SE Challenge: Halachot in which rulings range from permissible to Torah violation? [closed]

Question

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.

Answer 1

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 the same "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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.)

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

Not (fully) covering the hair...

-For unmarried women. (The Rambam says they must cover--Hilchot Issurei Biah 21:17. I have heard of a few fringe groups that hold by this, including the Lev Tahor in Bet Shemesh and Montreal. However the Shulchan Aruch, 75:2, rules that an unmarried woman's hair is not considered ervah, and obviously most groups follow this and similar opinions.)

-For kallahs. (I don't know the details on this, but see DoubleAA's answer here. I know that some strict groups--possibly Satmar--do require a full covering for kallahs.)

-For married women. (Some relevant positions are discussed here. Also, it seems that certain people derive a leniency from Aruch Hashulchan [Orech Chaim 75: 8], in which married women's hair is not considered ervah for purposes of prayer--although this is contradicted in Mishnah Berurah 75:10. Certainly the extent of a married woman's covering is a matter of wide-ranging opinion.)

-For divorced and widowed women. (There are some lenient opinions about these women's need to cover, for example Igros Moshe Even HaEzer vol. 1. 57 and vol. 4 32: 4. Further here.)

I would imagine that in each category, there are those who hold that no covering at all is a Torah violation.

Answer 8

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

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

The question of when you say the beracha on shabbat candles (before or after you light) is a situation where there are two opinions about how to do it. According to each opinion, if you do it the other way, then you're over on an issur d'oraita.

According to the Rema, you're supposed to say the beracha after you light. If you say the beracha before you light, then you've immediately accepted Shabbat, so you're over on a melacha d'oraita when you actually light the candles.

According to the Mechaber (as understood by Rav Ovadia Yosef), you're supposed to say the beracha before you light, as you would with any other beracha. If you say the beracha after you light, then you're over on a beracha l'vatallah, which is an issur d'oraita.

Answer 11

Rambam - Hilchot Isurai Biyah 11:14/15

הלכות אסורי ביאה יא,יד

וכן זה שתמצא במקצת מקומות, ותמצא תשובות למקצת גאונים, שיולדת זכר לא תשמש מיטתה עד סוף ארבעים, ויולדת נקבה אחר שמונים, ואף על פי שלא ראתה דם אלא בתוך השבעה--אין זה מנהג, אלא טעות היא באותן התשובות. ודרך מינות באותן המקומות, ומן הצדוקיין למדו דבר זה; ומצוה לכופן כדי להוציא מליבן, ולהחזירן לדברי חכמים--שתספור שבעת ימי נקיים בלבד, כמו שביארנו.

And you will find in certain places, and you find some rulings from some Geonim, that a woman who gives birth to a boy will not have relations until forty days, and one who gives birth to a girl until eighty days, even if she saw blood only in the first seven days -- this is not a valid custom, but a mistake in those rulings. And it is the way of heresy in those places, and they learned it from the Sadducees; and it is a mitzvah to remove it from their hearts by force, and return them to the way of our sages -- that they should count seven clean days only, as we have expounded.

While the practice has been pretty much wiped out in the Ashkenazi world, it is still somewhat common among certain Sepharadim from Morroco and Tunisia. I have personally encountered this custom, and can vouch for it's continued existence.

Marc Shapiro discusses it in the appendix to his book, "The Limits of Orthodox Theology".

Answer 12

The use of electricity on Shabbat seems to run the gamut from being a Torah prohibition all the way to being assur only due to minhag ( among mainstream Orthodox Jews. )

However, many Talmidai Rambam hold certain uses of electricity to be 100% mutar, but those that I know refrain from using it anyways, out of respect for community standards I suppose.

Regarding electricity on Yom Tov, I know that a significant ( not sure how large exactly ) percentage of shomer shabbat Sephardi Jews use electricity on Yom Tov.

