Contact Us

Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 245 - Partnership Arrangements between Jews and Non-Jews

Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 245 - Partnership Arrangements between Jews and Non-Jews

 Email
Show content in:

SECTION 245 Partnership Arrangements between Jews and Non-Jews (1-19)

סימן רמה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָכְרִי אֵיךְ יִתְנַהֲגוּ בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת וּבוֹ י"ט סְעִיפִים:

1 [The following rule applies when] a Jew and a non-Jew receive a field in partnership1 [under the condition that] both are responsible to work the field: plowing, sowing, and performing all the other [necessary] agricultural tasks. At harvest time, each will receive a share of the produce in return for his work.

[In such an instance,] the Jew may not tell the non-Jew: “Work [alone] on the Shabbasos and at harvest time take your share of the produce for your work, including the work that you [alone] performed on the Shabbasos. In exchange, I will work [alone] on a [given] weekday, and take my share of the produce for my work during that weekday.”2 [True,] the non-Jew’s intent when working on Shabbos is for his own benefit, and [ordinarily] it is permitted to tell a non-Jew: “Work on Shabbos for your own benefit,” as will be explained in sec. 307[:35].3 Nevertheless, [such an arrangement is forbidden in this instance,] because the work of the field for each individual day is incumbent on both of them — half of the day on [the Jew] and half of the day on [the non-Jew]. Therefore, when the Jew tells the non-Jew to work the entire Shabbos day,and in return, he will work an entire weekday, it is equivalent to hiring a worker to perform work on Shabbos in his stead.

א יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָכְרִי שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת א,1 שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מֻטָּל עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם ב לַעֲמוֹל לַחֲרוֹשׁ וְלִזְרוֹעַ וּשְׁאָר כָּל עֲבוֹדוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה וּכְשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַקָּצִיר יִטְּלוּ חֵלֶק בַּפֵּרוֹת בְּעַד עֲבוֹדָתָם לֹא יֹאמַר הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְהַנָּכְרִי עֲבוֹד אַתָּה בְּשַׁבָּת וּכְשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַקָּצִיר תִּטּוֹל חֶלְקְךָ בַּפֵּרוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עֲבוֹדָתְךָ גַּם בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וַאֲנִי אֶעֱבוֹד כְּנֶגֶד זֶה יוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל וְאֶטּוֹל חֶלְקִי בַּפֵּרוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עֲבוֹדָתִי בְּחֹל ג,2 אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי מִתְכַּוֵּן בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת לְטוֹבַת עַצְמוֹ וּמֻתָּר לוֹמַר לְנָכְרִי עֲשֵׂה מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת לְצָרְכְּךָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש"ז ד,3מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁעֲבוֹדַת הַשָּׂדֶה מֻטֶּלֶת בְּכָל יוֹם וְיוֹם עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּשָׁוֶה חֲצִי יוֹם עַל זֶה וַחֲצִי יוֹם עַל זֶה ה אִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמֵר לְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד בְּשַׁבָּת כָּל הַיּוֹם וְהוּא יַעֲבוֹד כְּנֶגֶד זֶה יוֹם אֶחָד שָׁלֵם בְּחֹל הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַעֲמִיד פּוֹעֵל בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת: ו

2 Even when the Jew does not tell the non-Jew anything, and the non-Jew works [alone] on all the Shabbasos on his own initiative, and the Jew works [alone] during the week to compensate (doing so as part of an unspoken agreement, without explicitly stating that he is doing so to repay the non-Jew for working for him on Shabbos), it is forbidden for the Jew to [demand an equal share of the produce when it is divided]. He may not enter into a reckoning with the non-Jew when the produce is divided, saying: “Let us divide it equally, for in return for every Shabbos that you worked [alone], I worked [alone] a day during the week.” For with this statement, he reveals his intent: that when he worked an entire day during the week, half [the day’s work] is on behalf of the non-Jew, to repay him for working half a day for him on Shabbos. Thus the [extra] work performed by the non-Jew on half the Shabbos day is identified with [the Jewish partner. Hence, the Jewish partner] is receiving payment for Shabbos without it being combined with other days. For, [when making the above reckoning,] he explicitly mentioned the [work on] Shabbos. Instead, he should allow the non-Jew [to make the division himself, for] perhaps the non-Jew will desire to take [the portion for] all the Shabbasos that he worked alone for himself, and then divide the remainder equally.4

If, however, on his own accord, without the Jew making a reckoning with him, the non-Jew agrees to divide [the produce] equally with the Jew, without counting the weekdays against the Shabbasos, or even if the non-Jew sets aside a portion for the Shabbasos that he worked [alone], and includes in the Jew’s portion the weekdays on which he worked alone— then, as long as he is acting on his own, without the Jew making a reckoning with him, there are authorities who permit [the Jew to accept the portion set aside for him].5 Since the Jew did not explicitly state that he deserves a portion in the work [he performed in exchange for that] performed by the non-Jew on Shabbos, it is not [considered] payment for Shabbos at all.6

There are authorities who forbid [the Jew to receive the full amount for the day he worked alone] in both the above situations, for the reason [soon to] be given.7 Fundamentally, the halachah follows this view. Nevertheless, if a significant loss is involved, one may rely on the authorities who grant permission [for the produce to be divided equally].

