Shabbat

See Shofar
See Pessah
See Memorial list
See Lights
See Dead, removing

NARR 94-95

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

**58. Jewish Studies on a Shabbat Afternoon**

QUESTION: A university would like to offer a college course for credit on shabbat afternoon in the Temple. A course given at this time will enable the largest number of students to fit a program of Jewish studies into their curriculum. In order to satisfy the college requirements, such a course would have to meet regularly and have scheduled exams. Is it appropriate to provide such a course in the synagogue? (Sylvia Nelson, Los Angeles CA)ANSWER: The study of the Torah has always been considered more important than anything else (M Peah 1.1). Much of the Mishnaic tractate Pirqei Avot dealt with the significance of study and the need to engage in it constantly. Study has, of course, been a traditional part of shabbat. In order to assure at least some study by all individuals, the Torah reading on shabbat morning and afternoon along with the Haftorah and sermon are designed to provide for universal study. Shabbat provides study opportunities during the morning and afternoon services as well as the third meal (Seudah Shelishit; Shab 117b; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 291). This meal is frequently accompanied by scholarly dissertations. In some traditions the Mishnah is studied on shabbat afternoon and groups (hevrot) are organized for this purpose. Regular study in a communal form is very much part of shabbat. We must, however, ask about the format of a university course with the trappings of the weekday routine. The course will have quizzes, examinations, and the other requirements of the university. These are alien to the spirit of shabbat which inculcates a reverence for learning, but also the pleasure of learning. This course will be appropriate if conducted in the right spirit. The instructor must provide the shabbat course with joy and the proper mood. Under those conditions such a course would be desirable. Examinations must be scheduled for another day as they certainly are not in the spirit of shabbat. A course planned to accommodate these considerations would be acceptable.February 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 267-268

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

177. A Holiday Gift Wrapping Project and

Shabbat

QUESTION: For six years Congregation Beth El, in

Traverse City, has cooperated in a fund-raising effort by operating a Christmas gift wrap service

at the local shopping mall. This activity has provided funds both for the congregation and the

local United Way campaign. Is it appropriate for the congregation to sponsor such an activity

during shabbat? (C. Carnick, Traverse City, MI)ANSWER: Reform Judaism

has continually emphasized the general mood of shabbat. It is a day of rest, worship,

study and family activity (S. Maslin, Gates of the Season, pp. 18 ff). In the matter of

specific prohibitions, traditional Judaism has been guided by the thirty-nine major categories of

work listed in the Mishnah (Shab. 7.2; 49b) and their later development in the Codes

(Yad, Tur, Shulhan Arukh etc.) We, too, have emphasized the need to refrain

from the normal routine of work. It is clear from both the Biblical commandments and

the subsequent development of Judaism that all kinds of business activities are prohibited, and it

is the task of the congregation to encourage its members to live in the spirit of shabbat

without involvement in any business activity. The fact that the activity helps to provide funds for

the congregation and the United Way Campaign would make no difference. The holiday gift

wrapping activity is carried out in a business setting with all the bustle and activity of the normal

working week. It necessitates the involvement of individuals in a working routine, and so, in

every way is a business activity. It should not be conducted by Jews, either on Friday night or on

shabbat. After shabbat is over on Saturday night, there would be no objection to

Jewish involvement.October 1985

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 265-267

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

176. Poverty Project and

Shabbat

QUESTION: Members of the congregation are involved

in a social action program which seeks to rebuild homes in various deprived areas of the city.

Plans are made for this throughout the year; the building material is gathered; hundreds of

volunteers both in the Christian and Jewish community are involved in the process. The actual

rebuilding takes place twice a year each time on a shabbat. Should members of the

Jewish community be involved in this activity which violates the spirit of shabbat, but on

the other hand helps the poor? (Rabbi J. Zabarenko, Houston, TX)ANSWER: The

commitment of Judaism to help those who are poor has been very clear from Biblical times

onward. The legislation of the Torah, and the constant exhortation of the prophets, have

moved us in this direction. The statements about charity by the legal literature from the

Mishnah onward have been very specific, and makes this one of the highest priorities of

Judaism. Tzedakah in all forms has always been important to us. Maimonides’ eight steps

of charity have systematized our efforts. The last of his steps is akin to the project undertaken by

your community, as it enables the poor to provide for themselves with dignity, and in this case,

proper homes in which their families can live. Reform Jews have placed special

emphasis on social action programs,and the eighth point of the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885

stressed this: “In full accordance with the spirit of Mosaic legislation which strives to

regulate the relation between rich and poor, we deem it our duty to participate in the great task of

modern times, to solve on the basis of justice and righteousness the problem presented by the

contrasts and evils of the present organization of society” (The Changing World of Reform

Judaism: The Pittsburgh Platform in Retrospect, W. Jacob, ed. p. 109). The

efforts of the Reform Movement in this regard are clear. The resolutions of the Union of

American Hebrew Congregations and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, as well as the

action of hundreds of congregations, have led us in this direction for more than a century. The

Social Action Center, which was established in Washington, DC, some two decades ago, has

provided additional national leadership. We must, however, ask how we can balance

this goal of Reform Judaism with the equally significant tasks of honoring the shabbat and

observing the spirit of this day of rest. The Reform Movement has considered the

shabbat very important and has tried to strengthen it. When the immigrant generation

found it difficult to attend shabbat morning services, Isaac M. Wise created the late

Friday evening service. The effort by some early Reform leaders to emphasize a Sunday

weekday service over the shabbat service was vigorously rejected as an infringement on

the sanctity of shabbat (W. Jacob, Pittsburgh Platform in Retrospect pp. 115 ff).

