Amira L'Akum

By Rabbi Joshua Flug

For technical information regarding use of

this document, press ctrl and click here
I. Introduction- Two reason for amira l'akum
a. The Mishna mentions the prohibition against amira l'akum. {}
b. The Gemara states that amira l'akum is only d'rabanan. {}
c. Rashi (1040-1105) presents two different reasons for the prohibition against
Amira L'Akum:
i. Rashi in Avodah Zarah- asking a non-Jew to perform melacha is part of
the general prohibition against discussing melacha on Shabbos (v'daber
davar).{}
ii. Rashi in Shabbos- By asking a non-Jew to perform melacha on your
behalf, we treat him (on a rabbinic level) as your shaliach so it is as if you
yourself performed the melacha. {}
iii. Rambam (1135-1204) gives a different reason for amira l'akum. If you
allow someone to ask a non-Jew, he won't treat Shabbos as seriously and
he will eventually perform the melacha himself. {} In this presentation,
we will focus on Rashi's two explanations.
d. R. Yisrael Y. Kanievsky (The Steipler Gaon 1899-1985) explains that both of
Rashi's reason are true and necessary: {}
i. If the only reason for amira l'akum was v'daber davar, it would be
permissible to ask a non-Jew before Shabbos to perform a melacha on
Shabbos. However, Rambam {} and Shulchan Aruch {} rule that it is
prohibited. The reason why it is prohibited is based on the shlichus aspect
of amira l'akum. Since he is performing the melacha on the Jew's behalf
on Shabbos, he is considered a shaliach.
ii. If the only reason for amira l'akum was shlichus, it would be permissible
to ask a non-Jew on Shabbos to perform melacha after Shabbos.
However, since it is prohibited to discuss melacha on Shabbos because of
v'daber davar, you can't ask a non-Jew on Shabbos to perform melacha
after Shabbos.
e. It's possible to apply the Steipler's idea to the concept of remizah
i. R. Yitzchak ben Moshe (Or Zarua c. 1200-1270) writes that just as asking
a non-Jew to perform melacha is prohibited, so too it is prohibited to hint
to a non-Jew to perform melacha. However, it is permissible to hint on
Shabbos in order to for the non-Jew to perform melacha after Shabbos. {}
This ruling is recorded by Rama (1520-1572). {}
ii. Why should there be a difference between hinting for something to be
performed on Shabbos and hinting to be performed after Shabbos?
iii. According to the Steipler, we can explains Or Zarua's opinion as follows:
1. Hinting is only prohibited because of shlichus. By hinting to a
non-Jew to do something, you are appointing him to perform an
activity.
2. There is no prohibition of v'daber davar because there is no
mention of any melacha.
3. The shlichus aspect is only a problem if the non-Jew performs the
melacha on Shabbos itself. If he performs it after Shabbos, there is
no problem of shlichus.
 4. Therefore, you can't hint to do something on Shabbos, but you can
hint for after Shabbos.
iv. Mishna Berurah's leniency regarding hinting- The only problem with
hinting is that you are still commanding the non-Jew, albeit indirectly (e.g.
you tell him to blow his nose as a hint that he should turn on the heat).
However, if you hint without any directive, it is not a violation of amira
l'akum. {}
1. The explanation of this ruling seems to be based on the same idea.
2. When you hint, you are still creating a shlichus relationship even
though there is no v'daber davar.
3. If you hint without using any directive, you don't establish a
shlichus relationship.
4. It is important to note that hinting only helps if there is no issue of
benefiting from melacha performed by a non-Jew (next section).
II. Benefiting from melacha performed by a non-Jew
a. Mishna- If a non-Jew acts on his own and performs melacha on behalf of a Jew, it
is prohibited to benefit from that melacha. If he performed the melacha for
himself it is permissible to benefit.{}
i. If it is prohibited to benefit from a melacha that the non-Jew performs
without anyone asking him, this equally applies to a case where he
performed the melacha based on a hint (even the permissible form).
Therefore, the permissible hint is only permissible in a case where one
would be permitted to benefit had the non-Jew performed the melacha on
his own.
b. Leniencies that can be applied to this rule:
i. Rabbeinu Baruch (Sefer HaTerumah 13th century)- If a non-Jew lights a
candle in a room that already has light, it is permissible to benefit from the
additional light. {}
1. R. Ya'akov ben Asher (Tur 1269-1343) When the original light is
extinguished, it is prohibited to benefit from the additional light. {}
2. Shulchan Aruch records the ruling of Sefer HaTerumah with the
qualification of Tur. {}
ii. Indirect Benefit
1. Mishna Berurah- If there is no direct benefit, it is not prohibited.
a. R. Yisrael Lipschitz (Tiferes Yisrael 1782-1860) - If a non-
Jew opens an envelope on Shabbos, reading the letter is not
considered direct and is permissible. {}
b. Shemiras Shabbos KeHilchasa- It is not considered hana'ah
when asking a non-Jew to turn off a light. {}
2. R. Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) seems to dispute this idea. He
rules that if a Jew brings a key from reshus harabim on Shabbos,
