[Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov

[Chana Luntz]

RZS writes:

<<Having seen his words I don't think you are interpreting them correctly. 
  He doesn't say that it's forbidden just because the line goes through some
areas where the majority are Jews.  He's talking about the whole line, and
in fact the whole area in which the line operates.>>

The key language (which is why I posted it) are the words  that one can only
travel in these electric wagons on shabbat if  they are driven by non-Jews "
ub'rechovot sherov toshevim hem lo Yehudim".  That does not say that the
majority of the streets they pass through must have a majority non-Jews., or
some of the streets they pass through must have majority non-Jews, but that
for taking these these wagons (or buses) to be acceptable, they must solely
be driven in streets where the majority of the inhabitants are not Jews.
Otherwise it looks like they are being driven down those streets for the
Jews. 

Perhaps it is clearer in his summary (the original quote was from the body
of the teshuva, where he gave his reasons):

אסור לנסוע בקרונות אלה אפילו אם הם של לא יהודים ומתנהגות על ידי לא יהודים אם
הן הולכות ושבות במקום שיש בו ישוב יהודי, שודאי הוא שהלא - יהודי מכוין
בנסיעתו זאת להנוסעים היהודים. אבל במקום שכל התושבים הם לא - יהודים מותר

It is forbidden to travel in these wagons even if they belong to non-Jews,
and are driven by non-Jews, if they go and stop in a place in which there is
a Jewish settlement, then for sure it is that the non-Jew is intending in
his journey that Jews should travel.  But in a place where all the dwellers
are non-Jews, it is permitted.

  <<If the line exists to serve Jews (as it would in EY), then the fact that
there happen also to be nochrim living along it doesn't save it (unless the
circumstances show that it really and truly is designed primarily to serve
that nochri minority).  But I doubt that metziut exists anywhere in chu"l,
and I doubt R Uziel had chu"l in mind.>>

If the line exists to serve Jews, then it is not a non-Jewish line.  Rav
Uzziel has three conditions: a) it must be owned by non-Jews; b) it must be
driven by non-Jews, and c) it must go through streets in which the majority
are non-Jews (or possibly all the dwellers are non-Jews, as per the summary,
where he uses the words "aval b'mkom shekol hatoshvim hem lo yehudim").  Rav
Uzziel was chief rabbi in, inter alia, Salonika, he spent a lot of time in
chutz l'aretz, and the suggestion that he was discussing Palestinian or
Jordanian transport in Arab areas when he was permitting travel on Shabbas
(for the mitzvah of going to shul and similar only) seems highly unlikely.
Most people wouldn't use that transport for pikuach nefesh reasons, not ask
shialas about whether they can use it on Shabbas to get to shul.  This is a
chutz l'aretz shiala about chutz l'aretz situations.

And specifically he doesn't say that the whole line has to be there to serve
Jews, just if it goes and stops in (one) Jewish settlement, then the non-Jew
intends for Jews to use the line, and that is enough.  

<<Further, my recollection is that very few people live on that road anyway;
it's all shops, and the bus stops are to serve not only the Jews who live in
the surrounding streets but also all the people who live elsewhere on the
route and are using the shops, which means even those stops are servicing
mostly nochrim.>>

There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too
(and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish).  We know people who
live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road. Also Sage, a
charedi old age home (where my MIL was niftar), and Jewish Care, which has a
lot of Jewish elderly (many with dementia, but others without) are both
located directly on that road, and I believe the one bus stop is sited where
it is because it stops right outside Jewish Care, as there are often very
frail elderly people getting on and off there.  If there were no people
living there that the bus serviced, they would get from Hampstead to Hendon
down the Watford Way, a much bigger road.  

<<But in any case I don't see how it matters for whom the stop is designed;
the bus *actually* stops only for the first passenger who signalled that he
wants to get off, or for the passengers who are 
waiting at the stop to board.   Even if the location had been designated 
for the benefit of all the thousands of *potential* Jewish passengers, the
bus isn't stopping for them.  And the bus is running in the first place for
all the passengers who use it anywhere along the line, or who might one day
want to use it, the majority of whom are nochrim.>>

That is not Rav Uzziel's view. Your view works exactly the same if you say -
well it doesn't matter if the bath house was located where it is for all the
thousands of *potential* Jewish users, the bath house owners aren't heating
the baths for them on shabbas, they are heating them for the non-Jewish bath
house users.  Especially if they have demonstrably done this by heating up
the bath house on shabbas morning when no Jews ever attend it on shabbas.
And yet, the halacha, as per the Rema, is that if the majority of potential
users of the bath house (ie dwellers in the city) are Jewish, then you
cannot even use the bath house right after shabbas.  Even though the bath
house owner might well decide it was worth heating the bath house for just
one non-Jewish customer. And Rav Uzziel holds that this bath house case is
directly relevant to this one of taking buses on shabbat.  

I think one could perhaps distinguish the bath house case, but Rav Uzziel
doesn't, he sees it as relevant, and his use of terms like "in streets where
the majority of dwellers are non-Jews" , or "all the dwellers are non-Jews"
is predicated on understanding the bath house case as relevant, and
defining.

<<In fact GG is proof, since as I understand it the Jews who live in that
area don't use the bus on Shabbos, and yet they still run, and still stop in
the same places as they do during the week.  That shows that they're running
for the nochrim. And if so, it should be permitted for an individual Jew to
ride along, so long as he doesn't cause the driver to stop and start again
for him.>>

That is the bath house argument - that since the owners are still heating
the bath houses for the non-Jews in the community (even from the morning),
then it should be fine to use the bath house straight after Shabbas.  But
the halacha is that if the majority of the potential customers are Jews,
even if none of them use it on shabbas, it is still forbidden to use the
bath house straight after Shabbas, and Rav Uzziel applies this to using
public transport in our case.

I suggested that one might argue differently, based on the candle in a room
case, which is based on who is actually in the room, not who potentially
could be in the room. But even there, the question is not who is the "first"
person in the room, everybody who is in the room benefits from the light,
and everybody who is waiting at the stop or on the bus benefits from the
bus.  If the majority of people at the stop are Jewish, even if the person
who sticks out their hand isn't, they are benefiting from the melacha of the
bus driver stopping, and he is stopping for their benefit, along with the
person whose hand was put out.  I can't see how that is not like the non-Jew
lighting the candle for everybody in the room.  And similarly, once the bus
driver starts the bus again, he is doing so for the benefit of every person
on the bus at that particular time.  Not just the one who is non-Jewish who
may have stuck out his hand, and if a majority on that bus at that time are
Jewish, then the halacha regarding the candle would seem to apply, they
cannot benefit from the melacha of the bus driver.  To argue otherwise is to
argue that if there is one non-Jew in a room who will benefit, then the
majority Jews can benefit from the light of the candle that was lit for the
benefit of all the people in the room, and that is not the halacha.

Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer

Regards

Chana