The gabbai announced on Friday night, "Rabosai... tonight is the last night for Kiddush Levana." We generally don't say Kiddush Levana on Friday nights, for reasons explained in this OU daily halacha. The exception is when the last night to say Kiddush Levana is Friday night and you haven't yet had/taken the opportunity. That month was particularly difficult; clouds had obscured the moon most of the first two weeks of the month. I had, Baruch HaShem, managed to catch a beautiful, clear view of the moon earlier that week. It was bitter cold that night, but it looked like my only opportunity.
One of the issues with saying Kiddush Levana on Friday night is that we are afraid someone might carry a siddur outside where there is no eruv. Exactly. Now, most people who daven at the Agudah know very well that R' Fuerst is quite outspoken about the fact that, besides the eiruvim between neighboring homes that many individuals have constructed, there is no kosher community eiruv in Peterson Park.
As discussed (at some length) in this TftD, one may not benefit from the Shabbos violation of another Jew. In the case of accidental violation when the actual object you want to use was not altered by the Shabbos violation, there is room to be lenient. In our case, if someone blatantly carries a siddur outside knowing full well that there is no kosher eiruv, then another Jew may not use that siddur -- not even read from it over his shoulder.
Suppose, though, that this Jew thinks there really is a kosher eiruv. He is wrong, but he doesn't know that. Then, as discussed in that TftD, there is room to be lenient and read from the siddur in case of need. The question (to me) was: is the obligation to say Kiddush Levana enough to outweigh the unintentional desecration of Shabbos. I asked the dayan and he confirmed that it was.
So then I started playing this out in my head:
I see a Jew carrying a siddur outside on Friday night to say Kiddush Levana. I approach and inquire: Listen, there is no kosher eiruv here, but you mistakenly think there is, and therefore I am permitted to read over your shoulder and thereby benefit from your unintentional desecration of the holy Shabbos.
You may find this surprising, but even I know that conversation is unlikely to go well. (I also confirmed that with dayan 😁.) But I have to say something.
Background of following question: I am allowed to go into a MacDonald's to buy a coke. No one suspects me of buying a Big Mac and no one thinks I am giving any sort of imprimatur of kashrus on the place. I am however, forbidden to enter a -- ahem -- "kosher style" restaurant to by that coke. Why? Because someone might suspect that I am buying a bagel with cream cheese and lox and thereby giving an unwarranted and unintended certification of kashrus on the food.
So... am I allowed to let the (unintentional) Shabbos desecrater think that I am just stringent about eiruvim in general (which I and many others are, in fact), but leaving him with the feeling that I hold it is just a personal stringency and there is, in fact, a kosher eiruv.
When I asked the dayan about that, his response was, "You are not a rav, so you don't have to worry about that." "But," I pressed, "people know that if they see me doing something, surely R' Fuerst told me it was permissible." The dayan reiterated that I am not a rav and I don't have to overthink things like that. I, of course -- hearing the words, "you are not a rav" -- pressed again: Does that mean that the rav of a shul should not avail himself of this leniency to read over someone's shoulder? On that, the dayan confirmed, "Correct. A rav has a different responsibility. His job is to instruct and lead by example." In other words, since the rav's actions could (and probably would) be taken as putting a stamp of approval on a non-kosher eiruv; which could lead to even more Shabbos violation.
I decided to go on step further: I asked the dayan if he himself would use the leniency.
After all, I reasoned, everyone knows the dayan's psak and no one would suspect that the dayan was doing anything wrong. On the other hand, maybe we don't make distinctions like that.
R' Fuerst told me that he would not use the siddur in that case.
One personal note: I am so grateful that we have R' Fuerst in town. An enormous talmid chacham and halachic authority. And with all that -- or perhaps because of all that -- the dayan patiently answers all my questions and is never, ever dismissive, but answers on point, succinctly, and with consistency.
Comments