) and choose to ignore it -- but when presented with solid halachic and technical grounds for observing it, they will do so. This will especially be the case where observing the ban will cause a great hardship -- infirm people who will, effectively, become prisioners in their homes for Shabbos or visitors to hospitals and other such institutions.

2. It will encourage Torah learning. When people see a decree like this, it's basically a "black box" type of decree -- you know that technical and halachic details went into the box, but you have no idea how the output (the ruling) was generated. As such, as a tool for Torah learning, it is very poor.* It could be made a much greater tool for Torah learning if the inner workings of the box were exposed and people could see how the ruling was arrived at.

3. It could result in a reversal. I know I'm going to tread on what some would consider to be hallowed ground here but, let's face it -- for all their learning (which is, by any measure, extremely great), there is the possibility that Rav Wosner et al made an error. By allowing for others to see how the ruling was arrived at, it's possible that someone could spot something or think of a possibility that Rav Wosner et al missed. I would think that especially in a case like this, where the ruling is going to cause significant hardships for some, that would want to possibly find ways to permit the use of these elevators if at all possible. By allowing more people to see the ruling, you allow a greater chance of finding just such a hetter that Rav Wosner can then consider.

There are those who will argue that it's demeaning to the gedolim to demand that they explain their rulings. There are those who will say that to do so is to possibly lead to a denigration of the gedolim by those who don't agree with their position.

To them I simply say to open up a copy of the Igros Moshe to almost page. Therein, one will find how R. Moshe Feinstein took pains to not only provide rulings on questions, but to explain those rulings, sometimes in painful detail. It was not beneath R. Moshe to do so... and even when people disagree with his rulings, it's done with respect. I don't see any reason why today's gedolim should be any different. For the reasons I listed above, I believe a reason should be given as to why shabbos elevators are forbidden. It doesn't have to be highly technical or highly detailed, but it should be enough that a person with a decent yeshiva background should be able to understand the ruling and "replicate" the results themselves.

The Wolf

* Yes, I know the ruling wasn't designed to be a Torah-teaching tool. But is there any real reason why it shouldn't be?

The Right Way and The Wrong Way

I was reading Rabbi Maryles's post this morning about the upcoming Jerusalem mayoral elections. In his description of the chariedi candidate, R. Maryles quotes from the World Jewish Digest that in 1987, the candidate entered a movie theatre on Shabbos and started shouting "Shabbos! Shabbos!" to the people in the theatre. I suppose that he was hoping to make an impression on the moviegoers as to the importance of the mitzvah of Shabbos. I don't know how well he succeded in his mission, but my guess would have to be that he probably failed. I'm willing to bet that most moviegoers in that situation would be completely put off by someone shouting in the middle of the movie and would be, at best, indifferent to the shouters message and, at worst, antagonistic to the message.

If this was a one time event, then I would say that it's just the actions of one person who doesn't understand human nature. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. In many chariedi communities in Israel, people seem to take the negative approach to kiruv. Rather than trying to reinforce in a positive manner why people should keep the mitzvos, they respond in a negative manner which, in all likelihood, destroys any chance of their message being heard. I highly doubt that anyone who had a rock thrown at their car on Shabbos is now keeping Shabbos because of that rock (or at all). I think the chances of someone keeping the mitzvah of tznius (however they choose to define it) because they've had acid thrown in their face is are infintesimal. I'd be willing to wager dollars to donuts that no one who was on the El-Al flight that was disturbed by a man who didn't want to see a movie is any frummer today because of his example.

Now, I'm not casting any judgements on the chareidi point of view regarding the requirements of tznius, not watching movies, keeping Shabbos, etc. What I am making judgements about are their methods. I don't know why they seem to think that the enforcer's role is the best one. The enforcer's role only works when there is no other option - but in Jewish communities almost anyone on the globe today, one can always opt out (i.e. cease belonging to the group, or being frum altogether). So, forgetting for the moment whether their goals are right or wrong, their methods are clearly the wrong ones to use.

Therefore, as a public service to the chareidi community in Israel, I would like to offer the following guide:

Instead of throwing rocks at cars on Shabbos:

• Line the roads when a car goes by and sing Shabbos zemiros.
• Hand the drivers literature about the beauty of keeping Shabbos.
• Invite them to come spend a meal or a Shabbos afternoon with you.

Instead of going into movie theathers and shouting "Shabbos! Shabbos!" at the moviegoers:

• Stand outside the theather and invite people on the ticket line to come home with you for a Shabbos meal.
• Invite them to come to your house or shul after the movie for a friendly discussion on the beauty of Shabbos.
• Describe to them how keeping Shabbos is much more meaningful on many different levels than going to a movie.
  

Instead of attacking women and setting fires to stores for violations of tznius:

• Organize an economic boycott.
• Educate people about the importance of the mitzvah of tznius.
• Explain to people that it's not merely about keeping "women in their place" -- tell people that tznius applies to both genders in various regards.
• Encourage people to innovate new fashions that meet both the letter and spirit of the laws of tznius.

Instead of looting electronics stores for selling MP3/MP4 players:

• Organize a peaceful economic boycott.
• Educate people about how bad these devices are with the goal of eliminating demand.

And on and on. In other words, find a peaceful means to get your message across. Now, you might ask (and rightfully so) how many potential Shabbos drivers will stop and agree to spend a day with a chareidi family? I agree the answer is not many. But there are still two advantages to this solution: 1. However few, the number of people who pull over and stop driving will be greater than the number of those who continue driving (and speed up, compounding the issur of driving on shabbos); and 2. Even if no one agrees, you're doing far less harm to the cause of Shmiras Shabbos by following my suggestions than you are by throwing stones.

In short, I ask you to keep this in mind: a person is responsible not only for his or her own sins, but also, to varying degrees, for sins that he or she causes other people to commit. I would venture to say that by pushing people further away from keeping the mitzvos by these actions (both the people who are the victims of these actions AND those who might have chosen to become frum but now chose not to because of your actions) you are doing far more harm to yourself and your standing in Heaven than if you simply left matters alone.

The Wolf

Quick Question About Shabbos, Yom Kippur and Avinu Malkeinu

Normally, on Yom Kippur, we say Avinu Malkeinu (Our Father, Our King) after each of the services. This year, however, because Yom Kippur comes out on Shabbos, it will be omitted (as the prayer is always omitted on Shabbos). Nonetheless, it *will* be recited following the last service, Neilah, at the close of the day.

My question, very simply, is why?

I came up with two hypotheses:

1. Since it is after shkiah (sunset) and it is only a safek (doubt) as to whether it is really Shabbos or not (depending on whether the day begins at shkiah or tzais hakochavim [when the stars appear]), we say it.

2. Neilah, being the last prayer of the day, is meant to end on a spiritual and emotional high note, and so the prayer is recited anyway, *despite* the fact that it is Shabbos.

Of course, the real answer could be a combination of these, or neither of the above.

Anyone have any thoughts?

The Wolf