ב וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם לֹא אָמַר לְהַנָּכְרִי כְּלוּם אֶלָּא הַנָּכְרִי מֵעַצְמוֹ הָיָה עוֹבֵד כָּל יְמֵי הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה עוֹבֵד כְּנֶגְדָּן בְּחֹל (בִּסְתָם שֶׁלֹּא פֵרֵשׁ שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה כֵּן לִפְרוֹעַ לְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁהִתְעַסֵּק בִּשְׁבִילוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת) ז אָסוּר לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּבֹא לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן עִם הַנָּכְרִי ח בִּשְׁעַת חֲלֻקַּת הַפֵּרוֹת וְלוֹמַר נַחֲלוֹק בְּשָׁוֶה שֶׁכָּל יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁעָבַדְתָּ עָבַדְתִּי כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּחֹל ט לְפִי שֶׁבְּזֶה הוּא מְגַלֶּה דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁעָבַד יוֹם שָׁלֵם בְּחֹל עָבַד חֶצְיוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל הַנָּכְרִי כְּדֵי לִפְרוֹעַ לְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁעָבַד בִּשְׁבִילוֹ חֲצִי יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְנִמְצָא עֲבוֹדַת חֲצִי יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת נֶחֱשֶׁבֶת עַל שְׁמוֹ וַהֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת י שֶׁלֹּא בְהַבְלָעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי מַזְכִּיר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת בְּפֵרוּשׁ אֶלָּא יַנִּיחַ לְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁמָּא יא יִרְצֶה יִטּוֹל לְעַצְמוֹ תְּחִלָּה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁעָבַד הוּא לְבַדּוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר יַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה. יב,4

וְאִם נִתְרַצָּה הַנָּכְרִי מֵאֵלָיו לַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה בְּלֹא שֶׁיַּחְשׁוֹב עִמּוֹ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל יוֹם הַחֹל כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת יג,1 אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ נָטַל הַנָּכְרִי חֶלְקוֹ גַּם בְּעַד הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁעָבַד וְהִנִּיחַ לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל חֶלְקוֹ גַּם בְּעַד יְמוֹת הַחֹל שֶׁעָבַד לְבַדּוֹ1 אֶלָּא שֶׁעָשָׂה כֵּן מֵאֵלָיו בְּלֹא שֶׁיַּחְשׁוֹב עִמּוֹ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל יד יֵשׁ מַתִּירִין טו,5 דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁלֹּא גִלָּה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל עַצְמוֹ דַּעְתּוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּעֲבוֹדַת הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת אֵין כַּאן שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת כְּלָל טז,6 וְיֵשׁ אוֹסְרִין יז בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם יח מִטַּעַם שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר יט,7 וְכֵן עִקָּר וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם בִּמְקוֹם הֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי הַמַּתִּירִין: כ

3 If, initially, at the time [the two partners] receive the field, the Jewish [partner] stipulated with the non-Jewish [partner] thatthe Jewish [partner] will have no responsibility at all to work the field on Shabbos and it will be the non-Jew’s responsibility alone, and on one day during the week, the entire responsibility [for that day’s work] will be the Jew’s alone, the arrangement is permitted. [The rationale:] Since at the time [the Jew] accepts responsibility to work the field, he stipulated with [the non-Jew] that he will have no responsibility at all on Shabbos, the Jew has no portion in the field at all on Shabbos. Instead, the entire responsibility [for working the field] on Shabbos is solely that of the non-Jew;8 the non-Jew is [thus] not doing anything at all for the Jew.9 [Conversely,] on one day during the week, the entire responsibility [for working the field] is incumbent solely on the Jew.

Therefore, it is permitted for [the Jew] to later enter into a reckoning with the non-Jew, calculating the number of weekdays that he worked alone, in relation to the number of Shabbasos that the non-Jew worked alone, and divide the produce equally between them. [For the Jew] is not considered to be taking payment for [working] on Shabbos, rather for [working] on a weekday.

ג וְאִם מִתְּחִלָּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ הַשָּׂדֶה הִתְנָה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל עִם הַנָּכְרִי כא שֶׁבְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לֹא יִהְיֶה מֻטָּל כְּלָל עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲבוֹד בַּשָּׂדֶה רַק עַל הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ וּבְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל יִהְיֶה מֻטָּל עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְבַדּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר1 דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו עֲבוֹדַת הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מֻטָּל עָלָיו כְּלָל בְּשַׁבָּת נִמְצָא שֶׁבְּשַׁבָּת אֵין לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק בַּשָּׂדֶה כְּלָל כב אֶלָּא כֻּלָּהּ מֻטֶּלֶת עַל הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת8 וְאֵין הַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה כְּלָל בְּעַד הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל9 וְכֻלָּהּ מֻטֶּלֶת עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְבַדּוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל. כג

וּלְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ לָבֹא עִמּוֹ בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן לַחְשׁוֹב יְמֵי הַחֹל שֶׁעָבַד הוּא לְבַדּוֹ כְּנֶגֶד שַׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁעָבַד הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ וְלַחֲלוֹק הַפֵּרוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְאֵין זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת אֶלָּא שְׂכַר יְמֵי הַחֹל: כד

4 [Similar laws apply] when a Jew and a non-Jew are partners in [performing] a task or in [selling] merchandise in a store.10 If, initially, when they established their partnership, they stipulated that the profits from the Shabbos day, whether large or small, would belong to the non-Jew alone, and, correspondingly, the profits from one of the weekdays would belong to the Jew alone, [the agreement] is permitted,11 because of the reason explained [in the previous subsection]. Even if the non-Jew decides afterward to divide the entire profits equally, there is no difficulty; he is simply giving [his Jewish partner] a present.

[A difficulty can, however, arise] if they engage in a reckoning afterwards,12 i.e., the non-Jew tells the Jew, “On the weekday, you took for yourself a maneh,13 while on Shabbos, I took [only] 90 zuz.14Compensate me until we have equal shares.” How much more so is this true if the Jew makes similar statements to the non-Jew! [In such cases,] it becomes patently obvious that the stipulation they made initially — that the profits from the Shabbos day, whether large or small, would belong to the non-Jew alone — was nothing but legal fiction. Instead, the non-Jew worked on Shabbos for the sake of the Jew as well, and for that reason, the Jew worked during the week for the sake of the non-Jew. Therefore, afterwards, they divide [the profits] equally. Thus, the Jew is also receiving payment for Shabbos — and he is not receiving it in combination [with payment for other days], for [the non-Jew] explicitly mentioned [the profits of] Shabbos to him. He must therefore allow the non-Jew — if the non-Jew so desires — to take as his own [all] the profits for all the Shabbasos. Afterwards, they divide [the remainder] equally.