you can't benefit from the building. {}
a. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995) went back and
forth on this issue in a number of his writings but
concluded that it is permissible to benefit from the building.
{}
 iii. If the melacha was performed for his own benefit
1. The source is from the aforementioned Mishna. {}
2. The Gemara states that if he doesn't perform the melacha for
himself but majority of the beneficiaries are not Jewish, he may
benefit from the melacha. {}
3. The Gemara also states that this leniency is limited to cases where
there is no concern that the non-Jew will perform additional
melacha on behalf of the Jew. For example, you can't benefit from
grass that the non-Jew cut for himself because there is a concern
that he may cut additional grass for the Jew. {}
III. Amira L'Akum for a mitzvah or a tzorech
a. There are two important discussions in the Gemara about amira l'akum for the
purpose of fulfilling a mitzvah:
i. The Gemara in Gittin states that you can ask a non-Jew to sign the closing
documents on a property in Israel in order to fulfill the mitzvah of yishuv
Eretz Yisrael. {}
ii. The Gemara in Eruvin states Rabbah allowed Amira L'Akum for a non-
Jew to bring water through a chatzer she'aina meureves in order to
perform the mitzvah of milah. {}
b. There are three basic approaches in the Rishonim regarding how to explain these
comments of the Gemara:
i. R. Yitzchak ben Abba Mari (Ba'al HaItur c. 1122-1193)- You see from
these comments that it is permissible to ask a non-Jew to perform melacha
for the purpose of fulfilling a mitzvah. This even applies to a mitzvah
d'rabanan such as lighting candles for Shabbos. {}
ii. Rambam- If the purpose is fulfilling a mitzvah, you can only ask a non-
Jew to perform what would be considered a d'rabanan if a Jew performed
it himself. This concept is known as sh'vus d'shvus. Rambam allows a
sh'vus d'sh'vus for other cases of pressing need or discomfort. The only
exception to this rule is the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael where it is
permissible to ask a non-Jew to violate a bona fide melacha in order to
close the deal on a property. {}
iii. Tosafos- You can never ask a non-Jew to perform melacha whether
d'rabanan or d'oraisa for the purpose of fulfilling a mitzvah. There are
only two exceptions to this rule: {}
1. Asking a non-Jew to sign the closing documents in order to live in
Israel.
2. Violating a d'rabanan in order to fulfill the mitzvah of milah.
c. P'sak Halacha
i. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam and cites the opinion of
Tosafos as a yesh omrim. {}
1. Mishna Berurah sides with the opinion of Rambam. {}
ii. Rama writes that one can rely on the opinion of Ba'al HaItur in pressing
situations. {}
1. Mishna Berurah defines these pressing situations as cases of
mitzvah d'rabim. }
 d. Tzorchei Choleh- The Gemara states that all tzorchei choleh can be performed by
a non-Jew. {} This means that if someone fits the criteria of a choleh she'ain bo
sakanah, he can ask a non-Jew to perform any activity, even a melacha d'oraisa.
i. The exact criteria for choleh she'ain bo sakanah deserves its own shiur, but
the basic definition is someone with an illness that affects his entire body.
e. Practical Applications
i. Rama allows carrying food through a karmelis for the purpose of oneg
Shabbos because it is considered a sh'vus d'sh'vhus b'makom tzorech. {}
1. Mishna Berurah qualifies Rama to cases where someone needs
wine for Kiddush or hot food. {}
ii. Turning an air conditioner on and off. If one assumes that electricity (non-
lights) is only d'rabanan, then you can ask a non-Jew to activate or
deactivate electric devices on Shabbos for a tzorech or for a mitzvah. One
example is Minchas Yitchak's allowance to have a non-Jew turn on an air
conditioner or Shabbos if it is hot in the room. {} There are many other
similar applications which are discussed at length in the shiur on
Electricity and Shabbos.
iii. Fixing the eruv- Mishna Berurah gives this as an example of a case where
one can rely on the Ba'al HaItur. {}
iv. Turning on the lights in the shul
1. Mishna Berurah allows amira l'akum on a mitzvah d'oraisa that is
considered a mitzvah d'rabim. The question is whether the
situation is one of mitzvah d'rabim:
a. If the lights were supposed to be on and someone turned
them off, that's a case of mitzvah d'rabim.
b. It is questionable whether you can apply this to a situation
where you decide that you want have the non-Jew turn off
the lights after davening on Friday night and then turn them
back on Shabbos morning. If the expense of leaving the
lights on is significant and the cost of installing timers is
also significant, then it is arguable that it's a mitzvah
d'rabim. If not, it's probably better to install timers than to
rely on Ba'al HaItur's opinion.
c. Another factor may be what type of light we are dealing
with. Some fluorescent lights involve no melacha d'oraisa
(see the Electricity shiur)
v. Taking a choleh to the physician- It is permissible to ask a non-Jew to
make a phone call and call a cab or the physician. It is also permissible to
send him to fill a prescription in order to treat a choleh.