It's a very interesting issue which you can read about in depth here:

The Use of Electricity on Shabbat and Yom Tov

Rabbi Michael Broyde & Rabbi Howard Jachter

Rabbi Broyde - Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, Rabbi Jachter - Associate Rabbi of Congregation Beth Judah in Brooklyn

Journal of Halacha & Contemporary Society, No. XXI - Spring 91 - Pesach 5751

Answer 13

Beis Shammai are of the opinion that a brother may perform levirate marriage with one of his dead brother's wives even if another one of the wives is forbidden to him, while Beis Hillel says that it is forbidden, and a violation of marrying a brother's wife. Yevamos 1:4

Answer 14

Taking charity to study Torah:

משנה תורה הלכות תלמוד תורה ג"ט/י

כל המשים על ליבו שיעסוק בתורה ולא יעשה מלאכה, ויתפרנס מן הצדקה--הרי זה חילל את השם, וביזה את התורה, וכיבה מאור הדת, וגרם רעה לעצמו, ונטל חייו מן העולם הבא: לפי שאסור ליהנות בדברי תורה, בעולם הזה.

Rambam - Mishneh Torah - Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:9/10

One, whoever, who makes up his mind to study Torah and not to work but to live on charity, profanes the name of God, brings the Torah into contempt, extinguishes the light of religion, brings evil upon himself, and deprives himself of the world to come, for it is forbidden to derive any temporal advantage from the words of the Torah.

Of course we know that a large segment of the Torah community doesn't hold by this opinion.

Answer 15

Cutting the beard (i.e., with scissors, and not the prohibited corners): Many would seem to hold that it is muttar, but I learned that the Tzemach Tzedek (Chabad) held that any cutting of the beard is an issur d'oraita from beged ishah.

Answer 16

We all know that in general, one is not required to give up his life to fulfill most mitzvos (Sanhedrin 74a). But can he refuse and give up his life anyway?

On the one hand, you have Tosfos (AZ 27b DH Yachol) who say it’s permissible. On the other hand, you have the Rambam (Yesodei HaTorah 5:1) who says that he’s liable for his life.

Answer 17

Eating turkey may be forbidden... for male descendants of R. Isaiah ben Avraham ha'Levi Horowitz unto the tenth generation?

From Kashrut.com:

"The Horowitz family, descendants of the Shlah haKadosh (Rabbi Isaiah ben Avraham ha'Levi Horowitz; 1565? - 1630), have a tradition that the Shlah supposedly left instructions that they should not eat turkey, and to this day there are members of that family who adhere to this custom."

"There is also a similar custom among the Lapidus family and other descendants of the Tosfot Yom Tov (Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman ben Nathan ha'Levi Heller; 1579-1654). These two traditions may share a common source."

See also Gilad J. Gevaryahu's comment.

So why is turkey considered kosher for others?

"The wild turkey has a crop, its gizzard is peelable, it has an "extra" toe, and its eggs have the indicators of kosher eggs, all signs indicating the turkey may be kosher," (Kashrut.com, op. cit).

"Shut Mei Be'er (Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Schur, Bucharest, d. 1897; siman 19) opines that we eat turkey (indik) relying on the Jews of India, the place of origin of the turkey, who had a clear tradition dating back to Moses that the turkey was kosher. As far as he was concerned, the only question that ever existed with regard to turkey was whether Europeans could rely on the Indian mesorah and this, he claims, was settled in the affirmative by the Rivash.

"The Kaf Hachaim (YD 82:21) also permitted the turkey (tarnagol inglishi henner) based on the fact that it was eaten in India. Zivchei Zedek (82:17) in an apparent reference to turkey notes that in Iraq it was permitted and it originated in India, but he does not link the two statements. Nachal Eshkol (On Sefer ha'Eshkol, hilchot behama chaya v'of, 22:10) believed that 300 years before his time turkey came from India to England and then Germany and was now consumed without any hesitation." ibid.

If this is all there was to allow the kashrus of turkey, then it obviously is mistaken, since the bird is from olom chadash, not India or Iraq. However,

"The Lubliner Rav, Rabbi Eliyahu ben Rav Naftali Hertz Klatzkin (1852-1932) in Dvar Halacha (1921; siman 53, page 74)... permitted the turkey because he understood that the Ramo required a mesorah only for a new category of birds and that turkey falls within the same general category as chickens!" ibid.