During last decades we have placed greater emphasis on shabbat observance. The

C.C.A.R. has done so through resolutions and publications (W. Gunther Plaut, Shabbat

Manual; Peter Knobel, Gates of the Seasons). Reform Judaism has emphasized

rest, worship, study and family activity rather than the details of the thirty-nine major categories

of prohibited work (M. Shab. 7.2; Mishnah Torah; Shulhan

Arukh).`Although rebuilding a home for the poor is a religious activity, we can not

consider it restful. Furthermore, we are not dealing with an emergency situation, but with a well

planned activity for which preparations have been made over a long period of time. Some

Reform Jews may not live up to the ideals of shabbat observance, but we must,

nevertheless, encourage them and discourage activities which clearly lead in other

directions. We would, therefore, encourage the Jewish community to participate in

other aspects of this charitable venture. They may plan, collect the necessary materials as well

as fund the project, but they should not participate on shabbat itself. As the

project is carried out twice during the year, one of those occasions can be a day other than

shabbat. If Sunday seems inappropriate, then one of the national holidays can be

selected. We should participate in the project but not on shabbat.March

1986

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5753.22 169-170

CCAR RESPONSA

Communal Work on Shabbat

5753.22

She’elah
Clearly, a Reform congregation would ordinarily encourage its members to help construct a needed

facility for the poor in the community. But if this mitzvah were to be performed on Shabbat, would it be a

violation of Torah law and therefore be wrong in the Reform view? Or could this activity on Shabbat be

considered life saving(piku’ach nefesh) and reflect the true spirit of Judaism and its concern for

the underprivileged, and therefore be permissible? (Rabbi Leo E. Turitz, Laguna Hills, CA)

Teshuvah
The very same question was submitted to Responsa Committee in 1986 and answered by R. Walter Jacob.¹

A copy of his teshuvah is enclosed.

We see no reason why we would override this decision; on the contrary, it is as badly needed today as it

was then. We would add a few additional observations.

1. We commend those who care for the underprivileged and are prepared to do something about it. Reform

Judaism has emphasized this concern as a vital aspect of our religious obligations. At the same time, Shabbat

observance remains for us a vital part of our Jewish existence, however much it has been neglected.²

2. We therefore have two mitzvot at odds with each other. Which shall be given preference? The

answer is not hard to fathom: The construction can be done on any day, Shabbat cannot be moved. The old principle

comes also into play, that generally we do not perform a true mitzvah if it is done by transgressing another

command.³

3. The one exception is piku’ach nefesh. If saving of a human life is at stake, then Shabbat laws

may be overlooked. Is that the case here? Surely not; there is no indication that immediate action on Shabbat is

necessary, lest there be loss of life.

4. We suspect that the congregation’s members did not contemplate doing the work on Sunday, because this

might offend Christian sensibilities. But would no Jewish sensibilities be offended? The very she’elah

reveals that, by some at least, the action was considered troublesome.

5. We are certain that those who are ready to participate think that they are doing the right and religious

thing, and we suspect none of them observes Shabbat as a day of rest in the accepted way. But as partners in this

activity they perform the labor not as private persons; they act under the auspices of the synagogue. Jews may eat

pork privately and find it both delectable and religiously acceptable, but the synagogue will refuse to serve it to

them.

6. If no other day can be arranged for the building, then let the members contribute in some other manner.

By doing so they will increase Gentile respect for exhibiting faithfulness to their religious tradition.

7. There is an opportunity for the Rabbi to study these teshuvot with the members and to explore

how the sanctity of Shabbat may be strengthened in their lives. This presents an excellent opportunity for

talmud torah and its application.⁴

Notes

Contemporary American Reform Responsa (1987), # 176, p.265 f.
See Gates of Shabbat , ed. Mark D. Shapiro (1991), pp.vii and passim.
See our responsum 5755.1, “Delayed Milah on Shabbat,” p. .
We were informed later on that the congregation acted in the spirit of our teshuvah.
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5755.12 165-168

CCAR RESPONSA

**Delayed Berit Milah on Shabbat**

5755.12

She’elah

The berit milah of a newborn baby was delayed past his eighth day. His parents now wish to schedule that ceremony on a Shabbat, since Shabbat is a day when family and friends can attend the simchah. According to tradition, a delayed berit milah may not take place on Shabbat. Is that the position of Reform Judaism as well? (Rabbi Eric Slaton, Lexington, KY)

Teshuvah

This question, as we understand it, concerns the nature and standing of both berit milah and Shabbat as they are observed or ought to be observed in our communities. Is the celebration of the mitzvah of circumcision, truly a powerful Jewish moment, so important and central that it should supersede the restrictions that customarily define Shabbat? Or does the reverence we accord Shabbat demand that other mitzvot, should they interfere with its observance, be set aside? Our answer will consist of two parts: first, a brief survey of the halakhah on the timing of the berit milah, and second, a look at the issue from the standpoint of our own Reform Jewish tradition.

