Melacha Performed by a Nochri

Shabbat (16:8) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 years ago

The Mishnah (16:8) teaches that if a nochri lights a candle for himself on Shabbat, an yisrael can benefit from the light. If however the nochri lit the candle specifically for the yisrael, then it is forbidden for the yisrael to benefit from the light. We shall try to understand this ruling.

The Tosfot (Shabbat 122a) make a number of important points to explain the strict ruling of our Mishnah. Firstly, they explain that in this case it would be forbidden for any other Yisrael to benefit from this candle also. This is contrast to a ruling regarding the issur techum. Recall that one is not allowed to travel beyond two thousand amot from his dwelling place on Shabbat. The same is true for his property. The Mishnah teaches that if a nochri brought an object from outside the techum on Shabbat for one yisrael, then it is permitted to another. The Tosfot answer that this case is different since kindling is prohibited on a biblical level.

The Ritva adds a further distinction. The issur of techumim itself is one that is different for everyone. Where someone can walk on Shabbat is dependent on their the location of their shevita (dwelling place).

Consequently, there are two reason why in the case of techumim the Chachamim differentiated between who the item was brought for and everyone else.

The Tosfot also note that R' Meir rules leniently to permit food that was cooked by mistake on Shabbat. Our case however is treated more severely, and one cannot derive benefit from the candle that was lit for his benefit. The reason it is prohibited is out of concern that one will on another occasion, tell the nochri directly to light his lamp -- which is rabbinically prohibited. Comparing this case to where one cooked in error on Shabbat, R' Meir would permit the food. In that case we are not concerned that if we permit it, one would deliberately cook on Shabbat on another occasion, since it is a capital offence.

The Ritva notes that telling a nochri directly to perform a melacha is itself a shevut -- rabbinically prohibited. The Ritva asserts that we must say that prohibiting the product of a melcha that a nochri performed on their own was part of that original gezeira. Otherwise, it would be considered a geziera le'gezeira -- a rabbinic decree out of a concern that one might violate a rabbinic decree -- which the Chachamim do not implement. In other words, we must understand that the Chachamim forbade the product of any melacha performed by a nochri for an yisrael, whether instructed to do so or not, out of concern that it would lead to Shabbat appearing like any other day of the week.

Finally the Tosfot notes that we learnt previously (16:6) that if one's house is on fire, and a nochri comes to extinguish it, one need not tell them to put it out. Yet in this case, we cannot derive benefit from the lamp even though the nochri lit it voluntarily.

The Tosfot explains the difference between the two cases as follows. In our case, the yisrael is deriving direct benefit from the melacha that was performed -- he enjoys the light from the fire. The same is not true in the earlier Mishnah when the fire was extinguished. As the Ritva explains, the nochri simple prevented (further) damage from occurring. Consequently, in that case, when the nochri acted voluntarily, we can say that he acted independently. In our case, when the yisrael derives benefit directly it is considered as if he acted for the yisrael.

Download