Tell me more ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 14 down vote favorite
1

Inspired by my previous question regarding heating up soup on Shabbat, I present a challenge to the Judaism StackExchange community --

List halachot which have halachic decisions ranging from outright Torah violations (i.e. not simply a rabbinic violation) all the way to 100% sanctioned and permissible?

For instance, regarding the soup question, Yemenite Jews follow the Rambam's decision that heating up liquids on Shabbat is fully permissible. On the other hand, the Shulchan Aruch (318:4) rules that it is a violation of the Torah.

(I am of course not referring to halachic decisions where decisors suggest that the righteous should refrain from such a practice, והבעל נפש יחמיר, etc. rather halachic decisions meant for communal consumption. Decisors often say, והעיקר הוא, 'the principle [decision] is' to denote their final, most basic decision).

Formal definition:

  • At least one halachic decisor must rule that the practice is completely permissible and this practice must be followed by at least one identifiable community (i.e. Sephardic Jews, Galician Jews, etc.)

  • Similarly, at least one halachic decisor must rule that the same practice is a flagrant violation of the Torah, with similar caveats as above.

share|improve this question
5  
why is this not a riddle – simchastorah Nov 25 '11 at 18:11
1  
How about Halachoth whose rulings range from obligatory to a (Torah) prohibition? – Seth J Nov 25 '11 at 19:14
3  
@simchashatorah: because I don't think ChaimKut actually has a particular case (or answer) in mind. – Alex Nov 25 '11 at 20:57
1  
Shouldn't this be a community wiki? There will be lots of valid answers. – avi Nov 26 '11 at 17:58

9 Answers

up vote 10 down vote

How about an Eruv in a big city?
For those who hold like Rashi that you need 600,000 people to cross through a city for it to be a rishut harabim, carrying within an eruv is fine, and without an eiruv would usually be an issur dirabanan.

However for those who hold like other rishonim who don't need the 600,000, most public areas can be considered a reshut harabim and then carrying within an eiruv would still be issur diorayta (The wording of the shulchan aruch: ואפילו יש להם חומה אם הם מפולשים משער לשער sounds like an eiruv wouldn't even downgrade it to a karmalit.)

See O.C. 345, 7 and the Be'ur Halacha there.

share|improve this answer
1  
As a minor correction, <<carrying within an eiruv would still be issur diorayta>> -- by definition, an eruv cannot be made around a reshut harabim. In that case, it would simply be a string of wire without any halachic ramifications. – ChaimKut Nov 29 '11 at 19:46
1  
Well yes, but according to the other opinion it would be a fully-functioning eiruv, so I decided to refer to the "string of wire" as an eiruv in both cases for clarity. – Mark Dec 1 '11 at 9:38
Mark, I understand your point, but for further clarification it might be good to edit your answer to state, "most public areas can be considered a reshut harabim and then the 'eruv' which was constructed would not be valid and carrying in the area surrounded by it would still be issur diorayta." – Seth J Dec 22 '11 at 16:03
up vote 9 down vote

See my answer on a man shaking a woman's hand:

  • Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin says it's totally permissible, and it was prevalent in the German community 50 years ago.
  • R' Chaim Kanievski says if someone puts a gun to your head and says "shake this woman's hand [in a business setting] or else I'll shoot you", you still can't do it.
share|improve this answer
1  
Do you have the text of R' Kanievski's responsa? He's clearly putting touch between the sexes under the rubric of improper relations (עריות) and therefore applying the general rule of ייהרג ובל יעבור , one should be willing to die before committing improper sexual relations. What's unclear is whether he is using that as a rhetorical phrase or he actually believes that. For instance, Rav Cherlow of Petah Tikva doubts that such a literal interpretation was R' Kanievski's intention - moreshet.co.il/web/shut/shut2.asp?id=36266 – ChaimKut Nov 28 '11 at 0:41
1  
The source for R' Kanievski's statement is his compilation of letters קריינא דאיגרתא , 1:172 . The text in question was manually transcribed on this message board: hashkafah.com/index.php?/topic/6410-shaking-hands/page__st__100 He relies on the Chazon Ish for this decision. – ChaimKut Nov 28 '11 at 1:27
3  
But what's interesting in his reasoning: זהו בדין יהרג ועל יעבר ככל אביזרייהו דעריות 'One should martyr oneself rather than commit this act, like all other 'trappings' of improper relations' (loose translation) The category 'Trappings of improper relations' includes a wide range of things, not all of them Torah prohibitions. Martyrdom should not be taken as an indication of the severity of the law. For instance, in times of persecution, one is expected to martyr one's self even for 'minor customs of Israel', based on Sanhedrin 74. Rambam takes such a position. – ChaimKut Nov 28 '11 at 1:37
up vote 6 down vote

Smoking

As stated in this J.SE answer there are not a few rabbonim who hold that smoking is assur. As far as whether it's a Torah violation (rather than a Rabbinic one) Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky (at 4:30) is quite clear that he holds it is.