IV. Other leniencies
a. Pesik Reishei
i. R. Yisrael Isserlin (Terumas HaDeshen 1390-1460) permits asking a non-
Jew to perform action A even though it is inevitable that result B, which is
a prohibited melacha will take place. Although for a Jew this would be
prohibited based on the concept of pesik reshei, when it comes to amira
l'akum, there is no concern for pesik reishei. {}
 ii. This ruling is codified by Rama {} as explained by Mishna Berurah }
iii. One can question this ruling based on the fact the Terumas HaDeshen
allows pesik reishei whenever the result is d'rabanan. If so, it would
certainly be permissible to ask a non-Jew to perform an activity that is
prohibited because of pesik reishei because all amira l'akum is d'rabanan.
However, R. Avraham Gombiner (Magen Avraham c. 1633-1683) {} and
subsequently Mishna Berurah {Error: Reference source not found}
prohibit pesik reishei when the result is d'rabanan. If so, how can Terumas
HaDeshen serve as the source that pesik reishei is permissible through
amira l'akum?
iv. The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) alludes to this question by disagreeing with
Rama's ruling. The Vilna Gaon asserts that you can only be lenient when
the pesik reishei is lo nicha. If it is nicha then it is prohibited. Ostensibly,
what he means is that we will treat amira l'akum like we treat any other
d'rabanan. If the result is nicha lei, it is prohibited, as per Magen
Avraham. If it is lo nicha, one may be lenient as we are in other cases of
pesik reishei d'lo nicha lei when the result is d'rbanan. {Error: Reference
source not found}
v. There are two ways to resolve Rama's opinion:
1. It's possible that there is a difference between a case of pesik
reishei where the result is d'rabanan and a case where a non-Jew
initiates an activity with a secondary result. Perhaps Rama was
only lenient in the latter case because it less direct than in the
former.
2. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (the first Lubavitcher Rebbe 1745-
1812) alludes to a different approach. He states that the basis for
allowing Amira L'Akum on pesik reishei is that there is no amira
involved. I.e., you asked him to perform activity A and he
achieved result B. {} As such, the leniency is not a leniency within
the laws of pesik reishei but rather a leniency within the laws of
amira l'akum.
3. There is a practical difference between these two approaches.
According to the first approach, there is no prohibition to benefit
when the amira yields a pesik reishei. According to Shulchan
Aruch HaRav's approach, it is possible that although there is no
amira, one may not benefit from the result.
b. Tosefes Shabbos
i. The Mishna states that during bein hashmashos it is permissible to violate
many of the issurim d'rbanan of Shabbos. {}
ii. Mordechai (c.1250-1298) rules that this does not apply to the time of
tosefes Shabbos. {}
1. Shulchan Aruch codifies Mordechai's ruling. {}
2. This severely limits the leniency of the Mishna because most
people accept Shabbos before bein hashmashos.
iii. Nevertheless, R. Ya'akov Veil (Mahari Veil 15th century) permits amira
l'akum during the time of tosefes Shabbos. His rationale is that it is
 similar to a case where one town accepts a stringency that is not accepted
in other towns. In that situation, the town that does accept the stringencies
may be lenient with some of the corollary laws associated with that
stringency. As such, accepting Shabbos early is viewed as a stringency
that the other towns did not accept and therefore, one may be lenient
regarding amira l'akum which he considers a corollary law of Shabbos. {}
This ruling is recorded by Rama {}
iv. Magen Avraham {} states that there is another reason to be lenient
regarding amira l'akum during tosefes Shabbos based on a leniency of
Rashba (1235-1310) to allow someone who accepted Shabbos to ask
another Jew who did not yet accept Shabbos to do melacha. {} If amira
l'yisrael is permissible, certainly amira l'akum is permissible as well.
1. Rashba's opinion is codified by Shulchan Aruch. {}
2. Magen Avraham adds that Rashba's leniency doesn't apply if the
entire tzibbur accepted Shabbos. Yet, Mahari Veil's leniency
applies even if the entire tzibbur accepted Shabbos.
3. Explanation of Rashba's opinion- R. Dovid HaLevi Segal (Taz c.
1586-1667) explains that the prohibition of amira only applies
when the amira is prohibited for everyone. If there are some who
don't have a prohibition of amira, amira is permissible for everyone
(I assume that "everyone" means everyone in the same time zone).
{}
a. Taz's explanation only addresses the v'daber davar aspect
of amira l'akum. R. Yosef Teomim (P'ri Megadim 1727-
1793) questions why there is no shlichus problem. He
entertains the possibility that this leniency will only apply
to asking another Jew and not to asking another non-Jew
because shlichus is more relevant when the shaliach is not
subject to the prohibition. {}
b. As a matter of practical Halacha, Mishna Berurah, in
discussing Mahari Veil's leniency doesn't seem to be
concerned with P'ri Megadim's distinction between asking a
Jew and asking a non-Jew. {}
 ‫‪ .7‬קהלות יעקב שבת ס' נה‬ ‫‪ .1‬מש' שבת קכא‪.‬‬

