Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 385 - The Laws Applying to a Sadducee and an Apostate Regarding an Eruv

The term “Sadducees” literally means, “followers of Tzadok,” and is a reference to Tzadok, a student of Antigonus of Socho. In the Talmudic era, the Sadducees represented a splinter group within Judaism. They accepted the Written Law, but not the Oral Law. In truth, they wanted to abandon Jewish practice entirely, but realized that they could never attract a large number of followers with such an approach, and hence, adopted this manner of practice as a ruse to feign a basic allegiance to the Torah (Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Avos 1:3). The Alter Rebbe mentions them previously in sec. 199:2.

In the Alter Rebbe’s time, the Sadducees represented a mere footnote in history without any significant number of adherents; how much more so in the present era. Nevertheless, their approach was mirrored by the Karaites (see Rambam, Hilchos Mamrim 3:3, mentioned in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, sec. 330:2, and Hilchos Ribis, subsection 80) and other groups throughout Jewish history and, hence, it is beneficial to mention the Talmud’s rulings regarding Sadducees.

Eruvin 61b, 68b. I.e., Sadducees may follow the same practice as a Jew who forgot to participate in an eruv. See sec. 380:1.

I.e., they observe the Shabbos according to their fashion.

The establishment of an eruv was ordained by the Oral Law (see sec. 366:1), and the Sadducees rejected the Oral Law.

The Alter Rebbe uses the term Kusi, translated as “Samaritan.” The term Kusi refers to the non-Jews brought by Sancherev to occupy the land of the exiled ten tribes (II Melachim 17:24–41). It means “from the land of Kusa,”which is where the largest number of these non-Jews came from.At one point, the Samaritans converted and were considered to be Jews. In the later years of the Second Beis HaMikdash era, it was discovered that the Samaritans had secretly remained idolaters. From that time onward, the Sages regarded all Samaritans as non-Jews (Chulin 6a). Today, there are still a very small number of Samaritans living in Eretz Yisrael. The Alter Rebbe mentions these individuals in sec. 199:2 and sec. 215:2.

Chulin 6a.

Chulin 5a, Eruvin 69b. The Alter Rebbe mentions apostates in several other contexts in his Shulchan Aruch. See sec. 39:1; sec. 189:4; sec. 334:21; the Kuntreis Acharon (note 9) to Yoreh Deah, sec. 2; Yoreh Deah, Hilchos Ribis, subsections 76-80; and Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Nizkei Guf VeNefesh, subsection 8.

Chulin 6a, Eruvin 69b. See also the Kuntreis Acharon (note 10) to Yoreh Deah, Hilchos Shechitah, sec. 2.

Eruvin 69b. See also sec. 128:52.

See Rambam, loc. cit., who writes with regard to the Karaites:

The children of these errant people and their grandchildren, whose parents led them away and they were born among these Karaites and raised according to their conception, are considered as a child captured and raised by them. [Such a child] may not be eager [to follow] the path of mitzvos, for it is as if he was compelled not to. Even if later he hears that he is Jewish and saw Jews and their faith, he is [still] considered as one who was compelled [against observance], for he was raised according to their mistaken [path]. This applies to those… who follow the erroneous Karaite path of their ancestors. Therefore it is appropriate to motivate them to repent and draw them to the power of the Torah with words of peace.

Contemporary Rabbinic authorities have applied Rambam’s statements here to the question of how to relate to a not-yet-observant Jew today (see the Rebbe’s statements in Sefer HaSichos 5751, vol. 1, p. 228ff.). Obviously, such individuals are considered as Jews in a complete sense, and every effort must be made to reach out to them with brotherly love so that they find their place within the Jewish heritage.

There is, however, ample halachic discussion with regard to their status regarding certain elements of Jewish observance. See Igros Moshe (Orach Chayim, Vol. 1, responsum 33), and other authorities cited by R. Avraham Yeshayahu Pfeuffer, Ishei Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1998), p. 131.

In actual practice, when establishing eruvin in major cities in the present era, the status of such individuals with regard to the laws of eruvin is more theoretical than a matter of actual concern. To explain: When an eruv is established in a city today, it is established on behalf of all the city’s inhabitants (as explained in sec. 366:10, 12) and, because of the presence of non-Jews in the city, the rights of all the inhabitants are rented from the municipal authorities (as will be explained in the notes to sec. 391). Hence, if the not-yet-observant Jews are considered as “forced to transgress” (אנוסים) or as “transgressing unknowingly” (שוגגים) because of their upbringing, they are nonetheless included in the eruv. Furthermore, if the stringent ruling here is to be followed, the property of the not-yet-observant Jews is included in the general rental.

With this statement, the Alter Rebbe is teaching us that it is the public desecration of the Shabbos that warrants the severe ruling mentioned previously.

I.e., this person participated in the eruv when it was established, before he became an apostate.

See sec. 372:5, 6.

Even though in practice, as the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain, the person desires and uses the entrance to the Jewish neighborhood, he is regarded as favoring the entrance to the non-Jewish neighborhood.

A marginal note appended to the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch notes that the explanation given here is taken from Rashba (Vol. 1, responsa 661) quoted by Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 385). Rashba also offers a second explanation: that the apostate is compelled to favor the entrance because, as stated in sec. 386:9: “We compel people [not to follow] the attributes of Sodom,” i.e., in a situation where one person benefits and another does not suffer a loss, we compel the person who does not suffer a loss to enable the other person to benefit. Thus, in this instance, the apostate should be compelled to favor the entrance leading to the non-Jewish neighborhood so that the Jews will benefit by not being forbidden to carry (see sec. 365:3 and 367:1). The Alter Rebbe does not mention this explanation in the main text, because in the present era, it is not possible to compel the apostate to use the smaller entrance.