Carrying On Shabbat And Dealing With Fire

According to Torah law, any enclosure is considered a "private domain." Carrying within an enclosure is permitted, and carrying between an enclosure and a public thoroughfare is forbidden.

 

However, a large enclosure resembles an open area. Therefore, the Sages decreed that a large enclosure is considered a private domain for carrying only if it encloses an existing dwelling. But a small enclosure is always considered a private domain.

 

A "small" enclosure is one less than 5000 square amot, which is about an acre. The Talmud points out that this is the same size as the courtyard of the Tabernacle (Mishkan), the desert sanctuary (Eiruvin 23b). The Yerushalmi goes one step further and says that this size was based on the size of the Mishkan courtyard (Eiruvin 2:5). The Tur (OC 358) goes on to explain that this is because the Shabbat labors are learned from the work of the Mishkan, as we explained in the beginning of chapter 80. An enclosure the size of the Mishkan courtyard doesn't require dwelling, since the Mishkan itself - the original private domain - was not enclosed for dwelling.

 

At the simplest level, this merely means that no one lived in the Mishkan, but at another level this hints at a deeper truth. Even the One who dwelt in the Mishkan did not do so until the enclosure was completed. God told Moshe, "They shall build Me a dwelling, and [only then] I will dwell among them" (Shemot 25:8).

 

In chapter 80 we explained that by relating the prohibition of everyday labors on Shabbat to the prohibition of the Sanctuary labors, we are reminded of the intimate connection between the material repair of the world and its spiritual repair. By going about our ordinary weekday activities, we are actually building a Mikdash - making the world a fit place for God's presence (the Shekhina) to dwell.

 

But this is not the same as having the Shekhina actually dwell among us. The laws of Shabbat remind us that the Mishkan was not enclosed for dwelling; rather, the building had to be completed before the Divine presence could indwell there. Likewise, God's presence is not inherent in mundane activities. These weekday activities prepare the way for the Shekhina, which is manifest among us when our work is completed - on Shabbat.

 

However, if the dwelling precedes the enclosure, then an enclosure of any size is considered a private domain. When God's presence is firmly established in any aspect of our lives, this gives us an immense capability to spread holiness. A domain of any size will be considered a "domain of the One" - but an enclosure is still necessary. We cannot create a dwelling for God's presence until we are willing to draw the line and clearly delineate the boundaries of holiness and recognize that at this stage in history some aspects of reality do not belong to the realm of holiness.

 

A small enclosure creates a private domain where a person can dwell; once a person moves in, the domain can be indefinitely enlarged and it still remains an inhabited area. This reminds us of the reciprocal relationship between Shabbat and weekdays that we discussed in chapter 72. Our weekday labors prepare us for the holiness of Shabbat; once the Divine Presence dwells among us on Shabbat, the Shabbat in turn bestows its blessing on the other six days of the week.

 

CHAPTER 84 - CARRYING AND WEARING CLOTHING AND JEWELRY

 

Our Sages forbade wearing women's jewelry in a public domain (reshut ha-rabim). The halakhic basis for this prohibition is the fear that women will take off their jewelry to show to their friends, in the meantime carrying it four paces in the reshut ha-rabim.

 

We now mention a very important halakhic principle: The halakhic basis for a rabbinical enactment is not always the entire reason for the enactment. When the Jewish Sages see the need to make a certain rule for the spiritual well-being of the community, they then find a comprehensive legal basis for such a rule. (See Igrot Moshe OC I:161.) There are many very interesting reasons why the Sages wanted the original reason for various enactments to be expressed via some additional halakhic principle.

 

It seems that Shabbat is just not the appropriate day for wearing jewelry in the public domain, or for showing it off to friends. Shabbat is a day when we are focused on our inner selves, not on our outer selves. It is a day when jewelry may be worn in the private domain, where it contributes to the domestic harmony that is so important on Shabbat (see chapter 75). But it is not a day for making a public display.

 

In the Talmud and Shulchan Arukh, this halakha of wearing jewelry is taught together with a parallel halakha: a man's armaments are not considered "ornaments" and may not be worn in the public domain on Shabbat (Shabbat 63a, SA OC 301). In many societies a man was well dressed only if bearing a sword or pistol, but Jewish tradition does not condone viewing these implements of destruction as mere ornaments. We view them rather as burdens.

 

 

CHAPTER 85 - A FIRE ON SHABBAT

 

Even though there is no prohibition to move about ordinary objects on Shabbat, when a fire breaks out there are many limitations on how a person can go about moving them to save them from the fire. It is forbidden to systematically go about moving the contents of the house to a safe place. The Sages were concerned that between the preoccupation with saving our possessions and the panic of the fire, we might forget about the Shabbat altogether and come to extinguish the fire.

 

Let us examine the various ways in which the Sages permitted saving possessions from fire:

1. Food for Shabbat meals (se'if 1).

2. Giving them to others (se'if 2).

3. Holy books (se'if 5).

4. A dead person (mentioned in se'if 5). (A dead person is also forbidden to move because of muktzeh; this problem and the way around it are discussed in chapter 88.)

 

The common denominator of these leniencies is that the idea of ownership, of sole control, is loosened. We permit saving an object if the possession is being used for a mitzva (1, 3), or because it is not a possession at all but rather the remains of a human being (4). Alternatively, a person can give his possessions to others.

 

Our Sages recognized that "adam bahul al mamono" - a man gets into a panic over [the loss of] his possessions.  This concern for possessions is understandable, and when the fire is in a neighboring house such concern even allows us to move certain things normally forbidden to carry on Shabbat, as the Kitzur explains in se'if 4.

 

However, when our concern for our possessions starts to endanger our concern for the Torah, then things have gone too far. We need to be reminded that the object of possessions is not accumulation, but serving God and helping others. By basing the leniencies of saving from a fire on giving objects away and using them for mitzvot, we recall the proper use of wealth and put its accumulation in proper perspective.