The Ah”S suggests that even though gerama is permitted, to
be “goreim gerama,” to deliberately cause a gerama to take
place, is prohibited. For example: if a person had the shem Hashem
written on his skin and deliberately stood under water for the sake of erasing the shem, that is the same as just taking an eraser and rubbing it
out. Just because the water is doing the
work and not the person makes no difference.
Therefore, since the gemara’s heter of gerama applies in such a limited
uncommon scenario like going to mikveh, the Shulchan Aruch omits the topic entirely.
I don’t know how to make sense of the Ah”S’s chiddush once
we take it out of the context of erasing shem haShem and try to apply it to other areas. The gemara writes that melacha is prohibited
on Shabbos, but gerama is permitted.
The gemara gives an example: placing barrels of water in the path of
a fire, so that when the fire hits the barrels and explodes them, the water
will extinguish the fire. According to
the Ah”S, why is this permitted – isn’t it being “goreim gerama” since the
intent obviously is to extinguish the fire and setting the barrels in its path
is just a ruse to indirectly accomplish that goal?
In your example there is another factor: Adam bahul al mamono. Perhaps Chazal felt that it would be better not to extend their gorem gerama decree to such a situation because the alternative would lead to chilul Shabbos.
ReplyDeletePsik Reisha d'nicha lei.
ReplyDeleteNote that the Aruch Hashulchan apparently has forbidden
all grama switches.
MGI -- it's not a gezeira, it's a din d'orasya.
ReplyDeletePesik reisha is where there is a secondary consequence of your action. Gerama = it's not your action. Why mix them together?
Besides gerama switches I was thinking about moving pins on a timer -- the issue doesn't even get started according to this Ah"S.
What gU was referring to was that the person being toveil is motivated by a need to be toveil, and the gram mechika is a PR. The AH is talking about a person that goes into the water davka in order to effectuate the gram mechika.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right. The AH would asser all gramas. And he's not the only one. There's also the Chasam Sofer and the Rogotchover who asser beRachel Bitcha Haktana. And Reb Moshe. I've heard it called the black box theory- if the purpose is to yield a desired result, then the fact that the box contains fifty gramas is irrelevant. You press a button, the result is a melacha, you're chayav.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you do with the gemara in Shabbos - you can't assur what the gemara itself is matir?
ReplyDelete(this is chaim)
See Chazon Ish Bava Kamma 14:12, http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14332&st=&pgnum=185 , where he suggests that kibui is different. Also see Chasam Sofer EH 20, http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=793&st=&pgnum=34 , where he says it's a machlokes l'halacha whether gram is muttar or assur on Shabbos. And best of all, the Rogotchover in Ki Sisa 31:15, http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22177&st=&pgnum=394&hilite= , says clearly that kibui is the exception to the rule.
ReplyDeleteYou can't asser what the Gemara is mattir, but you can limit it to the specific facts of that case.
I like the mareh mekomos, but I'm still not a happy camper.
ReplyDeleteThe gemara Shabbos 120b asks a stirah between halachos: R' Yosi is matir going to mikveh even if you have the shem Hashem written on your skin, but prohibits putting out barrels of water in the way of the fire. If gerama is mutar, then both cases should be OK; if gerama is asur, then both cases should be assur. The Chachamim hold the reverse of R' Yosi in both cases, and the gemara asks the same stirah.
Isn't the gemara comparing apples and oranges? If you are telling me the that kibuy is a unique din, then why should there be consistancy between the two cases?
I can see how you might answer this point, but I think it gets into dichukim.
Each of them is interesting. I especially liked the Chazon Ish's line
ReplyDeleteאבל שבת לא המלאכה שנואה בשבת אלא טורח האדם במלאכה שנאוי, (which he later limits drastically) and the Rogotchover and the Chasam Sofer focusing on יֲעֲשֶה and יֵעָשֶה
Alternative the two cases aren't the same thing. In the mikveh case I'm directly putting my hand in the water. In the fire case I'm putting the barrels outside the fire and waiting for the first to reach them. A more analogous case would either be putting my hand on the ground near an approaching stream of water and waiting or throwing the barrels into the fire.
ReplyDeleteBased on the footnote in the Rogotchover source that Barzilai brought, it seems the Rogotchover held that Kivui is different because nothing is there after the issur is accomplished, so it must be the action itself which is the problem. This same reasoning should apply by Mechikat Hashem.
ReplyDeleteThank you, DBS, I simply didn't look at the footnote. Now it's even better.
ReplyDeleteWelcome. Also, just curious: In your profile you have The Myth of Sisyphus as your favorite book. It caught me off guard at first. I'm guessing you like it because it shows how bizarre atheism is?
ReplyDeleteI wish. Unfortunately, it is important to me for other reasons. Sort of, lehavdil elef havdalos, like Koheles, but from a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteIs that book connected to the title of your blog?
ReplyDeleteGive that man a cigar. There's an intended duality related to hevel pihem shel tashbar and divrei torah being the yesod of the briah and a desire to drive away people that don't have the seichel to appreciate quality without being told to appreciate it but that one is definitely first tier.
ReplyDelete