ד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָכְרִי שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין בִּמְלָאכָה אוֹ בִּסְחוֹרָה בַּחֲנוּת10 אִם הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִלָּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׂכַר יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְנָכְרִי בִּלְבַדּוֹ הֵן רַב הֵן מְעַט וּשְׂכַר יוֹם אֶחָד אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת כְּנֶגְדּוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַדּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר כה,11 מִטַּעַם שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם אַחַר כָּךְ נִתְרַצָּה הַנָּכְרִי לַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ כָּל הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה אֵין בְּכָךְ(א) כְּלוּם כו שֶׁמַּתָּנָה הוּא שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לוֹ. כז

אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן אַחַר כָּךְ 12 שֶׁאָמַר הַנָּכְרִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַתָּה נָטַלְתָּ בִּלְבַדְּךָ בְּחֹל מָנֶה13 וַאֲנִי נָטַלְתִּי בְּשַׁבָּת צ' זוּז14 מַלֵּא לִי עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לָנוּ חֲלָקִים שָׁוִים וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר כֵּן הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְהַנָּכְרִי כח שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַתְּנַאי שֶׁהִתְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת לְהַנָּכְרִי בִּלְבַדּוֹ הֵן רַב הֵן מְעַט לֹא הָיָה אֶלָּא הַעֲרָמָה בְּעָלְמָא כט אֶלָּא הַנָּכְרִי הִתְעַסֵּק בְּשַׁבָּת גַּם בְּעַד הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּבִשְׁבִיל זֶה הִתְעַסֵּק הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּחֹל גַּם בְּעַד הַנָּכְרִי לְכָךְ הֵם חוֹלְקִים אַחַר כָּךְ בְּשָׁוֶה וְנִמְצָא שֶׁגַּם הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת וְנוֹטְלוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְהַבְלָעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי מַזְכִּיר לוֹ אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת בְּפֵרוּשׁ לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ לְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁיִּטּוֹל לְעַצְמוֹ אִם יִרְצֶה שְׂכַר כָּל הַשַּׁבָּתות וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה:

5 When does the above apply? When the [profits for] Shabbos are a known amount. If, by contrast, [the amount earned on Shabbos] is not known, [the Jewish partner] may divide the entire profit equally with [the non-Jew. The rationale:] He made a stipulation that he alone will receive the profits of one [week]day in return for the profits of Shabbos that the non-Jew alone will receive. It can be assumed that the profits of any one day are equivalent to those of another. Therefore, they may divide all the profits equally.15

ה בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת יָדוּעַ אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ יָכוֹל לַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ כָּל הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה ל כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׂכַר יוֹם אֶחָד לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ כְּנֶגֶד שְׂכַר יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁיִּטּוֹל הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ וּמִן הַסְּתָם שְׂכַר יוֹם אֶחָד שָׁוֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְפִיכָךְ חוֹלְקִין כָּל הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה: לא,15

6 [The following laws apply] if such a stipulation was not made originally, at the time the partnership was established, and even after the partnership was established, the Jewish [partner] did not [explicitly] tell the non-Jew that he should operate the concern on Shabbos, and [in return, the Jew] would operate it one day during the week.16 Instead, the non-Jew operated the concern alone on Shabbos on his own initiative, and the Jew operated it alone one day during the week (without explicitly stating that he was operating it alone [on this day] in return for the non-Jew having operated it alone on Shabbos). If, afterwards, on his own accord, the non-Jew agreed to divide all the profits with him equally, without the Jew making a reckoning with him and the non-Jew also not mentioning [his work on] the Shabbasos at all, but rather, he made a division without any [mention of individual days],17 there are authorities who permit [the Jewish partner to receive an equal share. The rationale:] There is no prohibition [because] of payment being received for the Shabbos, for [the Jewish partner] is accepting it in combination with payment for the other days.18

There are authorities who forbid [making an equal division of the profits in the above instance]. They require [the Jewish partner] to leave the profit from the Shabbasos for the non-Jewish partner alone; if the profit for the Shabbos is not a known entity, he should allocate for him one-seventh of the [total] profit. The remainder is then divided among them equally. For if the Jewish [partner] would divide all the profits with [the non-Jew] equally, [the Jewish partner] would be benefiting from the Shabbos profits.19 Thus, retroactively, the Jewish [partner] would have a share in the work performed by the non-Jew on the Shabbasos, and the non-Jew [would be considered as having] worked for him, as if he were his agent.20

Fundamentally, the halachah follows this [more stringent] view, unless a significant loss is involved. In such a situation, one may rely on the first opinion, as was explained.21

ו וְאִם לֹא הִתְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ וְגַם אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ לֹא אָמַר הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁיִּתְעַסֵּק בְּשַׁבָּת וְהוּא יִתְעַסֵּק כְּנֶגֶד זֶה יוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל16 אֶלָּא הַנָּכְרִי מֵעַצְמוֹ הִתְעַסֵּק בְּשַׁבָּת וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַדּוֹ הִתְעַסֵּק יוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל (סְתָם שֶׁלֹּא פֵרֵשׁ שֶׁמִּתְעַסֵּק בִּלְבַדּוֹ בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי הִתְעַסֵּק בִּלְבַדּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת) לב אִם אַחַר כָּךְ נִתְרַצָּה הַנָּכְרִי לַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ כָּל הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה לג מֵאֵלָיו בְּלֹא שֶׁיַּחֲשׁוֹב עִמּוֹ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְגַם הַנָּכְרִי (ב) לֹא הִזְכִּיר לוֹ הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת כְּלָל אֶלָּא חָלַק עִמּוֹ סְתָם לד,17 יֵשׁ מַתִּירִין לה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין כַּאן אִסּוּר מִשּׁוּם שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת כֵּיוָן שֶׁנּוֹטְלוֹ בְּהַבְלָעָה עִם שְׁאָר הַיָּמִים לו,18 וְיֵשׁ אוֹסְרִים לז אֶלָּא יַנִּיחַ לְהַנָּכְרִי שְׂכַר כָּל הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת וְאִם אֵין שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת יָדוּעַ יַנִּיחַ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית הַשָּׂכָר וְהַשְּׁאָר יַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה שֶׁאִם יַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ כָּל הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה וְיֵהָנֶה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִשְּׂכַר שַׁבָּת19 (ג) נִמְצָא שֶׁלְּמַפְרֵעַ הָיָה לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק בַּעֲבוֹדַת הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְהָיָה הַנָּכְרִי עוֹבֵד בִּשְׁבִילוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הָיָה שְׁלוּחוֹ לח,20 וְכֵן עִקָּר אִם לֹא בְּהֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל לט שֶׁאָז יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ עַל סְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר: מ,21

