Hierarchy of Melachos Shabbos – Part 2

[R’ Itiel Katz Shlit”a, a Chaver of our Beis Medrash, has authored an additional volume in our set of Sifrei Hadracha discussing the parameters of Meleches Machsheves in the context of Hilchos Refua on Shabbos. This essay will conclude the summary of one section of the Sefer that was distributed last week.]

Meleches Katan

The Mishna (Shabbos 121a) states that one must prevent a minor from extinguishing a flame since it is incumbent upon adults to restrain a Katan from performing Melacha on Shabbos. The Gemara (ibid.) explains that this applies to a minor who performs the Melacha with the implicit consent of his father. Rashi explains that since the son sees that his father is pleased by his actions, it is as if the father had commanded him to perform it. Tosfos add that the Gemara refers to a minor who has not reached the age of Chinuch.

                The Gemara (Yevamos 113:2) relates that R’ Yitzchak once lost the keys to the Beis haMedrash in a Reshus haRabim. Since the keys were needed on Shabbos, R’ Pedas suggested sending a Katan and Ketana to play in the area where the keys had been lost so that they would find them and bring them of their own accord. The Gemara derives from this incident that Beis Din are not commanded to prevent a Katan from transgressing an Issur and the Shulchan Aruch codifies this in Siman 343.

A further source about Meleches Katan appears earlier in the Shulchan Aruch (266:5). It rules that if a traveler is carrying his wallet as Shabbos begins, he should give it to a young child who is with him since the Katan is not obligated in Mitzvos. The Biur Halacha (ibid.) qualifies that if the child is his son it is preferable not to give him the wallet since a child’s Chinuch is incumbent upon his father. Regarding cases of Pikuach Nefesh, it is not only permissible to enlist a Katan, but sometimes it is even preferable. See the Shulchan Aruch (328:12).

Shinui vs. Katan

R’ Zalman Nechemia Goldberg zt”l (Halacha u’Refua 3 page 138 – paragraph 53) discusses the preferred way to answer an emergency phone call on Shabbos. Is it preferable for the doctor to answer with a Shinui or for a child to answer? He concludes that the doctor should answer with a Shinui, even if the child is not his son. However, he adds that if the Katan will answer with a Shinui or if [the child] is unaware that he is performing a Melacha or which Melacha he will be performing^[1], it is preferable to instruct the Katan to answer.

Shinui vs. Shnayim she’Asu

The Tzitz Eliezer (Shu”t 17:20:3) rules that it is preferable to perform a Melacha via a Shinui rather than by two people together (Shnayim she’Asu). The Pnei Baruch (Bikur Cholim k’Hilchaso 3) rules likewise, explaining that some hold that the Heter of Shnayim she’Asu is only an exemption from punishment, but the Issur d’Oraisa remains.

Nachri vs. Grama

R’ Akiva Eiger zt”l (Shu”t 64) derives that a Melacha performed through Grama by a Jew is preferable to Amira l’Nachri from the Halacha that one may not instruct a Nachri directly to extinguish a fire^[2] but it is permissible to cause the flames to be extinguished indirectly. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l rules likewise (Shu”t Minchas Shlomo 2, p83-4, 166). However, the Chasam Sofer (Shu”t E.H 20) seems to disagree. The Zecher Yitzchak (Shu”t 54) infers from the Rambam that the two are equally stringent.

Summary

When Halacha allows (or demands) performing a Melacha on Shabbos, the following hierarchy of Melacha (from lenient to stringent) applies:

1. Amira l’Nachri – An Issur d’Rabbanan and the most lenient option as there is no Ma’aseh.
2. Grama – Permitted in cases of Hefsed. Some contend that this is preferred over Amira l’Nachri.
3. Amira l’Katan – If the Katan is not his son it is an Issur d’Rabbanan and one must prevent him from Chillul Shabbos. It is an Issur d’Oraisa for a father to instruct his son to be Mechalel Shabbos since he is obligated to prevent his son from performing Melacha.
4. Shinui – An Issur d’Rabbanan and not considered Meleches Machsheves.
5. Shnayim she’Asu – An Issur d’Rabbanan. The exemption is from punishment but the Issur remains and some hold that there is liability b’Dinei Shamayim.
6. Melacha she’Aina Tzricha l’Gufa – An Issur d’Rabbanan and the most stringent option as it is close to an Issur d’Oraisa.

Order of Preference for Pikuach Nefesh

1. If immediate action is required: According to all opinions the Melacha should be performed by a Jewish adult without a Shinui.
2. If immediate action is not required: According to the Shulchan Aruch, it is always preferable for a Jew to perform the Melacha rather than a Nachri or Katan. According to the Rema, it is preferable to enlist a Nachri when possible. The prevailing Minhag is according to the Shulchan Aruch.
3. When a Jew performs the Melacha: If immediate action is required, he should act without a Shinui. Otherwise, it is preferable to perform the Melacha with either a Shinui or together with another person.

[1] [Editor’s note: Earlier in the essay (paragraph 48), R’ Zalman Nechemia writes “It appears that even if the Katan knows that it is forbidden to pick up the telephone on Shabbos but he doesn’t know which Melacha is being performed, there is no transgression here since he is performing the Melacha without Machshava [and, therefore,] he did not perform a Meleches Machsheves.]

[2] It is only permissible to declare, “Anyone who extinguishes [the fire] will not lose out”.