Login  

Register  

A Moral Dilemma to Ask Your Family at the Shabbos Table: “The Beijing Hotel”

By Rabbi Yitzy Weiner

Posted on 05/19/16

Parshas HaShavua Divrei Torah sponsored by
Dr. Shapsy Tajerstein, DPM - Podiatry Care.
(410) 788-6633

This week’s Torah portion discusses the mitzvah to make a Kidush Hashem (Vayikra 22,32). According to the Rambam (Rambam Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah , Chapter 5), Kidush Hashem, to sanctity G-d’s name, means to behave in a manner that reflects the beauty of the Torah and the beauty of a relationship with Hashem. The parsha also discusses the opposite of Kidsuh Hashem, a Chilul Hashem. This means to desecrate the name of Hashem by behaving in a manner that reflects poorly on the behavior of a Jew.


The following  true story contains a moral dilemma about a potential Chilul Hashem.


Ari traveled to Beijing, China for a business trip. He stayed in a brand new, sleek and modern hotel.  The hotel was beautiful and all of the rooms had electronic locks and automatic lights. Whenever one would walk into a room the lights would turn on automatically. Whenever one would walk out of the room the light would switch off automatically. Both the electronic locks and the automatic lights  posed a problem to Ari for his Shabbos observance.


In order to address the problem of the electronic locks, Ari left the door slightly ajar when he left to go to Friday night davening and the Friday night meal.  He also unscrewed the automatic lights before Shabbos, so that they wouldn’t go on automatically on Shabbos when he walked into the room.


That Friday night he went to shul and spent a lovely Friday evening at someone’s home. After the meal he walked back to the hotel and walked into the room that he thought was his. To his surprise the light went on. He looked around and quickly realized that he went into the wrong room, the room right next to his. That door was mysteriously also left ajar.


Ari wanted to quickly leave the room but realized that if he did so, the lights would then turn off which would be a Shabbos violation. If he stayed in the room the occupant of the room might find him and suspect him of doing suspicious or illegal activity and might call the Chinese authorities.


Ari was torn about what he should do. Should he stay in the room and try to explain to the occupant why he was there? That might cause a Chillul Hashem with both the occupant and Chinese police if they suspected him of trying to steal. It could also cause him great embarrassment. Or should he leave the room which would turn off the light and be a violation of Shabbos?


According to Jewish law, which would be more important in this case? To keep the Shabbos properly,  or not cause a desecration of God’s name and cause embarrassment for himself?


See Veharev Na Volume Three Page 205 Hebrew Edition


Answer to last week’s moral dilemma


This question is discussed by both Rabbi Yosef Elyashiv and Rabbi Nissim Karelitz,and it is quoted in Veharev Na Volume Two Hebrew Edition Page 403.


Both agree that what Uri did was geneivas dass, deception of the community. The community thought they were volunteering to do a mitzva , when they were really doing the job that Uri was being paid to do. Had they known that he was being paid for the job, they might have not responded in the same way.
Rav Elyashiv holds that “after the fact” though, Aaron would still owe the money. However Rav Nissim Karelitz holds that because the job was done through geneivas dass Aaron is not obligated to pay the money.