QUESTION

Paris, France

Communal policy question: there is no eruv in Paris and in our community there’s tremendous chillul shabbat (desecration of shabbat) going on from several families who otherwise entirely keep Shabbat but bring their babies to shul because not doing so would mean never coming to the community together. We had reached out to you in private about the possibility of having a non-Jewish nanny bring our baby to shul. I must say having had post-partum depression being able to leave my home on Shabbat is one of the reasons I am cured, BH.

Moreover, the shul has now hired our nanny to open the electronic door in front of the shul with a badge (we used to leave it opened but the neighbor complained). I was wondering whether you might consider extending the heter to all the families of the community so that we might try and convince them to stop carrying their babies themselves. If yes, then :

1. Can the nannies take the subway with the babies, but without the parents?
2. May the nanny carry things that are necessary for the babies, such as diapers and formula, or should those be brought to shul the day before?
3. One objection I’ve had to this is that following your psak about a Parisian issue would be complete disregard of the Mara DeAtra (local rabbinic authority), the Chief Rabbi of Paris, who is not known to be Modern Orthodox at all and made a video to say nobody needed an eruv and it was fine if the women stayed at home because they love taking care of their babies anyway. Is there a way to follow ideology rather than geography in psak?
4. We want our shul to be respectful of the environment. Due to the heat, we’ve had to turn the air conditioning on before shabbat. Can we do indirect Amira to ask the nanny/ doorwoman to turn it off? Until now, someone has been saying “it’s cold in here” before we leave and the nanny/doorwoman turned it off but I was wondering if that is sufficient.

ANSWER

Thank you for the question. I am so glad to hear that you have recovered from your post-partum depression and that the ability to leave the house was helpful in that regard.

As to what is happening now in your community—there is a halakhic question and a communal policy one.

Regarding the halakhic question
Having a non-Jewish nanny carry the baby is a double-d’rabanan. First, it is carrying in a Karmilit (I am assuming that there is no reshut ha’rabim = 600,000 people travel it daily—within the area that we are talking about), and second it is amirah la’goy. (There might even be a third d’rabanan if they baby can walk—in such a case, carrying her even in reshut ha’rabim is only d’rabanan). (See Igrot Moshe YD 2:33)

Once it is a double-d’rabanan, it is permissible bemakom mitzvah (SA OH 307:5) . Poskim have ruled that “makom mitzvah” includes going to shul (even for a woman!) (Pri Megadim Eshel Avraham OH 307:8, Pri Megadim Eshel Avraham OH 613:8, Minchat Yitchak 2:104). So, from a technical halakhic analysis this should be fine..

As to taking the subway—that is, I assume, a matter of convenience, and they could walk if they wanted to (if not, how are the parents getting to shul?). So that is not a problem—it is a choice of convenience—adata d’nafshei – אדעתא דנפשיה (MB 276:27).

As to other items—they are also in the double-d’rabanan category, but that category should only be used if one has no other option (Shaar Tziyon 244:35). So, if it were only about these items—and not the baby—then they should definitely be brought to shul ahead of time and only if forgotten could they be brought to shul on Shabbat.

However—since the fundamental amira is to bring the baby, the question of how to bring these items becomes one of convenience. “Bring the baby, and you must have diapers, etc., when you get to the shul. You can bring them there ahead of time, or take them with you, whichever is more convenient.” With this framing it would be adata d’nafshei – אדעתא דנפשיה and fine regardless of how the nanny chooses (of course, we can guess which choice she will make…). This is assuming that the nanny has access to the shul before Shabbat. If she does not, then it is a direct amira, and the parents have to bring the items to shul beforehand. Only if they forgot to do so can they now, on Shabbat, have the nanny bring them as well.

[I should also note that anything necessary for the trip—a bottle or rattle, say—obviously can be brought with the baby. There is not any other choice.]

So in summary:
Halakhically—the nannys can take the babies, they can ride the subway assuming it is just a matter of convenience and not necessity, they can take any items with them needed for the trip, and as to other items for the baby—if they have access to the shul before Shabbat, then they should be given the choice of when to bring it, and if they don’t have access but the parents do—the parents need to bring these items before Shabbat, but if they forgot, they can be brought by the nanny on Shabbat.

