The Work of a Non Jew on Shabbat

First, it must be emphasized that non-Jews are in no way commanded to rest on Shabbat. On the contrary, it is "a Sign between Me and the Children of Israel". (I have discussed elsewhere the issue of potential converts observing Shabbat, as well as Noachides who wish to observe mitzvot beyond the Noachide laws). But what about a non-Jew, performing a labor for a Jew? Biblically, this is not a problem. The command "that your manservant and maidservant may rest", is universally understood to refer to a slave, not a "servant". Non-Jews who became slaves to Jews went through a process similar to conversion; including circumcision and immersion, but with the intent of becoming a slave, not a convert. Nevertheless, a slave had to observe all Torah prohibitions, and, upon being freed, became a Jew in every respect. They were part of the household. In fact, the slave of a Kohen could eat of the Terumah (heave offering), which would be a great sin if done by an ordinary Israelite. (I have dealt elsewhere with the issue of the morality, or lack thereof, of slavery. Basically, it was a concession to a societal norm, which the Torah put limitations and safeguards on, without forbidding it outright.).Biblically, there is no problem whatsoever of having a non-Jew do labor for us on Shabbat. The rabbis, however, forbade many things as a "fence" around the Torah. For example, writing on Shabbat is a Biblical prohibition. The rabbis forbade handling any writing implement, lest we come to write. The handling of said implement would constitute a rabbinic, rather than a Biblical, prohibition. These actions are called "Shevut", designed either to prevent an actual Biblical violation, or else to guard the special feeling of Shabbat. Along these lines, they ruled that instructing a non-Jew to do work for us on Shabbat is forbidden, lest we take the idea of work on Shabbat so lightly that we do it ourselves. Since this rule is completely rabbinic, many exceptions were built into it. For example, a person who is ill, but not dangerously so, can be treated by a non-Jew, even if Biblical prohibitions (performed by the non-Jew) are involved. If the action of the non-Jew would only constitute in itself a rabbinic prohibition, then instructing him to perform the action would be a "shevut of a shevut", which is actually completely permitted, although we avoid even doing that without some necessity. (Controversy will often come into this as to whether a particular act is a rabbinic or a Biblical prohibition). We generally only do this in cases where either a mitzvah is involved, or great discomfort. I have written earlier about the issue of electricity on Shabbat. Some consider electricity as "fire" Biblically, others consider it as fire rabbinically, others see it as irrelevant. Since there is a doubt, we need to be strict, until such time that a valid Sanhedrin will arise. But many will be lenient about asking a non Jew to turn on an electric circuit for us. Some, but not all, rabbis permit asking a non-Jew, even in the case of a Biblical law, to do work that is needed for a communal mitzvah. If what I ask a non-Jew to do will likely, but not necessarily, cause him to work for me on Shabbat, it is permissible. . For example, I can bring my car into the garage of a non-Jewish mechanic on Friday afternoon, with the understanding that I will get it back on Monday. Although I know that he will work on it on Shabbat, the fact remains that he could have worked on it on Sunday. That he chose not to, is a question of his convenience and preference, for which I am not responsible. Contrary to popular opinion, something we may not request from a non-Jew may not be done by a 'hint" (gee it's dark. It would be nice if someone lit a candle). In fact, in most cases, we must stop a non-Jew from performing work for us, unless he is actually doing it for his own benefit. In the early days of Zionism, when there was still pride in  Jewish labor, many recoiled from the idea of needing a non-Jew to work for us on Shabbat. Many ingenious inventions were developed and put into place, that would automatically do the necessary work for us on Shabbat. This has mostly gone by the wayside; but was based on ideological, rather than halachic, needs. In all cases of doubt, a qualified rabbi should be consulted. But it must be understood that not having a non-Jew work for us on Shabbat, is not for the purpose of making him somehow "Jewish", but is intended not to undermine our awe of G-d's holy day for us. The exceptions are not "outs" but rather built into the system, in order to meet human needs, with minimal violence done to our transcendent Shabbat experience.

