Rabbi Yossi SprungIn a previous essay[1], we discussed the question of a Choleh who is restricted to fasting once in ten days. Should he fast on Yom Kippur or Tzom Gedalia? That discussion focused on the important Halachic question of whether it is incumbent upon a person to prevent himself from entering a situation of Ones that would exempt him from a future Mitzva.
This essay will discuss the notion of intentionally creating a situation that would lead to a Petur from an obligatory Mitzva. This has wide-ranging Halachic implications, as we will see. We will explore cases where a person is (or will be) Chayav to perform a Mitzva and is considering performing an action that would cause him to enter a state of Pikuach Nefesh that would exempt him from fulfilling that Mitzva. Is there any justification to permit him to act at the expense of the Mitzva?
This may seem somewhat abstract and irrelevant, but it has practical ramifications. For example, a person in poor health is Chayav to fast on Yom Kippur – provided that there is no danger to his life – since Yom Kippur is a Mitzva d’Oraisa. He must also do everything in his power beforehand to prevent a state of Pikuach Nefesh that would exempt him from fasting. This is clear from the Chasam Sofer (6:23) and from the Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (1, 39:30):
A weak person, for whom it is difficult to fast and to attend Shul, should fast and lie in bed as he has no permission to eat or drink even Shiurim, even if he does so so that he will have the strength to go to Shul. By remaining home in his bed, he is fulfilling a Mitzva as this will enable him to fast according to Halacha.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l (ibid. footnote 97) extends this Halacha to include a person who is permitted to eat or drink Shiurim on the fast. If, by remaining in his house, he will reduce the intake of Shiurim necessary, he must do so even at the expense of going to Shul. The reason for this Halacha is obvious. The primary Mitzva of Yom Kippur is that of afflicting oneself through, though not limited to, fasting. In contrast, Davening with a Minyan, significant though it may be, is not a Mitzva d’Oraisa. Therefore, a person must remain home and not attend Shul if this will enable him to fast.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that despite the obvious nature of this Halacha, people are determined to attend a Shul to Daven with a Minyan. They do so irrespective of the probability that this will intensify the difficulty of their fast due to the effort expended to walk to Shul and the fact that the Shul will be crowded. We thus come to our question: which circumstances permit a person to perform an action through which he will be Mevatel a Mitzva?
Let us examine the Sugya:
The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos (19a) quotes a B’raisa:
One may not set out by boat fewer than three days before Shabbos. When does this apply? For a voluntary matter, but for a Mitzva it is permissible.
The Gemara discusses a case of a person who must travel by boat, but the journey will extend into Shabbos (and will involve Chillul Shabbos). The B’raisa teaches us that he may board the boat provided that it is more than three days before Shabbos, even though he is fully cognizant of the fact that Chillul Shabbos will be necessary.
The Rishonim disagree over the explanation of this Gemara; we will focus on the opinions that relate to the Halachic discussion.
The Rif’sopinionis that the Issur to board the boat within three days preceding Shabbos acts as a safeguard for Oneg Shabbos. He explains that a person feels the travails of a journey for three days from its outset.[2] Hence, if he were to travel within three days of Shabbos he would be unable to fulfill the Mitzva of Oneg Shabbos. Therefore, the Chachamim only permitted him to travel if he departs before the three days so that he would be able to fulfill the Mitzva with Yishuv haDa’as.
The Ramban’sopinion (quoted by the Ran and other Rishonim) is that the B’raisa refers to a boat manned by non-Jewish sailors and the Halachic concern is benefiting from Melacha performed by a Nochri. According to the Ramban, the first days of the week are not attributed to the following Shabbos and a person need not take into account that he is entering into a situation that will require him to depend upon the Melacha of a Nochri. Within the three days before Shabbos, he is required to be concernedabout that situation; it is therefore forbiddenfor him to board the boat.
In contrast, the Ba’al haMa’or holds that the B’raisa is discussing a case where the sailors are Jews, and they are permitted to perform Melacha on Shabbos due to Pikuach Nefesh. Though they will be performing Melachos d’Oraisa, the traveler need not be concerned aboutrelying on the Heter of Pikuach Nefesh since he is boarding the boat before the three-day window. Within three days of Shabbos, however, he may not willingly enter into a situation of Pikuach Nefesh in which he will be dependent upon Melachos performed by Jewish sailors.
The Gemara qualifies that if he is traveling for a Mitzva he may even depart within the three days before Shabbos. How can we explain this qualification?
According to the Rif’s approach that the concern is Bitul Oneg Shabbos, this Halacha is understandable. It is logical that if he is traveling for one Mitzva, he will be Patur from another Mitzva (in this case, Oneg Shabbos). According to the Ramban’s approach that the concern is benefiting from the Melacha of a Nochri, we can similarly explain that since he is traveling for a Mitzva, this overrides the prohibition of an Issur d’Rabbanan (benefiting from the Melacha of a Nochri is an Issur d’Rabbanan). But according to the Ba’al haMaor’sapproach that the concern is Chillul Shabbos by Jews, why should the Mitzva override that concern?
In fact, the Rif questions the Ba’al haMaor’s approach with the assertion that often the Chachamim upheld their decrees even at the expense of a Mitzva d’Oraisa. Certainly, they would not waivetheir decree in a case where a person is merely travelingto perform a Mitzva.
We must say that the Ba’al haMa’or understands that the issue here is Zilzul Shabbos (denigrating Shabbos). The Jewish sailors will indeed be permitted to perform Melachos due to Pikuach Nefesh. However, if the traveler willingly puts himself into this situation, that is a deficiency of Kavod Shabbos on his part. This issue – which is only d’Rabbanan – is waived if he is traveling for a Mitzva.