Milah on Shabbat in Jewish Law. The Torah states twice that the ritual circumcision (berit milah) of a Jewish boy is performed at the age of eight days (Gen. 17:12 and Lev. 12:3). The latter verse reads: “And on the eighth day (uvayom hashemini) his foreskin shall be circumcised,” from which the rabbis deduce that the circumcision must take place on that very day, even if it happens to fall on Shabbat.¹ The traditional expression is milah bizemanah dochah shabbat, “circumcision at its proper time supersedes the Shabbat”: that is, we do procedure even though it requires actions that otherwise violate the prohibitions against doing work (melakhah) on the Sabbath. It follows that a circumcision done prior to or later than a boy’s eighth day (milah shelo bezemanah) does not supersede the Shabbat and may not take place on that day.²

Of particular interest is the precise way in which circumcision at its proper time may take place on Shabbat. The Mishnah records a famous dispute over the issue.³ According to Rabbi Eliezer, since one is permitted to perform the circumcision itself, one may also perform a variety of other actions normally prohibited on Shabbat in order to prepare for

the milah. Thus, one may carry the izmil, the mohel‘s knife, through the public thoroughfare; one may even make a knife if none is available. Rabbi Akiva, however, forbids these actions according to his rule: any labor that could have been performed before Shabbat does not supersede the Shabbat, and any labor that could not have been performed earlier does supersede the Shabbat. Thus, it is forbidden to carry or prepare the knife on Shabbat, even though the circumcision cannot be performed without it, since the knife could have been brought the day before. The halakhah follows Rabbi Akiva’s more stringent position.⁴ And through that determination, the tradition teaches an important point: though the performance of a mitzvah may entitle us to take actions that normally violate the Shabbat, we are to keep those actions to a minimum.⁵ Even if it is the day of a boy’s circumcision, it remains Shabbat for the entire community; Shabbat continues to make its legitimate demands upon the Jew, demands that cannot be ignored or forgotten.⁶

Reform Approaches. This Committee has consistently held to this position in questions which have come before us. Like Rabbi Akiva, we have held that Shabbat is a sacred span of time, an institution of Jewish life which makes its own legitimate demands upon us. The fact that Shabbat “conflicts” with another mitzvah or worthy cause does not mean that it is Shabbat which must give way. Indeed, the reverse is often the case. Put differently, Shabbat is more than merely a good day on which to schedule good deeds. It is Shabbat kodesh, a holy day; we do not violate or trespass upon it, even for the sake of mitzvot, unless those mitzvot must be performed on it.

In 1977, for example, the Committee was asked whether weddings might take place on Shabbat or festivals. Theoretically, there might be any number of practical reasons why a couple would wish to schedule their wedding on Shabbat, and one could even argue that, as a holy day, Shabbat is an especially meet time to hold the ceremony of marriage, which is in our tradition an act of consecration (kiddushin). Yet the Committee, concerned with “the sanctity of Shabbat as understood and encouraged by the Reform movement,” recommended that the traditional prohibition against weddings on that day be maintained. “We encourage our members to make Shabbat a `special’ day upon which we do not carry out duties and acts performed on other days. Countenancing marriages on Shabbat would detract from this objective and weaken our efforts.”⁷ In 1986 and again in 1993, the Committee declared that Reform synagogue groups ought not to participate in tzedakah projects, such as the building of houses for the poor, which take place on Shabbat. Although the importance of social action in Reform Jewish thought can hardly be overstated, the importance of Shabbat as a refuge from activity defined as work is also a sacred value to us. Since the tzedakah work is not an emergency and since it could be performed on another day, it ought to take place on a day other than Shabbat.⁸

Our attitude has been similar with respect to berit milah. We have ruled that circumcision ought to take place on the eighth day, even if another day might be more convenient to the family.⁹ And we have recommended that a berit milah not be scheduled at night, inasmuch as tradition calls for circumcision to be performed only in the daytime.¹⁰ In these cases, we have argued that berit milah is to be distinguished from “circumcision”. The latter is a mere surgical procedure; the former is a ritual act whose parameters are discerned in the rules set down in the Jewish tradition. It is precisely when we conduct it according to those rules that we transform the surgical procedure into a religious observance.

There are times, of course, when berit milah must occur on Shabbat. This, however, is not one of those times. We recognize that it would be more convenient for the family to schedule their son’s circumcision on Shabbat. But if convenience is the only justification for their request, it is, in our view, an insufficient reason to accede to it. If we are

serious, as we say we are, about keeping Shabbat and observing berit milah within our Reform communities, we have no choice but to respect and revere the lines which define them as religious acts.

Notes

1. Shabbat 132a. The word uvayom seems superfluous; the verse would bear the same sense had it read uvashemini. The Rabbis reason, therefore, that the word comes to teach another detail, i.e., “on that day, even Shabbat.”
Yad, Hilkhot Milah 1:9; SA YD 266:2.
M. Shabbat 19:1.
See note 2.
Similarly, when one needs to eat or drink on Yom Kippur, “we feed him little by little”, i.e., the minimal amount necessary to sustain him, so as to avoid a wholesale abandonment of the commandment to fast on that day; Hilkhot HaRosh, M. Yoma 8:13; SA OC 618:7-8.
For the sake of thoroughness, it should be noted that even Rabbi Eliezer, who assumes a more lenient position in the mishnah, would answer our she’elah in the negative. The circumcision may not take place on Shabbat, since that is not the child’s eighth day.
American Reform Responsa, # 136, pp. 412-415; see Gates of Shabbat, 58. The latter work, in particular, is evidence of our rabbinate’s commitment to the observance of Shabbat as a holy day within Reform communities.
The responsa are, respectively, Contemporary American Reform Responsa, # 176, pp. 265-267, and our responsum 5753.22, in this volume, pp. 169-170 .
ARR, # 55-56, pp. 143-146.
See BT. Megillah 20a, BT. Yevamot 72b, Yad, Hilkhot Milah 1:8, SA OC 262:1; R. Walter Jacob, Questions and Reform Jewish Answers, # 99, pp. 159-161.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 97-98