The Non-Sabbath Observer

There is a recognition in our sources that not all sins...or sinners, are created equal. Besides the different punishments prescribed in the Torah for different offenses showing what is of greater or lesser severity of a particular action, the rabbis recognized other gradations. First, there is a huge difference between committing a sin because of passion or weakness, and one doing so as a show of spite or disrespect. Second, one who worships idols, or has converted out of the Faith, although remaining technically a Jew, is not to be regarded as such by the community. (A significant minority of opinions say that he is, in fact, no longer Jewish. This is not the accepted view.) There is a Talmudic ruling that willful Sabbath desecration is a form of idolatry, as Shabbat is a testimony that we believe G-d created Heaven and Earth. Historically, a Jew who did not keep Shabbat was, in essence, writing himself out of the Jewish people. When Shabbat desecration became common with the rise of Reform in the Eighteenth Century, many were left in a quandary as to how to relate to our brothers and sisters who were misled into neglect of this most central observance. There were, and are, rabbis and communities that turn these people away, in the hopes of maintaining the pristine observance of Judaism. Most, however, were far more lenient. The Shulhan Aruch had already ruled that one who transgresses only privately, has not lost his status of credibility. Many pointed to a Talmudic dictum that one who refrains from violating Shabbat in front of a sage (showing that he is embarrassed), is still considered "kosher". Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman (Melamed L'hoi'l) went even further, opining that since Shabbat is not observed by so many Jews, most do not consider it as being such a severe transgression, thus rendering their willful transgression accidental. Although this approach was rejected by Chofetz Chaim in Mishnah Berurah, it was accepted by Chazon Ish. In fact, Chazon Ish actually gave non-Sabbath observers the honor of being called to the Torah. Many are lenient based on the concept of "Tinok Shenishbah" (a baby captured by Gentiles, who grew up without Torah knowledge), extending that concept to include one who was brought up without a solid Jewish education. However, as I pointed out in a previous series, that entire concept is based on a censor's correction in RAMBAM.  Moshe Feinstein was lenient to count non-Sabbath observers in a minyan for the saying of Kaddish, but not for public prayer. Mahari Assad (19th century) wrote that Jews who have strayed should be encouraged to return, and in no way should be made to feel rejected. In my experience, most Israeli rabbis do not allow a non-Sabbath observer to be counted in a minyan, whereas most American rabbis do. My own policy is based on a teaching of Rav Ovadia Yosef, that a non-observant Jew who comes to synagogue even occasionally, and recites the blessing "Mekaddesh HaShabbat" (in Kiddush and in the Shabbat Amidah prayer), is not to be seen as one who rejects the Shabbat, and, although transgressing, is to be seen as a full part of the community. May G-d restore all our lost ones.

Who Counts in A Minyan?

Who does or doesn't count in a minyan (quorum of ten) is a most controversial topic. First, we must decide if the concept of "minyan" is Biblical or Rabbinic. The rule is that in case of doubt, we must be stringent with a Biblical law, but we may be lenient with a rabbinic law. The Talmud derives the requirement of ten from the story of the spies. Twelve men were sent to spy out the Land; two brought back a good report, while ten brought back a bad report. G-d tells Moses and Aaron "Separate yourselves from this evil congregation". We thus learn that a "congregation" is ten. But is this a principle derived from the verse, and hence Biblical, or a rabbinic concept, that was "leaned" on to the verse (asmachta)?The view of the majority of authorities is that the principle is rabbinic, allowing leeway for some flexibility. The conclusion of discussions in the Talmud on this topic, clearly state that only adult (over thirteen) males can count towards the requisite number of ten. There is, however, an opinion that the Ark, containing a Torah scroll,can be counted. This view is rejected. However, in many times and places, this view was relied upon in emergency situations. Rabbenu Simchah, the author of Machzor Vitry (a student of RASHI, d. 1105) opined that in case of need, a minor, a woman, or a Torah scroll could be counted as the the tenth "man". However, about a century later, Rabbenu Tam, the greatest of the Tosafists, refused to consider this view whatsoever. A somewhat later authority, Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel (1250–1298), quotes Rabbenu Simchah's view, wondering if it must be limited to one child, scroll, or woman, or even several, as long as there is a clear majority of adult men. Practices varied. The author of the Shulhan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Karo, totally rejects these ideas, including only adult men in a minyan. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (RAMA), the major Ashkenazi voice in the Shulhan Arusch, reports that the widespread Ashkenazi custom was to allow a boy, over six years of age, to hold a Humash (text of the five Books of the Torah), and count him as the tenth man. This view is based on the concept of "Tziruf"; combining two rejected, minority opinions, as a positive. (The Vilna Gaon consistently fought this approach). The vast majority of later rabbinic opinion rejected this liberal view, yet it persisted in many places. The turn of the twentieth century legal code, known as Mishnah Berurah, rejected the counting of a child, which sounded the death knell for he practice in "Yeshivish" circles. The practice still continues in many Hasidic circles, as well as some non Hasidic. It was commonly followed in many American congregations. I have seen non Orthodox synagogues count the Torah scrolls in the Ark towards a minyan, but I have never seen that in an Orthodox synagogue (although this practice can be justified based on the Talmudic opinion to this effect, combined with the view of Rabbenu Simchah that this may be relied upon in an emergency). Rabbi Moshe Feinstein opined that only in case of the greatest emergency, such as a synagogue in a dying community that no longer has a regular minyan, can a child, WITHIN A YEAR OF BAR MITZVAH, be counted while holding a Torah Scroll (NOT a printed Humash), for the purpose of reciting Kaddish, Kedushah, and Barchu, but not saying any extra blessings, such as the reader's repetition of the 'amidah. Non Lithuanian Ashkenazim continue, in many places, to rely on the child alone (without Humash), conducting a full service. Israeli Sepharadic rabbis have condemned the practice, but it is accepted by some American Sepharadic rabbis. This issue has not yet been resolved. Each side has valid arguments. Like many other issues, it awaits the ruling of a Sanhedrin.