‫‪ .2‬שבת קנ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .3‬רש"י עבודה זרה טו‪ .‬ד"ה כיון‬

‫‪ .8‬אור זרוע הל' שבת ס' פד‬

‫‪ .4‬רש"י שבת קנג‪ .‬ד"ה מאי‬

‫‪ .9‬רמ"א או"ח שז‪:‬כב‬

‫‪ .5‬רמב"ם הל' שבת ו‪:‬א‬

‫‪ .10‬משנה ברורה שז‪:‬עו‬

‫וה"ה שאסור לומר לו בשבת איזה דבר‬
‫שיבין מתוך כך שיעשה מלאכה וע"כ אסור‬
‫לומר לא"י שיקנח חוטמו כדי שיבין שיסיר‬ ‫‪ .6‬שלחן ערוך או"ח שז‪:‬ב‬
‫הפחם שבראש הנר אך כשאומר הרמיזה‬
‫לא"י שלא בלשון צווי כגון שאומר הנר אינו‬
‫מאיר יפה או איני יכול לקרות לאור הנר‬
‫הזה שיש בו פחם ושומע הא"י ומתקנו שרי‬
‫דאין זה בכלל אמירה‪.‬‬

‫שבת קכב‪.‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬

 ‫אגרות משה או"ח ב‪:‬עז‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫ספר התרומה ס' רנב‬ ‫‪.12‬‬

‫טור או"ח ס' רעו‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫שלחן ערוך או"ח רעו‪:‬ד‬ ‫‪.14‬‬