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

60. Fund Raising on Shabbat

QUESTION: Is it appropriate for a congregation to discuss matters of fund raising on shabbat? The officers of the congregation would like to meet before or after a shabbat service which they normally attend. (Charles Levine, Chicago IL)ANSWER: The Biblical statement clearly prohibits work on shabbat as recorded in the Decalogue (Exodus 20.8 ff and reemphasized by the prophets (Isaiah 58.13). The Talmud subsequently provided details and specifics which included the discussion of business matters on shabbat although no immediate commercial transactions may have been involved (Shab 150a). There were further discussions later about the permissibility of dealing with communal matters, and a general agreement that matters of charity as well as synagogue affairs might be discussed on the Shabbat (Yad Hil Shabbat 24.5; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 306 and commentaries). The welfare of the congregation may certainly be discussed on shabbat, but how specific may the meeting become? In answering these questions we must look at the circumstances which led to the permissive attitude. The only day of rest in most previous generations was shabbat. In many periods, therefore, this was the only day on which it was possible for individuals to gather together to discuss communal affairs. That is not our case, as virtually the entire society rests on both Saturday and Sunday and the vast majority in our society people restrict themselves to forty working hours per week. This means that there is ample time during the week for business discussions of all kinds. The necessity of holding such a meeting on shabbat either before or after service has been eliminated. It would be permissible to conduct such meetings during emergencies, but this should not become a regular habit of the congregational officers. We have sought in every way to enhance shabbat and the spirit of rest. It will be difficult for individuals who are normally engaged in business to refrain on shabbat while at the same time engaging in the business affairs of the congregation. The line of demarcation may become gray. We should not do so.January 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 114-117

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

43. Sabbath Observance

(Vol. LXII, 1952, pp. 129-132)

For some time now many of the questions directed to the Committee on Responsahave had to do with situations in which traditional observance of the Sabbath is involved. In some instances, the correspondents are irritated by the widely accepted restrictions, in the face of which no innovations designed to improve temple attendance or expand its recreational program, could be introduced. Thus, one rabbi, disturbed by the fact that the local high school attracts too many of the young people of his congregation to its Friday evening dances, wonders “if there is a real objection to holding dances in the Temple vestry on Friday evening after services.” Another rabbi, eager to promote athletics among his young people, wishes to know “the attitude of Reform Judaism to synagogue-sponsored recreation on the Sabbath.” Specifically, he should like to have his teenage baseball team practice on Saturday afternoons. But “one of the leaders of a local Orthodox synagogue has demanded that this not be held on the Sabbath.”

In other instances, our members seem more concerned with the impact of strict Sabbath observance on their social and communal relations than on their purely synagogal activities and plans. Thus, one of our members, who has had considerable experience in the field of public relations, feels put out by the refusal of some rabbis “to participate in public ceremonies such as flag-raising, a welcome-to-the-city to a distinguished visitor, or the like, if they occur on a Friday evening or a Saturday.” He asks in rhetorical vein: “Should a rabbi refuse to accept an invitation to represent the Jews of his community at… public occasions held Saturday afternoon at which there will be representatives of the three faiths and a rabbi’s presence is desired?” Another rabbi, who is earnestly pursuing “an inquiry concerning Sabbath observance and its violation by various Jewish organizations in the community which are accustomed to having meetings on that day,” raises the question “as to which kind of meetings might properly be proscribed and which type of meetings might, within the spirit of the Sabbath, be given sanction?’

Of course, most of the above questions, and others of like nature, find their clear answer within the body of traditional law. We are, for example, left in no doubt as to what activities one may freely engage in on the Sabbath. One may attend any kind of meeting the purpose of which is to deal with some pressing communal problem. The law permits both the pledging of funds for the care of the poor and the holding of special convocations in the synagogue for that purpose. One may even complete arrangements on the Sabbath to have his son placed in some desirable trade. The Rabbinic principle–resting on the passage in Isaiah wherein, in connection with the proper observance of the Sabbath, the prophet accentuates “nor doing thy business, nor seeking thereof” (Isaiah 58:13)–excludes from among the prohibited categories any business, or the speaking thereof, which is dedicated to some important social and religious purpose (Shab. 150a).

Likewise, in the light of this Rabbinic principle, it is quite obvious that one may join on the Sabbath any assembly of men who have been brought together in response to some public good–provided, of course, that there is nothing that conflicts with such participation, as, for instance, the call to public worship, or (in the case of those who abstain from any kind of travel on that day) the forced use of public or private conveyance.

Nor is the prohibition against dancing on the Sabbath anything more than a precautionary measure, aimed to forestall a possible breach of grave character, such as might occur were one led to construct on the selfsame day a musical instrument to accompany the dance (Beitsa 36b). It is interesting to note, though, that later Rabbinic authorities, in admonishing congregations not to sanction the holding of public dances on the Sabbath, to which some communities had grown accustomed, based their reason on the moral laxness which the free mingling of the sexes might induce, rather than on the older Talmudic ground (She-elot Uteshuvot Zichron Yosef,no. 17).

Yet, however wide an area of freedom we may still discover within the narrow limits of traditional law, no one who is acquainted with the vast bulk of restrictive measures designed to keep the Sabbath inviolate will question the accuracy of the Mishnaic observation, that the Sabbath laws represent “mountains suspended from a hair” (Chagiga 10a). But, unfortunately, we have chosen to avert our gaze from these mountains. We prefer to ignore their presence. In doing so, however, we have willfully turned away from the opportunity that was ours to bring the institution of the Sabbath under the searching light of liberal thought.

To be sure, no effort to liberalize our Sabbath laws will get us nearer to a solution of the Sabbath question, as long as the masses of our people must engage in bread-winning employment on that day. The heart of the Sabbath is today what it has always been–rest from week-day labors. Our goal must ever be to help create those conditions which will make it possible for the Jew to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy. And with the rise of the five-day week in modern industry, the partial fulfillment of our aim may not long be delayed. Yet many of us might even today be true Sabbath observers in the essential meaning of the term, if we could but rescue the Sabbath from the host of unreasonable restrictions which mar its character and weaken its appeal to the modern mind.

