[Avodah] Kiddush of an Avaryan

[Michael Elzufon]

From: "Daniel Israel" <dmi1 at hushmail.com>

>>>Should one who knows he may not be able to keep shabbos day
>>>perfectly not make kiddush at night?

SBA wrote:  >Maybe your question should be:
>"Should (or can) one who knows he may not be able to keep shabbos
>day perfectly - be motzi others with kiddush at night?"

DI: Do you have a source to say he can't (or shouldn't)?

SBA: Seeing that a mechalel Shabbos has a din Akum lechol davar,
I doubt there is a posek who says one be be yotze with an Akum's
kiddush.

[[MJE]] This sounds logical enough, but I found two tshuvoth that would
suggest a different result.  Binyan Tzion (Hadashoth) 23 considers the
question of wine handled by someone who makes Kiddush and goes to shul
and then goes to work on Shabbat.  He concludes that the mahmir tavo
alav bracha, but the mekilim have on what to rely.  Simmilarly, the
Igroth Moshe OH 1:23 rules that mi-dina such a person can be nosei
kapaim, though as a matter of migdar milta, it would be a good idea not
to ask him to do so.  These are not sources to say that such a man
should be motzi others, but they do raise the possibility that he could.

 
SBA continues: And, BTW, by know about Shabbos and making Kiddush, it
eliminates any likelihood of depicting him as a Tinok Shenishba [for
those who are normally inclined to argue on behalf of mechalelei
shabbos.]

[[MJE]] Actually, the Binyan Tzion cited above describes the child of
the fellow who makes Kiddush and then goes to work as a tinok shenishba.


DI: but I have wondered about it.  Does anyone know a source that
discusses
this issue?  Do we say that since ta'amim for the gezeriah are not
relevant
 (is he really choshesh that he  himself did AZ) he can drink it?

SBA: Taam? Gezeirah?
AFAIK, no one claims that a mechalel Shabbos is an oved AZ.
The halocho is simply  that 'dinoy keAkum lechol davar'.

[[MJE]] The Igroth Moshe cited above and in Even HaEzer 2:20 (at the
end, rejecting the tinok shenishba argument in the Binyan Tzion cited
above) argues that such an individual should not be considered Akum
l'chol davar.