7 [Greater leniency is allowed] if [a Jew and a non-Jew] partnered in a concern that did not require any actual work on their part. For example, they were co-owners of an oven, [and the common practice was that] whoever [wanted to bake in it would himself] heat the oven and bake, and then pay [the owners for its use]. Thus, neither of them was obligated to heat the oven; only the task of receiving payment was incumbent on both of them equally.22 Even though at the time the partnership was established, a stipulation was not made that the tasking of collecting the fees on Shabbos would be incumbent on the non-Jew alone — he would take for himself the profits of Shabbos, whether large or small, and [correspondingly,] the profits from one of the weekdays would belong to the Jewish [partner] alone — should the non-Jew agree on his own initiative at the time the profits were being divided that all the profits should be divided equally, all authorities agree that it is permitted [for the Jewish partner to receive an equal share. Such a division is permitted] provided the Jewish [partner] did not [explicitly] tell the non-Jewish partner to work alone on Shabbos to collect the fees, and that, [in return,] the Jewish [partner] would work alone one day during the week, but rather on his own accord, the non-Jew worked to collect fees on Shabbos, and the Jewish [partner] performed that task alone one day [during the week. The rationale:] In this instance, it is inaccurate to say that the Jewish [partner] retroactively had a share in the work the non-Jew performed on the Shabbasos, andthe non-Jew worked for him, since the non-Jew did not perform any forbidden labor at all.23 All he did was collect payments for Shabbos. [Additionally,] the Jewish [partner] received [his share] of that payment in combination with [the profits of] the other days.24

ז אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ שׁוּם מְלָאכָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין בְּתַנּוּר שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁמַּסִּיק הַתַּנּוּר וְאוֹפֶה בּוֹ נוֹתֵן לָהֶם שָׂכָר וְאֵין מֻטָּל עֲלֵיהֶם כְּלָל עֵסֶק הֶסֵּק הַתַּנּוּר רַק עֵסֶק קַבָּלַת הַשָּׂכָר מֻטָּל עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּשָׁוֶה22 אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא עֵסֶק קַבָּלַת הַשָּׂכָר מֻטָּל עַל הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל לְעַצְמוֹ שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת הֵן רַב הֵן מְעַט וּשְׂכַר יוֹם אֶחָד לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְבַדּוֹ אִם אַחַר כָּךְ לֹא אָמַר לְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁיִּתְעַסֵּק לְבַדּוֹ לְקַבֵּל שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת וְשֶׁיִּתְעַסֵּק הוּא לְבַדּוֹ לְקַבֵּל שְׂכַר יוֹם אַחֵר מא אֶלָּא הַנָּכְרִי מֵעַצְמוֹ הִתְעַסֵּק לְבַדּוֹ לְקַבֵּל שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְבַדּוֹ הִתְעַסֵּק בְּיוֹם אַחֵר וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּשְׁעַת חֲלֻקָּה נִתְרַצָּה הַנָּכְרִי מֵאֵלָיו לַחֲלוֹק כָּל הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל שֶׁכַּאן אֵין לוֹמַר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנִּמְצָא שֶׁלְּמַפְרֵעַ הָיָה לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק בַּעֲבוֹדַת הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְהָיָה הַנָּכְרִי עוֹבֵד בִּשְׁבִילוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי כַּאן לֹא עָבַד הַנָּכְרִי כְּלוּם23 רַק שֶׁקִּבֵּל שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת וְשָׂכָר זֶה נוֹטְלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּהַבְלָעָה שֶׁבִּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים: מב,24

8 [Similarly, leniency may be shown] even if [a Jew and a non-Jew] partnered in a concern that required work to be performed [on Shabbos], provided the Jewish [partner] does not work during the week to compensate for the non-Jew’s work on Shabbos. Instead, during the weekdays, they perform an equal amount of work, either both of them together, or each one working half a day, or this one, one day, and the other, the next, with the exception of Shabbos, on which the non-Jew works alone. Under these conditions, all authorities agree that the Jewish [partner] is permitted to divide all the profits equally with [the non-Jew. After all,] the Jewish [partner] does not repay the non-Jew at all for his working on Shabbos, because he does not work at all during the week in order to compensate him [for having worked alone on Shabbos]. Therefore, when the non-Jew works on Shabbos, he does so strictly for his own benefit — in order to earn more profit. He is not considered the agent of the Jewish [partner], because he is not doing anything for him at all. Although ultimately, the Jewish [partner] benefits from [the non-Jew’s] work — for he divides [the profits] equally with him — this is of no consequence. For the non-Jew did not intend to benefit the Jewish [partner], but [worked] for his own benefit.25

Nevertheless, [the Jewish partner] must be careful to divide the profits from Shabbos only when they are combined with [the profits] of the other days. True, according to the letter of the law, there is no prohibition here with regard to the profits of Shabbos, because the Jewish [partner] has no share in the work [performed] by the non-Jew on Shabbos. Even though he divides the profits [of Shabbos]equally with him, the [non-Jew] is [merely] giving him a present. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to prohibit [the Jew from accepting the profits from Shabbos separately,] since it appears that he is receiving [a share in] the profits from Shabbos,because he owns a portion of the concern in which the non-Jew performed work on Shabbos.

