Halakhot of Lakeview Part II: Sports on Shabbat

Rabbi Saul Berman: Playing Ball On Shabbat And Yom Tov (Edah Journal 1:1)

Most interesting, however, is to observe the progression of three versions of the language of Rabbi Neuwirth, in Shemirat Shabbat Ke’hilkhatah. In the first edition, published in 1964, he states:

"Ball playing–except for the game of soccer–involves no prohibition, even outside of the house (in a place where there is an eruv), as the law is likewise in regard to the game of table tennis (ping pong)."

In the second, revised and expanded edition, published in 1978, the language is slightly more tentative:

"Ball playing should not be [declared to be] prohibited–except for the game of soccer–even outside of the house (in a place where there is an eruv)."

An English translation of the second edition, done "in close collaboration with the author," and including "modifications as are felt to be appropriate for an English edition," was published in 1984. It expands the paragraph by including the constraints, both directly and by cross reference:

A. Subject to the restrictions referred to in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 below, there is no reason to forbid ball games played on a hard surface, such as an asphalt or concrete court or a ping-pong (table-tennis) table, whether indoors or out, provided that, where necessary, an eruv hatseirot has been made properly, as described in Chapter 17.

B. Ball games should not be played on earth or grass.

The subtle, but clear progression in these three presentations; moving from "involves no prohibition", to "should not be prohibited", to "there is no reason to forbid" conjoined with detailed restrictive specifications, is indicative of a growing sense of discomfort with the permissive position. Nevertheless, Rabbi Neuwirth does not attempt to deny the clarity of the tradition of pesak halakhah in the Ashkenazic tradition.

The call to limit ball playing on shabbat and yom tov does not, then, derive from a valid place in the literature of halakhah. Where then does it come from? Why has it been so recurrent? Further, what response ought to be made to this concern? To deal with these questions we need to turn to an entirely separate discussion of the spiritual condition of our community.

Rabbi Saul Berman, ibid.

I believe that we as a community have a problem in regard to the use of time on shabbat. We seem to have evolved only three activities through which we positively and effectively enhance the holiness of the day. First, "davening" time; second, meal time; and third, learning time. Whatever time cannot be consumed in one of these three activities remains available for sleep.

Is this really it? In God’s whole wide world the only permissible activities which can serve spiritual purposes on shabbat are davening, learning and eating, leaving then only sleeping as the residual means of consuming time not otherwise able to be put to positive use?

My life experience, as a person, as a parent, as a rabbi, as a teacher, lead me to the conclusion that these three areas are simply not sufficient for most people, and are certainly not sufficient for children and young adults. Adults are somewhat able to cope with the bad situation. As time grows heavy on their hands, meals protract into feasts, davening time protracts to fill some of the available time, and people will take a sefer with them to bed, or just sleep more...

Simply telling people that ball playing on shabbat is now prohibited will not ... really improve in the slightest the positive experience of shabbatby any Jews.

Ball playing on shabbat and yom tov is a vacuous, pointless activity, almost as useless as sleeping hours on end. But it is halakhically permissible and serves a perceived need for relaxing, enjoyable and physically energetic activity time. Let’s not take that away from people until we can replace it with something that serves approximately the same purposes, and also serves to enrich their religious and ethical beings.

Terry Novetzky: Letter to the Edah Journal in Response to Rabbi Saul Berman

...The technical issues raised by halakhah in ball playing on Shabbat and Yom Tov are, in fact, quite direct and simple. As the paper clearly sets forth, the Rama, not once, but twice, expressly states that a ball used for play is not muktzah on Shabbat – thus establishing the undisputed view of Ashkenazic Jewry on this issue. Rabbi Berman then concludes Part I of his paper as follows:

“The call to limit ball playing on Shabbat and Yom Tov does not, then, derive from a valid place in the literature of halakhah.”

But it is manifestly apparent – particularly with respect to most types of modern ball playing – that a number of additional halakhic factors beyond muktzah and hotza’ah are impacted. Further, Hilkhot Shabbat encompasses a much larger tapestry than mere technical observance of negative precepts. Thus, when considering those as well as many other factors involved in pesak halakhah, I do not believe that Rabbi Berman’s absolute and unequivocal position is sustainable.

While the halakhah is profoundly concerned, even obsessed, with its details and minutiae, the underlying aspiration of Shabbat and Yom Tov is substantially capable of cognitive understanding. As the Ramban consistently argues, the details of issur melacha merely serve as a helpful roadmap for the values underlying the greater halakhic corpus of Shabbat and Yom Tov. Thus, kedushat zeman encompasses, but is far broader than, the technicalities of issur melacha.