Regarding the AC –
This is not a case of tzorekh mitzvah (unless someone wants to argue that all acts that work to protect the environment, resources, etc., are tzorekh mitzvah—but I will not be going there). It is, though, tzorekh rabbim (I assume you have to pay the electric bill), because the financial loss here might take away from finite funds that otherwise would be used for tzorkhei rabim, i.e., applied to other Shul purposes (see Tzitz Eliezer, 4:4, ד:ה אך ירשה). In cases of tzorekh rabbim there tends to be more latitude regarding things related to having non-Jews do certain things in the shul on Shabbat (MB 276:25). One should also point out that this is electricity alone, with no eish (actual fire), or anything else that is problematic. So—”It’s cold in here” certainly works (you don’t even need all of the points above).

As to deferring or not deferring to the Chief Rabbi of Paris
I take it that there are already many things that you do that he would not allow (mechitzah height, sefer Torah on Simchat Torah, a woman as religious leader of a shul—just to name a few), so clearly this is not an operating concern of yours. And it shouldn’t be. You have not accepted his authority, and the fact that a non-Jewish government gave him that title is only relevant for the role that he plays in the government. The city of Paris certainly has not said that the Chief Rabbi dictates what goes on in all the shuls.

Regarding the policy question
Before we even get to the issue of the Chief Rabbi, it should be obvious that there are serious policy issues to consider here. If we were to blanketly follow the above psak, it would mean that in every community where they was no eruv, everyone would have their babies brought to shul by non-Jews, with a parking-lot of baby carriages outside. As you yourself wrote—this could feel like public, communal chillul shabbat even if it weren’t. The fact that there is no eruv and there is such public carrying being done, is something that has to be weighed very very seriously. It is not just about miseducating / being machshil people (they will come to believe that there is no need for an eruv in order to carry), it is also about whether it compromises the kedushat Shabbat/texture of the day. Of course, the latter can be debated, since “not carrying” is certainly not a part of kedushat Shabbat/texture of the day for communities with an eruv. But still, at least for me, it is part of the character for communities without one.

I am not saying this as psak. You have to decide on this policy matter and the tradeoffs on either side on your own. My advice would be, though, that if you want to permit it should not be a blanket ruling, and there should be visible signs to reinforce that we have not forgotten about the issur to carry. So—maybe announce that when something is considered b’makom mitzvah it can be allowed, but people have to speak with you to get a psak for their case and also to learn the specifics regarding other items, etc. (Some might object that this is disempowering and exerting too much rabbinic control, which I acknowledge, but that isn’t what it is about. If someone can think of another way to do this so that the understanding is that this is a heter for the specific case, not a blanket permission—that would be great. That is the key message to get across).

You may also consider not allowing for a parking lot of carriages—having them folded and placed away in the building, or otherwise not so visible. Also a sign on the door that says—”Dear Congregant, please remember to NOT carry your baby outside or into or out of the building.” And something in the announcement page or bulletin board that says—”If you are carrying for babies or small children and would like to learn about the parameters of having a non-Jew transport your child in the absence of an eruv, please contact, etc.”

You get the idea. I think if you judge that the tzorekh is weighty, and that you can do a version of the above and if you do, this will feel like a heter and not like it’s okay to carry on Shabbat/in this shul everyone carries on Shabbat, etc.—then that could very well be an appropriate policy decision.

Now, this is all in a case where people weren’t carrying and coming to the rabbi to ask him/her for a heter to carry. Your case is, of course, different because people are already carrying. And yet, that does not make the policy issues go away. It is one thing when people carry without license/in violation—then it is their responsibility and the shul’s only decision is whether to keep them out or welcome them in (think—people who drive to shul on Shabbat). It is another thing when people are carrying under the shul’s auspices and responsibility. Here, the shul must take steps that this activity does not challenge/impinge on kedushat shabbat, miseducate or machshil people, etc. etc. So the endpoint is the same.

The real nafka mina (practical difference) is what is appropriate and effective messaging to be giving to the congregants. If nobody is carrying—then the message is—don’t carry without a heter, etc. If people are already carrying, then the message is—if you are or want to be bringing your child to shul, you may only do so via a nanny. The sign on the door: “Dear Congregants—do NOT carry your child in or out of the building or in play area. Please make sure to ask our custodian / your nanny to help with this.”—is appropriate in both situations.