There can be little doubt as to the real intent of the primary laws governing the Sabbath. We are to let go of the toil which occupied our energies during the week: “Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest” (Ex. 34:21). The Biblical idea of labor thus embraced the agricultural occupations in which men were engaged to obtain their livelihood. When Jeremiah denounced the men of his time for bearing burdens on the Sabbath day, he clearly had reference to their persistent practice of carrying the produce of the field and the articles manufactured in the home to the marketplace, just as they were wont to do on week-days (Jer. 7:21-22). Even the injunction against the kindling of fire on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:3) was closely associated with the daily occupational tasks of the people, in which fire was an essential element, as the context of the passage clearly reveals, and as Bahya ben Asher properly points out (Vayakhel, Be-ur). And so, too, the thirty-nine principal classes of acts forbidden on the Sabbath, as they are enumerated in the Mishna, have to do mostly with the agricultural and industrial occupations of the people.

The principle that fences must be built around the law, which has led to the enactment of countless precautionary regulations, is a principle that we today must boldly reject in the interest of a saner observance of the Sabbath. Instead, we should reaffirm and employ as our constant guide the more important and fruitful Rabbinic principle: That the Sabbath has been placed in our control, and that we are not under the control of the Sabbath (Yoma 85b).

Taking our stand on this principle, we shall, of course, continue to stress the twofold nature of our Sabbath, namely, that it is our Jewish day of rest, and that, moreover, it is a day dedicated to the delights of the soul. But we shall not seek, in the name of Judaism, to deny men the freedom to perform such necessary acts and to engage in such additional delights as they have learned to associate with their periods of rest. In an age like ours, when we have come to view sports and games of all sorts as proper forms of relaxation on rest days; to hark back to the puritanic rigors of the Rabbinic Sabbath is to call in question the relevancy of religion to modern life.

Israel Bettan

See also:

Resolution,” National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods,1948, 1949.

S.B. Freehof, “Congregational Meeting on the Sabbath,” Reform Responsa, pp. 46ff; “Gift Corner Open on the Sabbath,” Reform Responsa, pp. 51ff; “School Dance on the Sabbath,” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 32ff; “Caterer Working on the Sabbath,” Current Reform Responsa, pp. 225ff; “Muggers and Money on the Sabbath,” Reform Responsa for Our Time, pp. 28ff; “Gentile Funerals on the Sabbath,” Reform Responsa for Our Time, pp. 142ff; “Sports on the Sabbath in Community Center,” Reform Responsa for Our Time, pp. 11ff; “Wedding on Saturday Before Dark,’ Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 167ff; “Shofar on New Year Sabbath,” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 36ff; “Memorial Services on the Sabbath,” New Reform Responsa, pp. 130ff; “Preparing the Body on the Sabbath,” Reform Responsa, pp. 126ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 118-119

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

44. Orthodox Jew as Partner in Firm Keeping Open on the Sabbath

(Vol. XLII, 1932, pp. 82-83)QUESTION: An Orthodox Jew desires to become a member of a law firm, the present members of which are all Reform Jews. He consulted a rabbinic authority and was advised that he could not allow his name to appear as a member of the firm if the offices of the firm were open on the Sabbath. They are closed only on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. He was informed that if a Christian became a member of the firm, even nominally, this objection would be waived. He has declined to appeal to any other rabbinic authority. I have no objection to the decision as such. If, however, you find any contrary precedent which would be binding on an Orthodox Jew, I shall be happy to know it.ANSWER: In regard to the question, I could not find any possible argument–not to mention a precedent–which would invalidate the decision given by the rabbinic authority consulted on this matter. In fact, the rabbinic authority in question went to the limit of liberal interpretation of the law in waiving any objection in case a non-Jew would nominally become a partner of the firm. According to the stricter interpretation of the law, there would be objection in this case even if there were a non-Jewish partner. The principle of the law is that the Jew is not to receive any profit from work done on his behalf on a Sabbath even when done by a non-Jew. In case of an ordinary partnership with a non-Jew, the Jew may stipulate in the arrangement or partnership agreement that the non-Jew should do the work–and take the entire proceeds therefrom–on the Sabbath day, while the Jew would instead do the work on any other day of the week and take the entire proceeds therefrom (Talmud, Avoda Zara 22a). In a partnership of the nature of your case, where the profit accruing from the work on one day cannot be specified, and the work cannot be so divided between the partners that one should work on one day and the other on another, some authorities permit the Jew to take his share of the total profit, even though a certain percentage of that profit accrued from the work done by the non-Jewish partner on the Sabbath day (Isserles in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 241.1, quoting R. Nissim). The assumption upon which this decision is based is that the non-Jewish partner is his own boss and not the agent of the Jew. He, as a partner, has the right to attend to business even at times when his Jewish partner neglects to do so. He may, if he so wishes, stay in the office and work, e.g., in the evening after his Jewish partner closes his week of work. And even though the profits of the business increase by this extra work of the non-Jew, since that part of the profit accruing from the non-Jew’s work on the Sabbath is not clearly specified as profit from Sabbath work but is figured in the total of the profits from the whole week, month, or year, the Jew need have no compunction in accepting it. In your case, however, the observant Jew would receive not only the unspecified part of the profit resulting from the work on the Sabbath by the nominal non-Jew partner, but also the profit resulting from the work done by the Jewish partners and all the clerks in the office partly employed by him, and, therefore, his agents. But, of course, I am not going to be stricter than the rabbinical authority consulted on this point.Jacob Z. Lauterbach

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

RR21 no. 5756.4

CCAR RESPONSA

Presenting a Check for Tzedakah at Shabbat Services

5756.4

She’elah

Our congregation plans a special Shabbat service to honor the work of a charitable agency. As we have raised funds for that cause, we wonder whether it would be permissible to give a check to a representative of that agency during the service. (Rabbi Lawrence Englander, Mississauga, Ontario)