ח וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הֵם שֻׁתָּפִין בְּדָבָר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה אִם אֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשֶׂה בְּחֹל כְּנֶגֶד מַה שֶּׁהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא כָּל יְמוֹת הַחֹל הֵם מִתְעַסְּקִים בְּשָׁוֶה שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּיַחַד אוֹ זֶה חֲצִי יוֹם וְזֶה חֲצִי יוֹם אוֹ זֶה יוֹם וְזֶה יוֹם לְבַד מִיּוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי מִתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ לְבַדּוֹ אֲזַי מֻתָּר לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ כָּל הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה מג לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל מד דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁאֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל פּוֹרֵעַ לְהַנָּכְרִי כְּלוּם בְּעַד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד כְּנֶגֶד זֶה בְּחֹל כְּלוּם אִם כֵּן מַה שֶׁעוֹבֵד הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת לְבַדּוֹ הוּא מִתְכַּוֵּן לְטוֹבַת עַצְמוֹ בִּלְבָד כְּדֵי לְהִשְׂתַּכֵּר וְאֵינוֹ כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁבִילוֹ כְּלָל מה וְאַף שֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ מַגִּיעַ לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲנָאָה מִזֶּה שֶׁחוֹלֵק עִמּוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲנָאַת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לְטוֹבַת עַצְמוֹ. מו,25

וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם יִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא בְּהַבְלָעָה עִם שְׁאָר הַיָּמִים מז אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּעִקַּר הַדִּין אֵין כַּאן אִסּוּר מִשּׁוּם שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק כְּלָל בִּמְלֶאכֶת הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת וּמַה שֶּׁחוֹלֵק עִמּוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה מַתָּנָה הוּא שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לוֹ מִכָּל מָקוֹם יֵשׁ לֶאֱסוֹר לְפִי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה הַדָּבָר כְּאִלּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת מח כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בְּאוֹתוֹ דָבָר שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ הַמְּלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת:

9 Similar [laws apply when] a Jew is the sole owner of an oven and [enters into an agreement] with a non-Jew concerning it,26 stipulating that [the non-Jew] heat it and bake for anyone who desires to bake. [The non-Jew and the Jewish owner] then divide the profits day by day. [The Jewish owner] may also divide the profits from the Shabbasos with him, when that is done in combination with [the profits of] the other days. For, by working on Shabbos, the non-Jew has his own benefit in mind. He is not considered as the Jew’s agent, since the Jewish [owner] need not perform any work at all; all the work is the responsibility of the non-Jew alone. [Moreover,] the Jewish [owner] does not tell him to work on Shabbos;27 [the non-Jew] is doing so on his own, for his own benefit, and the Jewish [owner] benefits as a matter of course.

Nevertheless, as an initial preference, [the Jewish owner] should not allow the non-Jew to operate his oven on Shabbos except in those places where it is permitted to lease out an oven to non-Jews, and the non-Jews operate the oven(s) even on Shabbasos. We are not concerned about the impression that might be created [in such places], for the reason explained in sec. 243[:9].28 In other places, however, it is initially forbidden, because of the impression that might be created, as explained there with regard to rentals.

ט וְכֵן יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תַּנּוּר שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְנָכְרִי26 שֶׁיַּסִּיקֶנּוּ וְיֹאפֶה לְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לֶאֱפוֹת וְיַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה מִדֵּי יוֹם בְּיוֹם יָכוֹל לַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ אַף שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת בְּהַבְלָעָה לְפִי שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי מִתְכַּוֵּן בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת לְטוֹבַת עַצְמוֹ וְאֵינוֹ כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין הַמְּלָאכָה מֻטֶּלֶת כְּלָל עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל רַק עַל הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ מט וְגַם אֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְצַוֶּה לוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת נ,27 אֶלָּא מֵעַצְמוֹ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה לַהֲנָאַת עַצְמוֹ וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל נֶהֱנֶה מֵאֵלָיו. נא

וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם לֹא יַנִּיחֶנּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְהִתְעַסֵּק בְּתַנּוּרוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמֻּתָּרִים שָׁם לְהַשְׂכִּיר תַּנּוּר לְנָכְרִים וְהַנָּכְרִים מִתְעַסְּקִים בַּתַּנּוּר אַף בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת נב וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שָׁם לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן מִטַּעַם שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ"ג נג,28 אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֲחֵרִים אָסוּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם לְעִנְיַן שְׂכִירוּת:

10 The same laws apply to a bathhouse, a mill, and a store.

If29 the Jewish [owner] does not divide the profits [earned from such a concern] for an entire period equally with the non-Jew, but instead, all of the profits of one day — whether large or small — belong to the Jewish [partner], and all the profits of another day — whether large or small — belong to the non-Jew, it is forbidden for the Jewish [owner] to receive the profits of one of the weekdays in return for those of Shabbos that the non-Jew took for himself.30For if [the Jew] will receive the entire profits of one of the weekdays in return for those of Shabbos, the non-Jew will have labored in operating the oven on one of the weekdays for the profits of the Shabbos that he took entirely for himself. Thus, the Jewish [owner] will have benefited from the [non-Jew’s] labor [on Shabbos]. Hence, he will have received profits for the Shabbos day that are not combined with those of other days.31

י וְכֵן הַדִּין בְּמֶרְחָץ וְרֵחַיִם וַחֲנוּת. נד

אִם 29 אֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹלֵק עִם הַנָּכְרִי שְׂכַר כָּל הַיָּמִים בְּשָׁוֶה אֶלָּא כָּל הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁל יוֹם אֶחָד לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֵן רַב הֵן מְעַט וְכָל הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁל יוֹם ב' לְהַנָּכְרִי הֵן רַב הֵן מְעַט (ד) אָסוּר לוֹ לִטּוֹל שְׂכַר יוֹם אֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד שְׂכַר יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁנָּטַל הַנָּכְרִי לְעַצְמוֹ נה,30 שֶׁאִם יִטּוֹל כָּל הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁל יוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת נִמְצָא שֶׁטָּרַח הַנָּכְרִי לְהִתְעַסֵּק בַּתַּנּוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁל חֹל בְּעַד שְׂכַר יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁנָּטַל כֻּלּוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ וַהֲרֵי נֶהֱנֶה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִטֹּרַח זֶה שֶׁהוּא שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת שֶׁלֹּא בְהַבְלָעָה: נו,31

