Q & A: A Mechalel Shabbat In A Minyan (Part II)

Regenerate

Just as these activities must have at least ten Jews together in one place, so too must the violation of Shabbos manifest in the same format.

Of concern is the general statement that Esther committed a public sin when she came to Ahashveirosh (“Esther b’farhesya hava”). This shows that since everyone knew about Esther’s intimate relations with the king, it was deemed a public act. Thus, to be categorized as a public act, it is not necessary for ten Jews to witness the sinful activity. In Esther’s case, knowledge by itself made it a public action. To this, HaRav Etlinger differentiates that in matters of intimacy where it is almost impossible to acquire witnesses that actually view the sin, general knowledge is sufficient to declare the activity a public act. However, when it pertains to Shabbos, no act is considered public unless ten Jews together view the violation. Common knowledge is that the Minchat Eleazar, the Munkatcher Rav, further refined this concept to require ten Shomrei Shabbat – Shabbos observant Jews – to actually view the violation for the violator to be deemed a Mechalel Shabbat b’farhesya.

HaRav Etlinger further noted (Responsa Binyan Tzion, Hachadashot Number 23) that a Jew who publicly transgresses Shabbos ordinances is deemed a gentile in that such action manifests his non-belief in G-d and in His role as the Creator of the world, as the Shabbos itself is our weekly testament to G-d’s creation of the world. On the other hand, should such a Jew transgress Shabbos yet pray in a synagogue and recite kiddush on Friday night, he is considered to be a believer and is not to be cast off from our people. He is not to be considered a gentile.

HaRav Dovid Hoffman (Rosh HaYeshiva of the Hildesheimer Yeshiva in Berlin, and predecessor of the S’ridei Aish) cites the Shoel U’meishiv and the Binyan Tzion who both contend that American Jews who violate Shabbos are classified as “children who were captured by gentiles” – “tinokot shenishbu bein ha’akum” – and are not to be judged as Mechalelei Shabbat b’farhesya. HaRav Hoffman further notes that the stringency of a reaction to a public violator of Shabbos may only be operational in a community wherein most Jews are observant. To publicly transgress Shabbos in a community where almost everyone is Torah observant is an act of open rebellion against Judaism. A consequence is that such a person is to be considered like a gentile. However, in an area wherein the overwhelming majority of Jews violate the Shabbos on a regular basis, any individual who transgresses Shabbos is unfortunately merely following the general wrongful mode of behavior. As such, he or she is not viewed as rebelling against G-d.

Rav Hoffman notes that many in Hungary as well as in Germany were lenient in this matter (Sefer Melameid L’ho’il, 29). From the writings of the Chazon Ish (to Yoreh De’ah, End of Siman 2), it appears that any Jew who did not receive proper rebuke (tochacha) concerning violating Shabbos is deemed to have comparable status to a child captured by gentiles. Similarly, HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, the late world-renowned posek, ruled (Ma’adanei Shlomo, Volume I, Mo’adim/Festivals, pp. 26,27) that any Jew who withholds himself from violating Shabbos while in the presence of a rav or ish chashuv (an important person) is not to be considered a Mechalel Shabbat b’farhesya.

Taking into consideration the above concerns, it is extremely difficult to halachically presume that any public violation of Shabbat automatically deems one a Mechalel Shabbat b’farhesya. Accordingly, halacha would permit all Jews to receive aliyot on Shabbos unless it may be substantiated that an individual Jew does not meet any of the limitations noted.

In a related ruling, HaRav Samson Raphael Hirsch (Responsa Shemesh Marpei, Siman 7) ruled that a Kohen who was a shochet and was married to a prostitute (meaning a woman of known loose morals) may not receive an aliyah as a Kohen. The obvious implication is that even though he violated a Biblical law by entering into a forbidden union and by so doing we are no longer duty-bound to sanctify him (the mitzvah of V’kidashto), he may nevertheless receive any of the other aliyot that any Yisrael (non-Kohen) may receive. Of course, Rav Hirsch further notes that in this instance where the man was a shochet, additionally one may not eat from an animal that he slaughtered. He then concludes with a prayer that Hashem redeem us from all such sin and suffering.

The message of this holy warrior on behalf of Orthodoxy – Torah-true Judaism – resonates with us today, some 140 years later after his passing, as we eagerly await the arrival of Moshiach, speedily in our days.

(To be continued)