Teshuvah

The observance of Shabbat is a complex and challenging issue for Reform Jews. On the one hand, we dispense in our practice with many of the traditional prohibitions associated with the day. Put differently, we tend to be more comfortable with zakhor, the various rituals which enable us to “remember” the Sabbath, than with shamor, the requirement that we refrain from a multitude of activities as the proper means to “observe” the Sabbath. On the other hand, it is inaccurate to say that we Reform Jews have no concept of Shabbat observance. The seventh day is for us, as it is for other Jews, shabbat kodesh, a sacred time, possessing a character which differentiates it from other days. An inescapable component of this sanctity is the recognition that certain activities ought not to be performed on Shabbat, for to indulge in them would violate the essence and spirit of the holy day as we perceive these to be. Our list of “forbidden activities” may differ from and be markedly smaller than that maintained by the traditional halakhah, but the spirit behind these prohibitions demonstrates that we regard the issue of Shabbat observance with the utmost seriousness.[1] In the case before us, we are asked whether a congregational gift to tzedakah is one of these “forbidden activities.” The she’elah demands that we balance a traditional observance, that which prohibits the making of gifts on Shabbat, against an action which reflects a community’s commitment to social justice, one of the highest values in Reform Jewish thought. Is the making of this donation compatible with our conception of Shabbat observance? The answer to this question requires that we consider the nature of the halakhic prohibition, the extent to which it continues to speak to us as Reform Jews, and the possibility that a gift to tzedakah counts for us as an exception to the rules laid down by Jewish law and tradition. 1. Commercial Activity (Sale and Gift) on Shabbat. Although buying and selling (mekach umimkar) are not numbered among the thirty-nine categories of work (melakhah) prohibited on Shabbat,[2] commercial activity is nonetheless forbidden on that day.[3] The authorities differ over the textual basis of this rule. Some trace it to biblical verses, whether Isaiah 58:13 (“if you refrain from trampling the Sabbath, from pursuing your affairs on My holy day…if you honor it and go not your ways, nor look to your affairs…”),[4] Nehemiah 13:15-22[5] or Leviticus 23:24.[6] Others explain the prohibition as a rabbinic ordinance (shevut), a preventive measure aimed at reducing the temptation to write on the Sabbath.[7] In any event, the sources agree that business transactions are prohibited, not because they constitute “work” but because they violate the spirit of Shabbat. The making of a gift is also prohibited on Shabbat on the grounds that, since it involves a transfer of ownership, it is analogous to buying and selling.[8] In declaring these acts forbidden, the halakhic sources teach us that the observance of Shabbat is much more than the mere abstinence from that which is formally defined as “work.” Shabbat, as idea and experience, demands that we separate ourselves from other inappropriate preoccupations as well. In the words of one commentator: “although the Torah prohibits the various kinds of work (melakhot) in all their details, a person might still toil all day long at those things which do not fall into that category. It is to forestall this possibility that the Torah says: `you shall rest.'”[9] The rabbis, that is to say, acting at the Torah’s behest, prohibit on Shabbat a number of activities which, though not melakhah, are deemed incompatible with the nature of the day. Commercial transactions clearly fall under this rubric. They may not transgress, in a formal sense, the prohibition against “work.” Yet they are prohibited because they comprise a realm of effort, of striving after gain, which is out of place on a day devoted to holiness, destructive of the goal of menuchah, of Shabbat rest and spiritual renewal.[10] The prohibition against the giving of gifts is not absolute. One may make a gift on Shabbat or on a festival in an indirect manner, through a variety of legal devices which allow one to avoid transgressing the letter of the law. Thus, one may formally transfer the ownership of the item to the recipient prior to the onset of Shabbat, even though the recipient takes physical possession of it on Shabbat itself. Alternately, one may instruct the recipient not to intend to assume ownership of the gift until after Shabbat has ended.[11] Moreover, under certain circumstances it is entirely permissible to make a gift directly on Shabbat. These include gifts made “for the sake of Shabbat or the festival” or “for the sake of a mitzvah.”[12] An example of this is the act by which a person gives his lulav to another so that the other may fulfill the mitzvah of netilat lulav on the first day of Sukkot.[13] Similarly, since it is a mitzvah to rejoice with the bride and groom, we give them gifts on the Shabbat during their wedding week.[14] And no less an authority than R. Moshe Sofer permits a congregation to give a gift to a rabbi on Shabbat, “for this honors the Torah and glorifies the mitzvah.”[15] Yet the tradition does not extend this permissive line to gifts of money. While a community may discuss matters of tzedakah and other public business and even decide upon tzedakah appropriations on Shabbat,[16] it is nonetheless forbidden to make monetary donations, even to a worthy cause, on that day.[17] 2. Shabbat Observance and Reform Judaism. Does this prohibition apply to our case, in the context of a contemporary Reform congregation? A good argument can be made that it does not. It is well known, after all, that Reform Judaism does not strictly observe the traditional prohibitions connected with the Sabbath. While we accept the traditional conception of Shabbat as a day on which we “rest” and do no manner of “work,” we do not believe that the structure of melakhah and shevut framed by the ancient rabbis represents the final word on Jewish practice. We exercise the freedom to do continue their work for our own time, to “develop definitions of work and rest that resonate with the needs of contemporary Jews.”[18] We may set aside the traditional prohibitions when we find them irrelevant to our conception of Shabbat or when we believe that the sanctity of the day will be nurtured and encouraged thereby. If so, why should a Reform Jew or congregation be prevented from making a charitable donation on Shabbat? We have already seen that the halakhic tradition permits gifts on Shabbat when these enhance the day’s holiness or when they enable us to perform a mitzvah. In the case before us, the gift is to be made to tzedakah, surely one of the most exalted of the mitzvot. Tzedakah, moreover, plays a vital and central role in the practice of Reform Judaism, which has distinguished itself by its dedication to the cause of social justice. A gift to tzedakah in the context of a worship service would serve to strengthen in our congregants the sense of holiness and the commitment to Jewish life. Thus, while halakhah prohibits the transfer of money on Shabbat, this prohibition should perhaps be waived when the recipient of the money is a person or organization that will use it for the sake of tikkun olam. Yet this argument fails to register the other side of our attitude toward religious observance. Though we are free to depart from traditional practices, we are not free to ignore them altogether. The tradition serves us as an indispensable starting point, the standard by which we measure our perception of “the needs of contemporary Jews” against the collective religious experience of the Jewish people throughout its history. It is our goal “to balance our creativity in practice with the desire to conserve and adapt what speaks to us from the past.”