You Are Here: Home » Responsa Resource » Jewish Thought » Misasseik



A question which has halocho lemaysse implications:

The acharoinim argue about the concept of misasseik. R Akiva Eiger`s opinion on the one side who holds its merely a p`tur in korbon whilst many others argue and hold the action is not misyaches to the person at all “vehu ke`maasse koif”

If a person walks out of a reshus hayochid and realises that he has an item in his pocket, the halocho is (based on the dogul mervovoh) to return to one`s original starting point if possible at all. Surely, this akirah and hotzo`oh was an act of missasseik. If so, then, it would not be right to return to the reshus hayochid as therby he would do a masse of hotzo`oh. What is the Rov opinion on this.

Similarly, a similar question could be asked if one lives in a place where there is a valid “Eruv”. If it becomes possul over Shabbos (unbeknown to the community) and people carry relying on the Eruv, surely one could argue they are all considered misasseik. Why, then, does the MB siman 276 s`k 24 call it a “mich`shol” and – more importantly – why is he mattir amirah lenochri to fix the eruv?

I would be very interested in the Rov`s opinion in all this. Please apologise the length of the question.
Many thanks.


Walking out into a Rshus Hayachid with something accidently left in one’s pocket is not classified as a misaseik, rather as a shogeg. This was n unintentional act of Hotzaah. He is somewhat responsible for his actions as he should have checked his pockets.

Misaseik refers to someone doing something on purpose, thinking this act is permisible. Such as pulling a vegetable from the ground thinking it is already detached, and it turns out to be attached.

Carrying outside in a place where one think there is an eruv, may be misaseik. This is the opinion of Rav Shlomo Zaman Auerbach, brought in Shmirs Shabbos Khilchisa , CHapter 17,footnote 139. This premise is however arguable as the carrying is not really based on mistaken perception, but rather on a lack of knowledge of an obvious occurrence [the eruv being down].

Even if it is misaseik, many hold this is still maseh aveirah. But even if it is not, it is still clearly a michshol. The Rav’s example of this is someone who was told  they must eat on Yom Kippur to save their life. It turns out to be a mistake. Should we say, let them keep eating as they are performing a mitzvah of Vchai Bahem, or at least they are misaseik. Certainly not. While misaseik might not be a punishable act, doing something which by it’s nature is an aveirah in the Torah is always considered a michshol. For that we are required to stop it with whatever means we have.


Leave a Comment

Scroll to top