‫כלכלת שבת דיני אמירה לעכו"ם ס' ה‬ ‫‪.15‬‬

‫מנחת שלמה תנינא ס' כב‬ ‫‪.18‬‬

‫‪ .16‬שמירת שבת כהלכתה ל‪:‬ה‬
‫מותר לומר לנכרי בשבת "קשה לישון‬
‫כאשר יש אור בחדר )דהיינו בלשון סיפור‬
‫הצורך בעשיית מלאכה(‪ ,‬ומאליו יבין‬
‫שצריך לכבות‪.‬‬
‫עירוב ביניהן מים חמין להרחיץ בהם קטן‬ ‫שבת קכב‪.‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬
‫ומצטער וכן כל כיוצא בזה‪ .‬הלוקח בית‬
‫הארץ ישראל מן הנכרי מותר לו לומר‬
‫לנכרי לכתוב לו שטר בשבת שאמירה‬
‫לנכרי בשבת אסורה מדבריהם ומשום‬
‫ישוב ארץ ישראל לא גזרו בדבר זה‪.‬‬ ‫שבת קכב‪.‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬

‫‪ .25‬תוספות גיטין ח‪ :‬ד"ה אע"ג‬

‫אע"ג דאמירה לעובד כוכבים שבות משום‬
‫ישוב ארץ ישראל לא גזרו רבנן אבל משום‬
‫מצוה אחרת לא היינו מתירין אמירה לעובד‬
‫כוכבים במלאכה דאורייתא כדמוכח בפרק‬
‫הדר ההוא ינוקא דאשתפיך ‪ ...‬ואין ללמוד‬
‫גיטין ח‪:‬‬ ‫‪.21‬‬
‫מכאן היתר לומר לעובד כוכבים להביא‬
‫ספר בשבת דרך כרמלית דלא דמי דדוקא‬
‫משום מילה דהיא גופה דחיא שבת התירו‪.‬‬

‫שלחן ערוך שז‪:‬ה‬ ‫‪.26‬‬

‫עירובין סז‪:‬‬ ‫‪.22‬‬

‫משנה ברורה שז‪:‬כג‬ ‫‪.27‬‬

‫ספר העיטור הל' מילה מט‪.‬‬ ‫‪.23‬‬

‫רמ"א או"ח רעו‪:‬ב‬ ‫‪.28‬‬

‫משנה ברורה רעו‪:‬כה‬ ‫‪.29‬‬

‫‪ .24‬רמב"ם הל' שבת ו‪:‬ט‪-‬י‬

‫דבר שאינו מלאכה ואין אסור לעשותו‬
‫בשבת אלא משום שבות מותר לישראל‬
‫שבת קכט‪.‬‬ ‫‪.30‬‬ ‫לומר לנכרי לעשותו בשבת והוא שיהיה‬
‫שם מקצת חולי או היה צריך לדבר צורך‬
‫הרבה או מפני מצוה‪ .‬כיצד אומר ישראל‬
‫לנכרי בשבת לעלות באילן או לשוט על‬
‫רמ"א או"ח שכה‪:‬י‬ ‫‪.31‬‬ ‫פני המים כדי להביא לו שופר או סכין‬
‫למילה או מביא לו מחצר לחצר שאין‬
 ‫מגן אברהם שיד‪:‬ה‬ ‫‪.38‬‬

‫‪ .32‬משנה ברורה שכה‪:‬יא‬

‫דמטעם שבות דשבות אין מתירין לכתחלה‬
‫רק בצורך גדול או לדבר מצוה גמורה כגון‬
‫משנה ברורה שיד‪:‬יא‬ ‫‪.39‬‬ ‫שהוא צריך המשקה לקידוש או להביא‬
‫התבשיל החם שהוכן לסעודות שבת‪.‬‬