[19] This conception implies that we are not neutral and dispassionate in our attitude toward traditional standards of practice. Rather, we seek actively and affirmatively to “conserve” and to “adapt” those traditions whenever possible. In practical terms, traditional observances ought to enjoy a considerable presumptive weight in our thinking. As liberal Jews who seek affirm our connection to our people in all lands and all ages, we should maintain the traditional practice in the absence of a compelling reason to abandon or alter it.[20] The Responsa Committee has long followed this approach with respect to questions on the observance of Shabbat. We have stressed time and again that Shabbat is a mitzvah in its own right, one which makes its own legitimate demands upon us, demands which often take precedence over other worthy causes.[21] We maintain the prohibition against performing weddings and funerals on the Sabbath, even though both of these ceremonies enjoy the status of mitzvah in the Jewish tradition.[22] We strongly discourage the scheduling of congregational meetings and synagogue fundraising projects on that day, even though it is a mitzvah to support the community.[23] In each of these cases, we have found that the traditional practice expresses a sense of the sanctity of Shabbat that maintains its attraction to Reform Jews. We have therefore favored that practice over an alternative, more “innovative” standard. We have also urged that social action and tzedakah projects involving traditionally-prohibited labor not be held on Shabbat. Tzedakah is indeed a mitzvah, but then, so is the observance of Shabbat; and generally, “we do not perform a true mitzvah if it is done by transgressing another command.”[24] In light of our movement’s increasing efforts during recent decades to strengthen Shabbat observance among our people,[25] we must acknowledge that while a social action project may be scheduled on a weekday, “the seventh day is the Sabbath; it belongs to Adonai your God” (Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14). Shabbat is not simply a day on which we do good deeds. It is shabbat kodesh, a holy day, a refuge from many of the activities associated with the weekday world of building and planting, sowing and reaping, getting and spending. We do not trespass upon Shabbat, even for the sake of mitzvot, unless those mitzvot must be performed on that very day. Conclusion. In the case before us, we would ask a simple question: must the donation be made to the charitable organization on Shabbat? Clearly, the answer is “no.” This is not an emergency situation; there is no consideration of pikuach nefesh (the saving of a life) that demands an immediate response. We see no reason why the gift cannot be made, and do just as much good, on Friday or Sunday. It is true that a gift to tzedakah does not count as a “commercial activity” and is therefore less offensive to our religious sensibilities than an ordinary business transaction. Still, we doubt that any good purpose is served by abandoning the traditional prohibition against the transfer of money on the Sabbath. Indeed, the opposite is the case. By not making the gift at the service, by pointedly calling attention to the fact that we do not transfer money on this day, we remind our community that Shabbat is a holy day, a day set aside for the pursuit of its own very special purposes. The congregation may by all means devote the theme of its Shabbat services to tzedakah or to the work of the organization in question. And a representative of the congregation may certainly announce that a gift has been made (or will be made at the conclusion of the Sabbath) to the agency. In this way, the community can achieve its goal of instilling and reinforcing the value of tzedakah in its members. And by not making the actual donation at the service, it can demonstrate its commitment to another, no less important value: that Shabbat, no less than tzedakah, is a mitzvah in its own right. NOTES 1. For an attempt to define a Reform Jewish approach to the prohibition against “work” on Shabbat see Gates of Shabbat: A Guide for Observing Shabbat, 49-59. 2. M. Shabbat 7:2. 3. SA OC 306:1ff. 4. BT Shabbat 113a-b; Tosafot, 113b, s.v. shelo; BT Beitzah 37a, and Rashi, s.v. mishum mekach umimkar; Arukh Hashulchan, OC 306, no. 17. 5. Rashi, BT Beitzah 27b, s.v. ein poskin damim. 6. Nachmanides to the verse. 7. Yad, Shabbat 23:12; Rashi, BT Beitzah 37a, s.v. mishum mekach umimkar, second explanation; Mishnah Berurah 306, no. 32. 8. Yad, Mekhirah 30:7. 9. Magid Mishneh to Yad, Shabbat 21:1, Maimonides’ citation of Ex. 23:12–“six days shall you occupy yourself with all your affairs (kol ma`asekha), but on the seventh day you shall rest.” 10. See Nachmanides to Lev. 23:24, who derives this point from the word shabbaton. 11. In this fashion have some authorities permitted the giving of gifts to a boy on the day of his Bar Mitzvah celebration. See R. Yehudah Aszod (19th-cent. Hungary), Resp. Yehudah Ya`aleh, OC, no. 83, R. Yechiel Ya`akov Weinberg (20th-cent. Germany and Switzerland), Resp. Seridei Esh, II, no. 26, and R. Yonah Metzger (20th-cent. Israel), Resp. Miyam Hahalakhah, II, no. 80. 12. letzorekh mitzvah; Beit Yosef, OC 527, in the name of the Mordekhai; Magen Avraham, OC 306, no. 15; Mishnah Berurah 306, no. 33; Arukh Hashulchan, OC 306, no. 17. 13. See Lev. 23:40 (ulekachtem lakhem) and BT Sukkah 41b; SA OC 658:3-4: on the first day of Sukkot, one fulfills the mitzvah only with one’s own lulav, not a borrowed one. 14. Arukh Hashulchan, loc. cit. 15. Hagahot HaChatam Sofer (18th-19th cent. Hungary), SA OC 306, to Taz, no. 2. 16. Isaiah 58:13 (see at n. 4, above) is understood as prohibiting us from pursuing our own affairs on Shabbat; the pursuit of “Heaven’s business” (tzedakah, the public welfare), by contrast, is permitted. BT Shabbat 150a; SA OC 306:6. 17. See SA OC 310 on the restrictions concerning contact with money on Shabbat. 18. Gates of Shabbat, 57. And see R. Israel Bettan’s responsum from 1952: “to hark back to the puritanic rigors of the Rabbinic Sabbath is to call into question the relevancy of religion to modern life” (ARR, no. 43). 19. Gates of Shabbat, loc. cit. 20. This affirmation is evident in numerous decisions rendered by this Committee in recent years. In this, we have followed the guidance of our teacher, Rabbi Walter Jacob: see his Questions and Reform Jewish Answers, nos. 4, 67, 95, 99, 100, and others. 21. See Responsa Committee, “Delayed Berit Milah on Shabbat,” no. 5755.12: “The fact that Shabbat `conflicts’ with another mitzvah or worthy cause does not mean that it is Shabbat which must give way. Indeed, the reverse is often the case.” 22. On the prohibition of weddings on Shabbat, see ARR, no. 136: “we encourage our members to make Shabbat a `special’ day upon which we do not carry out duties and acts performed on other days. Countenancing marriages on Shabbat would detract from this objective and weaken our efforts.” 23. R. Solomon B. Freehof, Reform Responsa, no. 8; CARR, no. 177. See also R. Walter Jacob, Questions and Reform Jewish Answers, no. 60, who notes that the availability of Sunday as a non-work day in our culture virtually eliminates the need to discuss communal business on Shabbat. 24. Responsa Committee, no. 5753.22; see also CARR, no. 176. 25. Testimony to this emphasis is found in many recent publications of the Central Conference of American Rabbis: Gates of Shabbat; Gates of the Seasons (1983), 15-33; and Shabbat Manual (1972).