11 [In the above situation,] even if the [Jewish owner] initially made the stipulation regarding the profits of the oven with a non-Jewish [worker] before they established the partnership,32 it is [still] of no consequence,33 because such a stipulation is effective only when the non-Jew has a share in the actual [ownership] of the entity with which the work is being performed. Under such circumstances, when [the Jewish owner] initially stipulates that the profits from Shabbos will belong to the non-Jew alone, and the profits from another day will belong to himself exclusively, it is as if [the Jewish owner] is transferring his own portion of the entity to [the non-Jew], so that the entire entity will actually be owned solely by the non-Jew on all the Shabbasos, and, in return, solely by the Jewish [partner] on another day.

In the instance at hand, by contrast, the entire oven itself actually belongs to the Jewish [owner]. True, he made a stipulation with [the non-Jew] that the oven would belong to him alone on Shabbos. Nevertheless, he did not [make a stipulation that he would] completely transfer absolute ownership [of the oven] to [the non-Jew] on all the Shabbasos even if [the non-Jew] would not operate the oven during the week for the benefit of the Jewish [owner].34 Instead, he transferred ownership of it on the condition that [the non-Jew] operate it during the week in return for [the non-Jew’s ownership] on Shabbos. Thus, it is as if [the Jew] rented it to him on Shabbos in return for the non-Jew’s operation of it during the week.35 Accordingly, it is [as if the Jew is] receiving profit for Shabbos36 without it being combined [with those of the other days].

יא וַאֲפִלּוּ הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ כֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּף32 עִמּוֹ בִּשְׂכַר הַתַּנּוּר אֵין זֶה מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם33 שֶׁאֵין הַתְּנַאי מוֹעִיל אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהַנָּכְרִי חֵלֶק בְּגוּף הַדָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ הַמְּלָאכָה שֶׁאָז כְּשֶׁמַּתְנֶה עִמּוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת לְהַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ וּשְׂכַר יוֹם אֶחָד לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְבַדּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְנֶה לוֹ חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּגוּף אוֹתוֹ דָבָר שֶׁיְּהֵא כָּל גּוּף אוֹתוֹ דָבָר קָנוּי לְהַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ כָּל יְמֵי הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת וּבְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּנֶגְדָּן לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְבַדּוֹ אֲבָל כַּאן שֶׁכָּל גּוּף הַתַּנּוּר הוּא שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אַף שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא הַתַּנּוּר בְּשַׁבָּת לְהַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ נז מִכָּל מָקוֹם לֹא הִקְנָהוּ לוֹ קִנְיָן גָּמוּר לַחֲלוּטִין לְכָל הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת אַף אִם לֹא יִתְעַסֵּק בַּתַּנּוּר כְּנֶגְדָּן בְּחֹל בִּשְׁבִיל שְׂכַר הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל34 אֶלָּא הִקְנָהוּ עַל תְּנַאי עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְעַסֵּק בְּחֹל כְּנֶגֶד הַשַּׁבָּת וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַשְׂכִּירוֹ לוֹ לְשַׁבָּתוֹת בְּעַד שֶׁיַּעֲסוֹק בִּשְׁבִילוֹ בְּחֹל 35 וַהֲרֵי הוּא נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת36 שֶׁלֹּא בְהַבְלָעָה: נח

12 It is, however, permitted [for the Jewish owner] to (initially)37 stipulate that the non-Jew should take the profits for two or three days for himself, and, correspondingly, he will give [the Jewish owner] the profits for two or three other days. Although the Shabbos day is [included as] one of the days [for which] the non-Jew takes [the profits for himself], and, correspondingly, the Jewish [owner] receives [the profits for another day], nevertheless, there is no prohibition resulting from payment for the Shabbos, because it is combined with that of another day.

Nevertheless, this stipulation is only effective when [the Jewish owner] transfers ownership of a share of the actual oven itself, i.e., on those days that include the Shabbos, the oven will be owned by the non-Jew [and not just the profits]. Thus, he is performing work with his own oven, and he does not appear as the agent of the Jewish [owner].

If, however, [the Jewish owner] did not transfer to him ownership of a portion of the actual oven, it is forbidden for [the Jewish owner] to tell [the non-Jew] to take the profits for the days that include Shabbos in return for heating the oven during the weekdays. Since he is heating an oven belonging to the Jewish [owner] on Shabbos, and the Jewish [owner] profits from his heating it on Shabbos — for if the non-Jew did not heat it on Shabbos for himself, he would not heat it for the Jewish [owner] during the week38 — it appears that he is heating the oven on Shabbos for the Jewish [owner, thereby] acting as his agent, because he instructed him to operate [the oven] on Shabbos.39

יב אֲבָל מֻתָּר לוֹ לְהַתְנוֹת עִם הַנָּכְרִי נט (מִתְּחִלָּה ס)37 שֶׁיִּטּוֹל לְעַצְמוֹ שְׂכַר ב' אוֹ ג' יָמִים וּכְנֶגֶד זֶה יִתֵּן לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל שְׂכַר ב' אוֹ ג' יָמִים אֲחֵרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת הוּא בְּאוֹתָן הַיָּמִים שֶׁנּוֹטֵל הַנָּכְרִי וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ נוֹטֵל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵין בְּזֶה אִסּוּר מִשּׁוּם שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת כֵּיוָן שֶׁנּוֹטְלוֹ בְּהַבְלָעָה עִם יוֹם אַחֵר סא וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵין תְּנַאי זֶה מוֹעִיל אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהִקְנָה לוֹ חֵלֶק בְּגוּף הַתַּנּוּר דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁבְּיָמִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת בְּתוֹכָם גּוּף הַתַּנּוּר הוּא קָנוּי לְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁנִּמְצָא הוּא עוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בַּתַּנּוּר שֶׁלּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל אִם לֹא הִקְנָה לוֹ חֵלֶק בְּגוּף הַתַּנּוּר אָסוּר לוֹמַר לוֹ שֶׁיִּטּוֹל לוֹ שְׂכַר יָמִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת בְּתוֹכָם בְּעַד שֶׁיַּסִּיק לוֹ בְּחֹל דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁמַּסִּיק בְּשַׁבָּת בְּתַנּוּרוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיֵשׁ רֶוַח לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהֶסֵּק הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁאִם לֹא הָיָה מַסִּיק בְּשַׁבָּת לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא הָיָה מַסִּיק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחֹל38 הֲרֵי נִרְאֶה כְּאִלּוּ מַסִּיק בְּשַׁבָּת בִּשְׁבִיל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּבִשְׁלִיחוּתוֹ שֶׁצִּוָּהוּ לַעֲסוֹק בְּשַׁבָּת: סב,39