A modern "proof" of acceptability is based on hybridization:

"Turkey-chicken hybrids... have been successfully produced and are used in scientific research... [C]rosses between ring-neck pheasants and chickens and between ring-neck pheasants and turkeys are well documented... and may provide yet another avenue to permit turkeys. If hybridization between species is a legitimate test of kosher status, and many authorities accepted that it is, these crosses verify the acceptability of pheasant, and then confirm the status of turkey."

That said, chicken-turkey hybrids, "were literally twisted. They had crooked legs, beaks and feathers. Adding insult to injury, the churks were only half as smart as their parents." So of all indications that turkeys are kosher, to me, this seems most suspicious.

Answer 18

I was listening to a shiur on gambling (unfortunately I don't know who the Rav was who gave the shiur), and he pointed out the game of dreidel

• He said chassidim have a minhag to specifically play dreidel on Chanukah
• He asked a Sefardi Dayan (sorry don't know who) and he said it's forbidden for Sefardim to play dreidel. Has to do with how machmir Sefardim are with gambling in general (he cites Rav Ovadiah zt"l who forbade buying a lottery ticket)

I'm not familiar enough with the sugya of gambling. I would think the issue is stealing, which is a doraisa issue. However this article seems to say the Shulchan Aruch goes with the Rambam that it's derabannan. So maybe this answer doesn't qualify.

Answer 19

Abortion in a case of tay-sachs fetus: according to the Tzitz Eliezer, permitted, while according to R. Moshe Feinstein it is murder. Some sources here.

Answer 20

Eating gelatin made from dry bones of a non-kosher animal. Achiezer permits (Achiezer 3:33:5 and 4:31), and Rav Ahron Kotler held it to be an issur d'oraisa (Mishnat Rav Aharon v. 1, 16-17).

Answer 21

Perhaps believing in the Rambam's 13 principles of faith.

According to the Rambam someone who does not believe in these principles is a heretic, which is a biblical prohibition. However many have argued on some or all of these principles and would therefore would consider it permissible for someone to not believe all 13 (perhaps only requiring a subset).

Answer 22

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.

Answer 23

Ashkenazi poskim hold that the Yichud Room at a wedding is a mitzvah, while some Sepharadi poskim (in particular Rav Ovadia Yosef) hold that it an un-tzniut practice and completely assur.

Answer 24

• Transgressing Shabbos for a gentile/presumed gentile/non-presumed Jew.

• Transgressing Shabbos to prevent a potential future life-threatening situation (i.e., carrying essential medication outdoors [rather than staying inside]; gathering food for future days while lost in the
  wilderness).

  Only one source for now (I'm in a hurry, sorry): "A pertinent question concerning carrying on Shabbos is whether a person suffering from a sickness such as angina or asthma is permitted to carry his medication through a public domain on Shabbos. Certainly, if such a person was outdoors without medication and suffered a life-threatening attack it would be permissible (and obligatory) to procure the necessary medication through any means. However, the question is whether he may carry his medication outdoors when he leaves his home, to have a supply on hand in case of an attack. Since there is no medical reason which compels the patient to leave his home, where his medicine is kept, it is questionable whether this can be considered a medical emergency. Some Poskim permit the person to carry the pills if he does so in an unusual manner, such as storing the pills in his hat.* However, since there are many details to this halachah, one should consult a Halachic authority."

  (Rabbi Simcha Bunin Cohen, The Shabbos Home, Vol. 1. There is a footnote--in Hebrew, which I can't read--which may include the [more] primary sources/opinions. I'll try to look into this later.)

  *DoubleAA notes that this would only be a Rabbinical violation. I will try to find out if any poskim would permit such carrying in a non-unusual manner, if necessary (although that seems like a pretty circumscribed question, since non-unusual methods are rarely necessary, and obviously the unusual method is preferable).