The Gemara (ibid.) records a Machlokes Tana’im about a person who is permitted to travel before Shabbos for a Mitzva. They disagree as to whether he must stipulate with the sailors to refrain from Chillul Shabbos during the journey. The Tur rulesthat he is not required to do so but the Shulchan Aruch (following the Rambam), rulesthat he must. The Mishna Berura clarifies that although it is a Mitzva to stipulate, it is not Me’akev. This is the conclusionof most Acharonim, though the Magen Avraham seems to state otherwise.
One proof is adduced from the Shach (Y.D. 266) who rulesthat one may perform a Bris Mila sheLo b’Zmana (which does not override Shabbos) on a Thursday despite the resultant Chillul Shabbos that will be necessary for the baby. The Shach compares this case to a person who travels by boat before Shabbos for a Mitzva.
Given that it is impossible to prevent Chillul Shabbos in the case of the Bris Mila (as it is essential for the baby’s health), the obligationto prevent Chillul Shabbos must not be Me’akev. The Shach’scomparison of the two cases impliesthat failing to stipulate with the sailors on the boat does not prohibit him from traveling with them.
However, the Mishna Berura (Se’if 4) asserts that in a situation where it is absolutely clear that danger will exist on the journey, the Mitzva to prevent Chillul Shabbos is Me’akev. Accordingly, a person who wants to take a course of action that will definitely lead to a situation of Sakana is forbidden from doing so if it will cause Bitul Mitzva or Chillul Shabbos (unless the action is urgent). For example, it is forbiddento schedule [an elective] surgery close to Shabbos that will perforce lead to Chillul Shabbos. But, if it is merely a doubt as to whether Chillul Shabbos will be necessary, it may indeed be scheduled close to Shabbos as the operation is considered a Mitzva (of maintaining good health).
These Halachos pertain only to actions performed before Shabbos, as the Gemara implies. There is seemingly no Heter to perform an action leading to Chillul Shabbos on Shabbos itself. However, this may not be absolute.
The Acharonim conclude (based on the Ba’al haMa’or) that the Issur to enter into a state of Sakana, thereby causing Bitul Mitzva, is only mid’Rabbanan. If the Issur were mid’Oraisa, there would be no Heter to travel for a Mitzva.
However, the Ba’al haMa’or himself implies that this conclusion is incorrect. There is a well-known Machlokes regarding a Bris Mila that was due to be performed on Shabbos, but the hot water that had been prepared spilled and would not be available to wash the baby. Some Rishonim hold that the Bris should be performed on Shabbos nevertheless. Since the baby will be in a state of Pikuach Nefesh following the Bris, the water may be heated on Shabbos to wash him. The Ba’al haMa’or argues that the Bris should not be performed on Shabbos since one may not deliberately create a state of Pikuach Nefesh when Chillul Shabbos will result. We see that the Ba’al haMa’or holds thatthis Issur is mid’Oraisa – if it was only mid’Rabbanan it would not overridethe Mitzva d’Oraisa of Mila b’Zmana.
Some Mefarshim resolve the contradiction in the Ba’al haMa’or by differentiating between Bris Mila and traveling on a boat. Since the Mitzva of Mila is performed on Shabbos itself, when the Chiyuv to keep Shabbos is active, an action that will cause Chillul Shabbos would be considered an Issur d’Oraisa. The action of boarding the boat, however, is performed before Shabbos when no Chiyuv existsto observe Shabbos. Therefore, this only constitutes an Issur d’Rabbanan.
However, many Acharonim, such as R’ Elchanan Wasserman Hy”d (in Kovetz He’aros)andRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, dispute this assertion and hold that there is no difference between an action performed before Shabbos and one performed on Shabbos itself in this regard.
Returning to our case, if a person knows that by walking to Shul on Yom Kippur he will definitely require foodor drink, it is Asur for him to do soeven though walking could legitimately be called a Mitzva. But, in the more common scenario, where it is unclear that the walk or the crowded Shul will cause him to break his fast, perhaps this would not constitute an Issur Gamur.
The source for this is the Mishna Berura whocites a Machlokes as to whether the Heter to board a boat for a Mitzva extends to departing on Shabbos itself. The Magen Avraham holds that to depart on Shabbos is forbidden since the person will be unable to stipulate with the sailors to prevent Chillul Shabbos. Other Poskim disagree.
However, even according to the Magen Avraham, it is permissible to board the boat even on Shabbos in a case where it is only doubtful if Chillul Shabbos will be necessary, even though he will not be able to stipulate with the sailors. (The objective of stipulating with the sailors is to prevent a certainty of Chillul Shabbos. We cannot say that the objective is to completely rule out the possibility of Chillul Shabbos because then there would be no Issur at all. Therefore, a case of doubt is akin to a stipulation and would be permissible even according to the Magen Avraham.)
The same is true in our case. Although by walking to Shul the person may no longer be capable of fasting, he does not commit an Issur since he is performing a Mitzva and it is not certain that he will be unable to continue fasting.
We must emphasize that, practically speaking, a Choleh should remain in his house as per the rulingof the Chasam Sofer and Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa mentioned above. [3] This essay is a purely academic discussion of the Issur committed by one who stubbornly goes to Shul and forces a situation that requires him to break his fast.
[1] “Mitzvos in the Future”, Nitzovim 5782
[2] [Editor’s note: In other words, a seafarer becomes acclimated to sea travel after three days and will not suffer from seasickness on Shabbos.]
[3] We should also emphasize that haGaon Rav Asher Weiss Shlit”a commented that it is difficult to derive practical Halacha from the case of boarding a boat (Minchas Asher, Shemos 38).
Rabbi Yossi Sprung
Add comment