13 Even when the work [of operating the concern] is also incumbent on the Jewish [partner] — e.g., he and the non-Jew are partners in [the ownership of] the oven, the bathhouse, the mill, the task, or the merchandise of the store [and they are both equally responsible for its operation] — making a stipulation initially to prevent [the equal division of the profits from being] prohibited is only necessary when [the Jewish partner] works alone one day during the week and takes all the profits for that day for himself to compensate for the Shabbos on which the non-Jew works alone.40

If, however, [the Jewish partner and the non-Jew] both work and are remunerated equally during the week, [the Jewish partner] may hire out all of the Shabbasos to the non-Jew by combining them with the other days, i.e., the non-Jew will work alone two or three days and take all the profits — whether large or small — for himself, and will pay the [Jewish partner] a fixed amount for these two or three days. Although the Shabbos is included among them, this is of no consequence, for the Jew is not instructing the non-Jew to work on Shabbos. Instead, [the non-Jew] does so on his own initiative, for his own benefit.

Even in places where it is forbidden to rent an oven, a bathhouse, or a mill to a non-Jew because of the impression that may be created,41 [an exception is made] in the present situation. Since the non-Jew is a partner [together with the Jewish owner], there is no concern about the impression that may be created, for everyone knows that the non-Jew has a share in this undertaking, and that he is concerned with his own benefit. For this reason, wherever a partnership with a non-Jew is permitted, license is also granted for the non-Jew to perform [the necessary work] in public; there is no concern with regard to the impression that may be created.42

יג אֲפִלּוּ אִם הַמְּלָאכָה מֻטֶּלֶת גַּם עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֵם שֻׁתָּפִים בְּתַנּוּר אוֹ בְּמֶרְחָץ אוֹ בְּרֵחַיִם אוֹ בִּמְלָאכָה אוֹ בִּסְחוֹרָה בַּחֲנוּת אֵין אִסּוּר כְּשֶׁלֹּא הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד לְבַדּוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל כְּנֶגֶד הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁעָבַד הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ40 וְנוֹטֵל כָּל שְׂכַר יוֹם הַהוּא לְעַצְמוֹ אֲבָל אִם כָּל יְמוֹת הַחֹל הֵם שָׁוִים בַּעֲבוֹדָה וּבְשָׂכָר יָכוֹל לְהַשְׂכִּיר כָּל הַשַּׁבָּתות לַנָּכְרִי סג בְּהַבְלָעָה סד שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד לְבַדּוֹ ב' אוֹ ג' יָמִים וְיִטּוֹל כָּל הַשָּׂכָר לְעַצְמוֹ הֵן רַב הֵן מְעַט רַק שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל דָּבָר קָצוּב בְּעַד ב' אוֹ ג' יָמִים אֵלּוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת בִּכְלָלָם אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצַוֶּה לוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת וְהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה מֵעַצְמוֹ לְטוֹבָתוֹ.

וְאַף בִּמְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁאֲסוּרִים שָׁם לְהַשְׂכִּיר לְנָכְרִי תַּנּוּר מֶרְחָץ וְרֵחַיִם מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן סה,41 מִכָּל מָקוֹם כַּאן כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי שֻׁתָּף עִמּוֹ אֵין כַּאן מַרְאִית הָעַיִן שֶׁהַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהַנָּכְרִי חֵלֶק בִּמְלָאכָה זוֹ וְלַהֲנָאַת עַצְמוֹ הוּא מִתְכַּוֵּן סו וּמִטַּעַם זֶה בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהִתִּירוּ בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת נָכְרִי הִתִּירוּ אֲפִלּוּ עוֹשֶׂה בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן: סז,42

14 Similarly, [a Jewish partner] can hire his non-Jewish partner as a contractor, i.e., the non-Jew will also perform the work necessary for the portion of the Jewish [partner, stipulating] that for such-and-such an amount of profit earned as [the Jewish partner’s] portion, he will pay [the non-Jewish partner] this-and-this amount, provided the Jew does not tell him to perform work on Shabbos. Instead, he should tell him: “Whenever you bring in such-and-such an amount of profit for my portion, I will give you so-much-and-so much.” The non-Jew then may work for his own benefit even on Shabbos, as explained in sec. 244[:12]. No prohibition is involved, not even one resulting from the impression that may be created, for, [as explained in the previous subsection,] since in this instance the non-Jew is [the Jew’s] partner, there is no concern about the impression that might be created.

יד וְכֵן יָכוֹל לִשְׂכּוֹר אֶת הַנָּכְרִי שֻׁתָּפוֹ בְּקַבְּלָנוּת סח דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד הַנָּכְרִי גַּם בְּעַד חֵלֶק הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּבְעַד כָּךְ וְכָךְ שָׂכָר שֶׁיִּשְׂתַּכֵּר לְחֶלְקוֹ יִתֵּן לוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ רַק שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר לוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת סט אֶלָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ כָּל אֵימַת שֶׁתִּשְׂתַּכֵּר לְחֶלְקִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ אֶתֵּן לְךָ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה לְעַצְמוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ"ד ע שֶׁאֵין בְּזֶה אִסּוּר אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן וְכַאן שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי הוּא שֻׁתָּפוֹ אֵין כַּאן חֲשַׁשׁ מַרְאִית הָעַיִן: עא

15 In all situations where a stipulation would be effective [in enabling a non-Jew to operate a concern on Shabbos],43 if [such] a stipulation was not made initially at the time the partnership was established, the matter may be corrected [in the following manner: The Jew and the non-Jew] should nullify the [previous] partnership and waive all the existing conditions between them. They should then reestablish the partnership and make the [appropriate] stipulations at that time.