‫מנחת יצחק ג‪:‬כג‬ ‫‪.33‬‬

‫שלחן ערוך הרב רנג‪:‬י‬ ‫‪.40‬‬

‫מש' שבת לד‪.‬‬ ‫‪.41‬‬

‫תרומת הדשן ס' סו‬ ‫‪.34‬‬

‫מרדכי שבת ס' רצ‬ ‫‪.42‬‬

‫רמ"א או"ח רנג‪:‬ה‬ ‫‪.35‬‬

‫שלחן ערוך או"ח רסג‪:‬ד‬ ‫‪.43‬‬ ‫‪ .36‬משנה ברורה רנג‪:‬צט‬

‫ואף דהוי פסיק רישא לגב התבשיל‬
‫שנתחמם ממילא מ"מ באמירה לא"י דהוי‬
‫שבות דלית בו מעשה לא מחמרינן כולי‬
‫האי ושרי אף בפסיק רישא‪.‬‬
‫שו"ת מהר"י ווייל ס' קטז‬ ‫‪.44‬‬
‫‪ .37‬מגן אברהם שיד‪:‬ה‬
‫גם מ"ש להתיר פסיק רישיה במילי דרבנן‬
‫וכ"כ סי' ע"ו צ"ע דבסימן שי"ו ס"ד אית'‬
‫בהדי' דאסור ותלמוד ערוך הוא‪.‬‬
‫אלא הטעם הוא דאיסור אמירה לא נאסר‬
‫אפילו בשבת גמור רק באם הוא אסור לכל‬
‫ישראל משא"כ באם מותר לזה בשבת ה"נ‬
‫מותר גם להב' לו' לעשותו ממילא הוי כן‬
‫בעיולי שבתא וכ"ש באפוקי שבתא‪.‬‬

‫‪ .50‬פרי מגדים משבצות זהב או"ח רסג‪:‬ג‬

‫אלא שיש לראות נימא שלוחו של אדם‬
‫כמותו וכ"ש למ"ד היכא דהשליח אין בר‬
‫חיובא המשלח חייב‪.‬‬

‫‪ .51‬משנה ברורה רסא‪:‬יח‬

‫אפילו שלא במקום מצוה דכיון שעוד היום‬
‫גדול בודאי יש מקומות שעדיין לא קבלו‬
‫עליהן שבת ועושין בעצמן מלאכה די לנו‬
‫במה שע"י הקבלה נשבות בעצמנו‬ ‫רמ"א או"ח רסא‪:‬א‬ ‫‪.45‬‬
‫ממלאכה‪ .‬ודע דבעניננו איירינן שהצבור‬
‫שבעירו קבלו עליהן השבת וחל קדושת‬
‫שבת בע"כ אפילו אם אחד לא ירצה לקבל‬ ‫‪ .46‬מגן אברהם רסא‪:‬ז‬
‫וע"כ כתב לומר לא"י וכו' ומטעם הנ"ל‬ ‫אפי' שלא במקום מצוה דכיון שעוד היום‬
‫]טז[ אבל ביחיד שקבל עליו השבת מותר‬ ‫גדול בודאי יש מקומו' שעדיין לא קבלו‬
‫אפילו לומר לישראל חברו שיעשה לו‬ ‫עליהם שבת ודמי' להא דאמרינן אינהו‬
‫מלאכה וכדלקמן בסימן רס"ג סי"ז ע"ש‬ ‫מיכל אכלי לדידן מסתים לא סתים )שם(‬
‫הטעם במ"ב‪.‬‬ ‫וא"ת הא בלא"ה שרי דאי בעי לא קבל‬
‫שבת עליה כמ"ש ססי' רס"ג וי"ל דשאני‬
‫התם דמיירי ביחיד המקבל עליו שבת אבל‬
‫בצבור שקבלו עליהם שבת חל עליהם‬
‫שבת בע"כ וגרע מב"ה כמ"ש ס"ד ולכן‬
‫הוצרך מהרי"ו לטעם אחר ומשמע מדבריו‬
‫דאם הוא חצי שעה סמוך לחשיכה דאז‬
‫אפשר דכל מקומות ישראל קבלו עליהם‬
‫שבת אסור לומ' לעכו"ם ומיהו לצורך מצוה‬
‫אפשר דשרי דלענין אמירה לא מחמרינן‬
‫טפי מב"ה וכ"מ במהרי"ו שם וכ"כ רש"ל‬
‫בתשובה‪.‬‬

‫רשב"א שבת קנא‪.‬‬ ‫‪.47‬‬

‫שלחן ערוך רסג‪:‬יז‬ ‫‪.48‬‬

‫ט"ז או"ח רסג‪:‬ג‬ ‫‪.49‬‬