Halakhah sobre Êxodo 31:16

The Tur (Orach Chaim 561) writes that one must rend his garments upon seeing “cities of Israel” in ruins. Rav Yosef Karo (Beit Yosef ad loc.) notes, however, that the Gemara mentions only cities in Judea, so the Tur’s reference to cities from anywhere in the Land of Israel is not specific.⁴¹. The Gemara derives this principle from the verse “And the Jewish people shall guard Shabbat” (Shemot 31:16). Rashi (s.v. Veshamru) explains that “guarding” any particular Shabbat includes ensuring that future Shabbatot will also be observed. (The same Hebrew word - “lishmor” - means both “to guard” and “to observe.”)

The Gemara (Yoma 82a) asserts that piku’ach nefesh overrides every Torah law except for the prohibitions of idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder. A few pages later (85a-85b), it offers numerous sources for why piku’ach nefesh overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah reasons that if circumcision overrides Shabbat despite affecting only one organ of the body, so the vital needs of the entire human body surely override Shabbat.²The Gemara thoroughly discusses the laws of circumcision on Shabbat in the nineteenth chapter of Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon Ben Menasya presents the famous principle, "Violate one Shabbat for [the endangered individual’s] sake so that he will observe many future Shabbatot.”³The Gemara derives this principle from the verse “And the Jewish people shall guard Shabbat” (Shemot 31:16). Rashi (s.v. Veshamru) explains that “guarding” any particular Shabbat includes ensuring that future Shabbatot will also be observed. (The same Hebrew word - “lishmor” - means both “to guard” and “to observe.”)
Although this reason implies that we may save only a Jew’s life on Shabbat in order that he will observe future Shabbatot, the Biur Halachah (329 s.v. Ela) writes that in practice one should violate Shabbat even to save a Jew who clearly will not observe Shabbat in the future (see, also, Halichot Olam 4:226 and Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:39 and 40). Shmuel adds that the Torah (Vayikra 18:5) urges us to “live” by its laws (“Vachai bahem”), implying that observing the Torah should not cause death (“Velo sheyamut bahem”).

However, Tosafot, Eruvin 44b, speak of the dispensation regarding the carrying of arms on the return journey as an instance of invocation of the principle of hittiru sofan mishum teḥillatan.⁴Teshuvot Adnei Neḥoshet, no. 72, sec. 2, suggest a minor emendation in the caption of Tosafot with the effect that Tosafot’s statement is limited to travel within 2,000 cubits. See also Teshuvot Adnei Neḥoshet, no. 72, sec. 5. A literal reading of Rashba, Beizah 11b (rather than as understood by Shitah Mekubezet), yields a similar impression. If this analysis of the position of Tosafot and Rashba is correct, it would appear that, according to those authorities, all persons engaging in life-saving activities may ignore even biblical proscriptions on their return journey. This is indeed the position of R. Moses Sofer, Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 203, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 194, and VI, no. 99 and apparently also of R. Jacob Emden, She 'ilat Ya'avez, I, no. 132, s.v. u-de-kashya. In Hoshen Mishpat, no. 194, Hatam Sofer implies that a physician called on Shabbat to the bedside of a gravely ill patient may disregard biblical prohibitions if it is necessary for him to do so in order to return to his home. Responding to the argument that the Sages do not have the power to sanction overt suspension of biblical law, Hatam Sofer, VI, no. 99, s.v. de-ika, responds that authority to do so is limited to infractions of Sabbath laws which may be suspended solely to encourage life-saving activity. The Gemara, Yoma 85b, apparently understanding the word "ve-shameru" which occurs in Exodus 31:16 as connoting "The children of Israel shall preserve the Sabbath," formulates the dictum "Better to violate one Sabbath in order to observe many Sabbaths" as justification for the violation of Sabbath restrictions for the sake of preserving life. Hatam Sofer argues that the same rationale may be employed in the context of hittiru sofan mishum teḥillatan in order to assure that "many Sabbaths" be observed.⁵In the context of ignoring Sabbath restrictions Ḥatam Sofer’s explanation must be understood as meaning that it is necessary to permit such acts in order to encourage life-saving activity so that those whose lives are saved may “observe many Sabbaths.” Cf., R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Ẓiẓ Eli ‘ezer, XI, no. 39, sec. 6, who apparently misses the thrust of Ḥatam Sofer’s point. See also Kiryat Sefer, Hilkhot Shabbat 2:23.