In explaining the term “Shabbaton”, the Ramban stresses that the corpus of halakhah is comprised of the combination of the specifics (the issurai melekhah) plus the gaps to be filled in by the themes expressed therein (Shabbaton). He writes:

“...It appears to me that the meaning of the midrash (interpreting the phrase ‘Shabbaton’) is that we are commanded on Yom Tov to rest from those activities that technically do not qualify as melacha, we should not be disturbed all day to measure our grain, to weigh our fruit and possessions, to fill our vessels with wine, to move our wares, and even building stones, from house to house and place to place, and if located in a walled city, load up our donkeys, and even wine, grapes, figs and all packages could indeed be delivered on Yom Tov; and the marketplace would be filled with ongoing commerce, and the shops would be open and money changers’ tables strewn with coins, and the workers would arise for their duties and establish their daily wages, like the rest of the week, and so on.​ These and similar activities, whether on Yom Tov or even Shabbat itself, all these activities do not technically constitute melacha. Therefore, the Torah commands us ‘Shabbaton’ -- that these should be days of rest and cessation of work, and not days of labor and toil.”

The fondness of the Rav, of blessed memory, for this Ramban is well known. Like the Ramban, he viewed Shabbaton as a halakhic imperative that defined all of our actions on Shabbat, and not merely as a pliable and undefined concept in hashkafa. His obsessive concerns for dignity in action and appearance on Shabbat are overwhelmingly documented in word and anecdotal recollection. As expressed by Ramban, Shmirat Shabbat cannot be fully meaningful if it is only about the details and does not encompass profound sensitivity for its greater ambiance and purpose.

The paper’s lack of discussion of this critical cornerstone of halakhah in the context of ball playing is troubling. Lamentably, the article lacks any balancing between that which is technically permissible and that which violates the spirit of Shabbaton. Rather, the paper accepts ball playing as a harmless, albeit “vacuous” use of the vast unallocated time during a long Shabbat afternoon.

And this is my concern with the unqualified nature of the paper. Our social settings are never so absolute or pristine – our reality involves context, groupings, maturity, timing and alternatives that should and must play a role in the pesak halakhah process when considering the technically permissible act of playing with a ball. The integrity of Shabbat observance, not it’s technicalities, but it’s very soul and essence as expressed in the term Shabbaton, should not be denigrated to a mere chumra subject to individual whims and sensibilities.

In this light, we can examine briefly Rabbi Berman’s analysis of the sources. To begin with, any reader could benefit from clarifying exactly what “ball playing” really is. This is particularly true when extrapolating and applying the comments of the Rama to the modern scene. No one would suggest that the Rama did not intend including tossing a ball back and forth for ten minutes with your six year old as “playing ball” – but how about full-court basketball?

I certainly acknowledge that the sefarim we refer to do not provide any express guidance on the issue. But I note that Rabbi Berman cites incidentally, and then neglects, one potentially critical source that would have been enlightening on this matter, namely the prohibition of “lo mitalmin” as set forth in the Mishna in Shabbat (22:6). Although admittedly at variance with Rabbi Berman’s reference to Tosefta Kifeshuta’s novel translation, the Rambam interprets “lo mitalmin” as a broad prohibition on Shabbat of any strenuous activity undertaken for health purposes that results in heavy perspiration.

Since most modern ball playing involves a great deal of perspiration, the unqualified position asserted by Rabbi Berman may be at odds with this express pesak of the Rambam. How, or if, one applies this mishna and the Rambam to ball playing notwithstanding, the absence in the paper of any evaluation of both the refuah and uvdah dichol components involved in this sugya is both glaring and disturbing.

Rabbi Berman quotes selectively from siman 518 of the Aruch Hashulchan as his source for adult participation in ball playing. Indeed the Aruch Hashulchan in siman 518 clearly includes certain adults in the permissible category for ball playing, although those comments are expressly limited to those adults who qualify as possessing da’ato shefeilah – hardly a compliment. It is obvious that, qualified by this particularly jarring appellation, the Aruch Hashulchan cannot be reasonably be read to encompass (much less establish in its name) a vision of adult participation in ball playing as appropriate communal activity.