Also from that answer, (thank you @ShmuelBrill), there are many rabbonim that hold that it is l'chatchila muttar, if not recommended, e.g. R' Biyamin Zilber, R' Moshe Feinstein.

share|improve this answer
up vote 5 down vote

I believe the opinions on opening an umbrella on shabbos range from Biblical prohibition to allowable.

When it comes to what goes on in a kosher slaughterhouse (slaughter and inspection), my understanding is there's very little gray area of rabbinic prohibition that divides Biblical prohibition from totally allowable. So it wouldn't surprise me if you'll find similar cases there.

share|improve this answer
4  
That's a good one! The Chatam Sofer (Orach Chaim 72) (goo.gl/nvivX) fully permits it, but the Nodah BeYehuda (Orach Chaim 30) (goo.gl/VG6Va) prohibits. While the Nodah BeYehuda seems to decide that it is prohibited rabbinically, since it is only a temporary 'tent', he is 'חושש', also takes into consideration, the opinion of the Rif that even a tent with a roof size of a tefach (3-4 inches), may nevertheless be considered a permanent tent. – ChaimKut Nov 28 '11 at 1:07
@ChaimKut the Sefer Melechet Shabbat (pg. 309) says that according to the Noda Beyehuda it is Mideorayta. – Hacham Gabriel Jul 26 '12 at 19:19
up vote 4 down vote

I know that "shaving with an electric razor" runs the gamut of totally Assur, to 100% required, depending on the community.

share|improve this answer
1  
Can you provide a responsa that considers an electric razor to be a Torah prohibition (of the same type of electric razor that is considered permissible by others)? – ChaimKut Nov 29 '11 at 19:49
1  
@ChaimKut you can read many such responsa in this book here. koshershaver.info – avi Nov 30 '11 at 4:46
Nice devar torah on the issue here. vbm-torah.org/archive/halak65/11halak.htm – avi Nov 30 '11 at 4:52
Who says it's required???? – Seth J May 1 at 18:25
@SethJ Some yeshivot require it of their students. – avi Jun 16 at 14:23
show 2 more comments
up vote 3 down vote

Yoshon. According to S"A Y"D 293 it applies everywhere and the Rama doesn't disagree. However, the Ashkenazim accepted the Bah (on the Tur) to be Mekil out of Eres Yisrael on gentiles' grain.

share|improve this answer
up vote 2 down vote

The Talmud Yerushalmi says that it is forbidden to Kill lice on Shabbat. ("killing lice is like killing a camel") http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14141&st=&pgnum=20

The Talmud Bavli says that killing lice on Shabbat is allowed.

share|improve this answer
1  
Which community follows the yerushalmi and which follows the bavli? – Double AA♦ Jun 16 at 14:29
up vote 2 down vote

Tearing plastic, paper, leather, et al. on Shabbos

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (340:17) (and I believe, the Minchas Chinuch) holds that the melacha of tearing only applies to composite items. I.e., fabrics, which are made from multiple threads, or anything else that is two or more items connected together. Therefore, there is no prohibition, Biblical or Rabbinic, against tearing paper or similar items.

On the other hand, the Mishna Berura (340:41) holds that tearing paper is a violation of the melacha of tearing.

(I'm sure there are better sources from the MB and other places, but this is the one I found right now.)

share|improve this answer
up vote 1 down vote

Inspired by the aerosol on shabbos question, shaking out a tablecloth or any other act which scatters particles of a similar nature through wind.

According to the Yerushalmi, this would be a Torah violation.

According to the Bavli, this would be permissible.

share|improve this answer
What are the sources (for the Yerushalmi and Bavli) in this case? – Yehoshua Sep 18 '12 at 20:22
1  
Which community follows the yerushalmi and which follows the bavli? – Double AA♦ Jun 16 at 14:53

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.