[Avodah] goy vs chiloni

[Chana Luntz]

RAF writes:

> The difference between asking a NJ and asking another Jew is that when
> asking another Jew, we are not commanded (except through lifnei iver
> and arvus) regarding the other Jew's shemiras Shabbos; every Jew has
> his own mitzvah. 

But we are commanded - via lifnei iver and arvus, these are d'orisa
prohibitions.  We are also forbidden to have a benefit from any violation of
shabbas that a Jew does, certainly b'mazid, and as we generally hold,
b'shogeg.  Why were these gezeros instituted if we were supposed to live in
a bubble?  That is why, it seems to me, both the Magen Avraham and the Taz
are bothered by the distinction between a NJ and a Jew, in the form of
bichdei sheyasu

>However, one source for the prohibition of amira
> le'aku"m is in the verse, kol melacha lo ye'aseh 


While it is a nice asmuchta, the generally accepted position is that amira
l'akum is a shvus, ie d'rabbanan.  An enormous amount of halacha is based on
that fact - what we allow vis a vis the sick and the community and l'ztorech
mitzvah in particular.  As I have been alluding to in other posts - this
would seem *not* to be true vis a vis a ger toshav - who is included in the
posuk.  It seems to me that if we were dealing gerei toshav, a lot of what
we currently allow would in fact be forbidden.

> By the way, (a) I disagree that by operating an electric door, the
> building becomes changed, according to Chazon Ish. Only the circuit
> changed, and even the circuit, was broken before and after the door's
> opening; it was only open (changed) while the door was in the process
> of opening. Hence, I find it very unconvincing to claim that the
> building should become assur on account of the door's opening.
> 

Perhaps I was not being precise enough.  Clearly if somebody climbed in the
window, the fact that the door was open would be irrelevant and that person
could use the full length of the building.  

If the door was opened and then shut by a chiloni, and the frum Jew then
came and opened it in some shabbas permissible manner (eg it also had a key
mechanism that somehow did not trigger the circuit), then I would think that
the fact that it had several times during the day been opened and shut by
the chiloni would be irrelevant - because he had then changed it back to the
way it was, and the frum Jew would not be benefitting from the guf hadavar.

If we had a situation where the door could be opened both ways, and the
person happened to come upon it when it was open - maybe it might be OK,
because of the fact that there was an alternative permissible way of doing
it (this I guess would get into questions of lo ichpat lei - because he
could have done it a permissible way - but does it render the object
assur?).

But that is clearly not the case being described here.  The case being
described here is one where there is no other way into the building (the
door circuit being compared to a crouching lion preventing entry) and the
chiloni opened the door and left it open.  That is, the only way to make
this door (and hence the building which is why I was using this term)
useable is by means of the chillul shabbas.  That is, the door has been
changed by the chillul shabbas - it was closed and is now open.  And the
object that the frum Jew now wants to use is that door.  This is why I was
trying to draw the analogy with bishul. Because if you were to use your way
of thinking, you would say - well before the food was off the fire, and now
the food is off the fire, and the fact that it was on the fire in between
shouldn't matter.  But the point is that the object, the food, has been
changed by being on the fire (it has gone from an inedible state to an
edible state, its molecules have changed by being heated etc) and it is that
change that is the source of the benefit to you on eating (that is precisely
why you want it).  This door has changed from closed to open, by means of
the door circuit (and this is the sole and only purpose of the door circuit,
which is why even separating them is a bit meaningless, what we actually
have is an electronic door), and it is this change that the frum Jew is
benefiting from - by now being able to enter the building when he could not
before.  The fact that the door circuit part of the door has now finished
its work, and is now back to where it was before, doesn't seem to me to be
relevant.

> Arie Folger

Regards

Chana