It seems to this writer that Mor u-Kezi'ah regarded the establishment of halakhic time, and hence of the Sabbath, in the places under discussion to be a matter of unresolvable doubt. To be sure, as clearly enunciated by R. David ibn Zimra, Teshuvot ha-Radvaz, I, no. 76,⁸See also Parashat Derakhim, Drush 23, s.v. od nakdim; R. Israel Lipschutz, Tiferet Yisra’el, Berakhot, note appended to Bo‘az, end of chapter 1; R. Chaim Joseph David Azulai, Birkei Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 242:1; R. Joseph Saul Nathanson, Teshuvot Sho’el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Revi’a’ah, no. 154; and R. Benjamin Aryeh Weiss, Teshuvot Even Yekarah (Lemberg, 5654), no. 11. determination of the onset and conclusion of Shabbat is determined locally. Leviticus 23:3 mandates that the Sabbath be observed "in all your habitations." That phrase is understood by Radvaz⁹A similar interpretation of that verse was earlier advanced by Seforno in his commentary ad locum. See also the interpretation of Exodus 31:16 advanced by the Zohar, Genesis 56a. The verse “And the children of Israel observed the Sabbath to make the Sabbath for their generations (le-dorotam)” is rendered by the Zohar as “to make the Sabbath for their dwellings (le-dirotam).” as signifying that the onset and conclusion of Shabbat is to be determined in accordance with sunset at each particular "habitation."¹⁰R. Abraham ibn Ezra, in his commentary to Genesis 33:10, understands the verse “And the sun rose upon him” (Genesis 32:32) as reflecting this underlying solar phenomenon, i.e., the sun rose for Jacob in the locale in which he found himself but did not rise simultaneously in other areas.
R. Isaac di Trani, renowned as the author of Teshuvot Maharit, declares in his Ẓofnat Pa‘aneaḥ (Venice, 5413), Drush le-Parashat Bereshit, that the work of creation did not cease throughout the globe at a single instant. Rather, the process of creation came to a halt at each point when night fell at that spot. In effect, in observing Shabbat as determined by local sunset, man emulates the Creator who ceased from the process of creation at different times in different places. Ḥatam Sofer, cited by R. Israel David Jaffe, Ḥazon le-Mo‘ed, no. 8, sec. 7, also stated that this was the case during each of the six days of creation: the work of each day did not take place simultaneously throughout the world; rather, the entities created on each day of the week were created in every geographic area while it was day in that locale. This, Ḥatam Sofer asserts, applied even to the “ten things” which the Mishnah, Avot 5:6, declared to have been created on the sixth day between sunset and nightfall, i.e., those objects were created in different places at different times. Ḥatam Sofer interprets the verse “And God finished on the seventh day… and He rested on the seventh day” (Genesis 2:2) as referring, not to a single act of cessation of labor, but to a divine comportment at two different places, viz., God completed the work of creation at one locale while at the same time resting at another locale. See also R. Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky, Bein ha-Shemashot (Jerusalem, 5729), p. 53; idem, Yomam (Jerusalem, 5703), p. 73; and R. Ben-Ẓion Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, II, no. 29. Cf., R. Menachem Kasher, “Shabbat Bereshit u-Shabbat Sinai,” Talpiyot, vol. I, no. 1 (Tishri 5704), pp. 415-420.
Cf., however, Teshuvot Sho’el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Revi’a’ah, who candidly acknowledges that, in observing Shabbat according to local time “in all their habitations,” Jews do not observe Shabbat during the same time period in which the Creator ceased from the work of creation. Moreover, he regards that concept to be reflected in the otherwise problematic words of the musaf prayer: “a people who sanctify the seventh day (am mekaddeshei shevi‘i).” Jews sanctify the month and hence the festivals which are calendar dependent. Shabbat, however, is predetermined and does not require sanctification of the new moon by the Bet Din. Nevertheless, explains Sho’el u-Meshiv, since Jews must observe Shabbat “in all their habitations” at different times they are indeed a “people who sanctify the seventh day.” Shabbat is designed as a "sign between Me and between you" (Exodus 31:13) and accordingly, is to be observed during the period representing the culmination of six days of labor in each person's locale. The Sabbath day, which includes a period of darkness and a period of daylight, is roughly twenty-four hours in length in all places other than in the extreme northern and southern regions. As a result, the Sabbath is observed on the same day of the week in all parts of the globe. Accordingly, Mor u-Kezi'ah assumes that in locales in which that cannot be the case there is no discernible method for determining the days of the week. Hence, determination of the advent of Shabbat remains either a matter of irresolvable doubt or, alternatively, there is no concept of halakhic time in such places. Therefore, Mor u-Kezi'ah rules that a person finding himself in such a place faces a problem that is no different from that confronting a person lost in the desert or confused with regard to a sequence of days and must conduct himself in an identical manner. That is precisely the import of Mor u-Kezi'ah's concluding phrase "in the manner indicated earlier with regard to one who travels in the desert," i.e., he may perform no forbidden act on any day of the week and must recite kiddush and havdalah on the seventh day of every seven-day cycle subsequent to his arrival.

If one is being forced to transgress even a serious sin for the moment,²⁶Even idolatry. Where there is a possibility that he may be willing to die rather than transgress, it is obligatory to violate Shabbos to save him. [Mishnah Berurah 328: 31] the Shabbos should not be violated in order to save him from committing the transgression. But, if he is being forced to convert and to leave the fold of the Jewish people, even if he is a minor, it is obligatory to exert all effort to save him, even if it is necessary to violate Shabbos by [transgressing] a d'oraisa prohibition,²⁷Concerning a minor, the author accepts the ruling of Eliyahu Rabba, as does the Mishnah Berurah. Chayei Adam (68: 13), however, allows violating only d’rabanan prohibitions. just as it is obligatory to violate Shabbos for someone who is critically ill; for it is written:²⁸Exodus 31: 16. "The people of Yisrael shall keep the Shabbos." The Torah tells us: Violate one Shabbos for his sake so that he may keep many Shabbosos. Even where it is doubtful whether the intervention will succeed or not, nevertheless it is obligatory to violate Shabbos and attempt to do whatever is possible, just as we violate [Shabbos] for a possible life-threatening situation. However, one who is faithless and wants to convert, Shabbos must not be violated for him [by doing] a d'oraisa prohibition, because since he is at fault, we do not say to anyone: "Sin for the benefit of your friend." Nevertheless, when it involves a d'rabanan prohibition, such as walking beyond the techum, or to ride a horse, or to ride on a wagon, as well as handling money; according to some poskim it is permissible to violate Shabbos to save him.²⁹Eliyahu Rabba, Peri Megadim, Mishnah Berurah 306: 56. Magein Avraham (254) disagrees.