But this is not the sole source in the Aruch Hashulchan that discusses ball playing. In siman 301, paragraphs 43 and 44, the Aruch Hashulchan interprets the famous Talmudic declaration “that your clothing on Shabbat should not be like your clothing during the week ... that your walking on Shabbat should not be like your walking during the week”. It states:

“

"The Torah commanded us that our very walking should be distinctive on Shabbat from the rest of the week . . . for during the week, it is man’s nature to run, to take great steps, even if unsightly ... but on Shabbat it is forbidden (isura ika) to run or take great steps, but one should only walk calmly ... but those who rush and run as an expression of pleasure, for example children (bachurim) playing with each other and enjoying rushing around, this is expressly permitted, because this is their pleasure."

With this background, I believe that the Aruch Hashulchan’s views on adult ball playing would best be understood as a balance of factors, and not reflected fully in the absolutist posture presented in the paper.

Rabbi Berman also dutifully notes the many achronim (including the Chofetz Chaim and Rabbi Newirth) that qualify their approval of ball playing as being applicable to children only. The paper consistently assumes that the qualification asserted by these poskim is rooted exclusively in the Maharshal’s opposition – which, according to the paper, is based in his conservative view on the issue of mitoch (although Rabbi Berman’s very reading of the Maharshal is subject to a separate critique). Thus, when one rejects the Maharshal’s minority view on mitoch – so goes the “kids” limitation.

What Rabbi Berman fails to acknowledge is that, although explicitly true with respect to the Mishna Brurah, not every suggested limitation of ball playing to children is expressly, or even implicitly linked to his interpretation of the Maharshal. The limitation to children is in fact based on a multitude of other concerns and issues. By way of example, Rabbi Newirth states his express considerations in the beginning of Chapter 16 of Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhatah:

“

"All of these laws [child play on Shabbat] discussed in this chapter are stated with respect to children below Bar and Bat Mitzva age, and after they pass that age -- of course, it is preferable that they refrain from these play activities on Shabbat and Yom Tov -- For Shabbat is the joy of all days, for the purpose of pleasure it was given, spiritual pleasure, a glimpse of the World to Come."”

Not a word about Muktzah, not a single reference to the Maharshal. But, of course, the Ramban resonates throughout.

Elie Berman: Letter to the Edah Journal in Response to Rabbi Saul Berman,

...Another issue not discussed in Rabbi Berman’s essay that impacts on the propriety of ball playing on shabbat and yom tov is that such activity, especially when engaged in by young adults (not to mention adults), invariably gives rise to other halakhic concerns, such as the wearing of sport attire that is not befitting of shabbat or yom tov or the need to shower following serious ball playing. See, e.g., Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat 30:3; Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 262:2. Thus, even if the discrete act of playing ball in and of itself were permissible, that premise does not ipso facto lead to Rabbi Berman’s conclusion that the call to limit ball playing is not grounded in halakhah.

The issues discussed above demonstrate that the subject of ball playing on shabbat and yom tov is much more complex than Rabbi Berman’s essay would indicate. At the least, it gives rise to distinctions that may be warranted based on the age of the participant and the form of ball playing (some of which, for reasons of hinnukh, would be inappropriate even for the younger members of our community).

In light of the halakhic issues raised above, the practical consequences of the publication of this essay are troubling. Rabbi Berman’s unqualified conclusion that the call to limit ball playing is not grounded in halakhah will create undue difficulties to parents and rabbis who are dealing with this subject with their children and congregants. While Rabbi Berman advocates the development of a special form of ball playing in which “the goals are cooperative rather than competitive” and involve an “acquisition of ethical energy,” I believe that this suggestion, although addressing some of the concerns of ball playing on shabbat and yom tov, is both impractical and, more importantly, will be ignored by the general public. The one, and I believe only, conclusion that will be taken away by the essay’s readers (and those who hear of the existence of the essay, which will undoubtedly outnumber the essay’s readers) is simply the following: “Rabbi Berman says there is no problem with ball playing on shabbat and yom tov.”

There are two ironies in this essay’s publication in The Edah Journal. First, many in the Modern Orthodox community relish every opportunity to point out that those on their right take an overly formalistic approach in areas of ethical behavior, wherein actions are taken that, while not clearly prohibited by the Shulhan Arukh, violate the spirit of such laws. This essay may be deserving of similar criticism. Second, the concerns arising from ball playing relating to uvda de-hol and shabbaton may be more acute in the Modern Orthodox world, in which organized sports play a central role during the week, whether it be youth or adult leagues for baseball, basketball, etc.