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 100-102

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

62. The Sabbath Commandment Against Lighting a Fire

QUESTION: The tradition concerning shabbat lists thirty-nine prohibited types of work. Most of them are derived deductively, however, the commandment against lighting a fire on the Sabbath is specific. Why is that so? (Stanley H. Levin, Pittsburgh PA)ANSWER: The commandment, which prohibits the lighting of a fire on the Sabbath (Ex 35.3), along with that against collecting mannah and the prohibition against planting, serving and harvesting represented the only specific injunctions which define work prohibited on shabbat in the Torah. The main statement which demanded rest was part of the Decalogue (Ex 20.10) and did not define work nor was a definition provided in Deuteronomy (5.14). The death penalty was specified for those who violate these ordinances (Ex 31.15; 35.2; Nu 15.32 ff). The Bible provided only a few instances of work specifically prohibited on the Sabbath. Jeremiah mentioned transporting items or “doing work” on shabbat (Jer 17.21, 22) while Amos listed trading on the Sabbath as prohibited (Amos 8.5). Nehemiah included trading conducted by non-Jews (Neh l0.32). He closed the city gates as he found people loading their asses, carrying fruit and other items as well as working in their wine presses (Neh 13.1521). The prohibition against the collection of mannah included its baking and preparation (Ex 16.22 ff). We can see from these statements that the Bible proceeded in the direction of specific prohibitions, but did not present us with a complete system as later found in the rabbinic literature. There, we find thirty-nine categories of work prohibited (M Shab 7.2; 11-24). All were associated with the construction of the desert tabernacle (Ex 35) principally because the specific Sabbath prohibition was associated with the construction of the Tabernacle (Ex 35.2, 3). Subsequently in the Talmud these categories designated as avot were further divided into toledot and so sub-categories became defined. The prohibition against lighting a fire, collecting and preparing mannah and plowing, sowing and harvesting represent the Torah’s steps toward defining work on the shabbat. It is not clear from the text why the prohibition against lighting a fire was singled out as a specific prohibited act. The commentators provide different interpretations on this. Some like Ibn Ezra indicated that it was intended to show how the Sabbath differs from other festivals like Passover. On them it is permitted to prepare foods and therefore to light a fire, but on the Sabbath this is prohibited. This had to be made clear from the outset. Others like Ramban indicated that acts, which might make the day more beautiful or comfortable like lighting a fire, were nevertheless prohibited. Both Ramban and Rashbam provided a number of other reasons from Midrashic sources. Benno Jacob in his classic commentary on Exodus cited this prohibition as one connected with the divine act of creation. As fire was part of the gift of light and so was among God’s initial acts of creation, it therefore represents the ultimate and primeval type of work. For this reason it is prohibited on the Sabbath. The last of these reasons sounds more convincing than some of the others. However, ultimately we really do not know why this prohibition was specified nor do we have a reason for the others found in the Torah or the remainder of the Bible. We may, perhaps, best say that the Bible moved slowly toward a system of specific prohibitions. As the Bible is generally not systematic, it was left to the Mishnah and Talmud to carry this to its logical conclusion.November 1987

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.