If they established a partnership with regard to [the merchandise in] a store and did not make an initial stipulation, each one should take back his portion [of the merchandise] and thereby nullify their partnership. Afterwards, they should reestablish their partnership and make the [appropriate] initial stipulation.

If they purchased a field in partnership and did not make an initial stipulation, they should ask the seller to return their money to them. Then they should repurchase it from him and perform a new kinyan44 and make the [appropriate] stipulation at the time of the purchase. (See Choshen Mishpat, sec. 194, with regard to the [manner of] acquisition [of property by and from] a non-Jew. See also [Choshen Mishpat,] sec. 189.)45

טו כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁמּוֹעִיל אִם הִתְנוּ,43 אִם לֹא הִתְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ יֵשׁ תִּקּוּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּ הַשִּׁתּוּף וְיִמְחֲלוּ זֶה לְזֶה הַתְּנָאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם וְיַחְזְרוּ לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף וְיַתְנוּ בְּעֵת הַשִּׁתּוּף וְאִם נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַּחֲנוּת וְלֹא הִתְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה יַחְזְרוּ וְיִקְחוּ כָּל אֶחָד חֶלְקוֹ וִיבַטְּלוּ הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחְזְרוּ לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף וְיַתְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה וְאִם לָקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת וְלֹא הִתְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה יְבַקְשׁוּ מֵהַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר לָהֶם דְּמֵיהֶם וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחְזְרוּ וְיִקְנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ קִנְיָן חָדָשׁ44 וְיַתְנוּ בְּעֵת הַקְּנִיָּה עב (וְעַיֵּן בְּחֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט סִמָּן קצ"ד דִּין קְנִיַּת הַנָּכְרִי וְעַיֵּן שָׁם סִמָּן קפ"ט עג):45

16 It is permitted to give a non-Jew merchandise to sell or money to do business with.46 Even though the non-Jew does business with these [resources] on Shabbos,47this is not of consequence, since the Jewish [investor] did not tell him to engage in business on Shabbos.48[The Jewish investor] must, however, determine a fixed fee for the non-Jew for his efforts or give him a share of the profits that he will receive. In such a situation, [the non-Jew] intends to work on Shabbos for his own self-interest, to increase his profits.49 The Jew benefits as a matter of course,50 when he also receives the profits from Shabbos in combination with those of the other [week]days.51

Such a relationship need not be forbidden out of concern for the impression that might be created, i.e., that people will say that he is the agent of the Jewish [investor], because not everyone is aware that this money or this merchandise belongs to the Jew.

טז מֻתָּר לִתֵּן לְנָכְרִי סְחוֹרָה לְמָכְרָהּ אוֹ מָעוֹת לְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן46 וְאַף שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי מִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת47 אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם עד כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לֹא צִוָּה לוֹ שֶׁיִּתְעַסֵּק בְּשַׁבָּת עה,48 וּבִלְבָד שֶׁיִּקְצוֹץ לוֹ שָׂכָר בְּעַד טָרְחוֹ עו אוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ חֵלֶק מֵהָרֶוַח שֶׁיַּרְוִיחַ שֶׁאָז הוּא מִתְכַּוֵּן בְּעָסְקוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת לְטוֹבַת עַצְמוֹ לְהַרְבּוֹת בִּשְׂכָרוֹ49 וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל נֶהֱנֶה מֵאֵלָיו עז,50 כְּשֶׁנּוֹטֵל גַּם שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת בְּהַבְלָעָה. עח,51

וְאֵין לֶאֱסוֹר מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ שֶׁהוּא שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין שֶׁמָּעוֹת אֵלּוּ וּסְחוֹרָה זוֹ הֵן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל: עט

17 When does the above apply? When the Jew[ish investor] is not responsible at all for any of the actual work; [the responsibility] rests on the non-Jew alone. In such a situation, the non-Jew is not [the Jew’s] agent to perform work on Shabbos, since the Jew has no responsibility [to perform work] at all.

Alternatively, [the leniency applies] even if the Jew is also responsible for the work, but he does not operate [the business] alone on one of the days [of the week] in compensation for the non-Jew’s operation [of the business] alone on Shabbos. Since the Jew does not repay anything to the non-Jew for his operation [of the business] alone on Shabbos, the non-Jew’s sole intent when operating [the business] on Shabbos is for his own [benefit] and not for that of the Jew. [Hence,] he is not considered as the Jew’s agent.52

If, however, [the Jewish partner] operates [the business] alone one day [during the week] to compensate for the day of Shabbos on which the non-Jew operates [the business] alone, the non-Jew [is considered] as the agent [of the Jewish partner].53 There is no way [the Jewish partner] can rectify the matter except by not benefiting at all from the non-Jew’s actions on Shabbos, i.e., all the profits from Shabbos should be left for the non-Jew alone. The only exception is when there is a great loss involved. One may then rely on the opinion of the authorities who permit one to benefit from the profits of Shabbos, provided they are combined with those of the other days, as has been explained.54

יז בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁאֵין הַמְּלָאכָה מֻטֶּלֶת כְּלָל עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל רַק עַל הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ שֶׁאָז אֵין הַנָּכְרִי כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ מֻטֶּלֶת כְּלָל עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל פ אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אִם הִיא מֻטֶּלֶת גַּם כֵּן עָלָיו אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה לְבַדּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁעָשָׂה הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ פא שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל פּוֹרֵעַ כְּלוּם לְהַנָּכְרִי בְּעַד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת לְבַדָּהּ אֵין הַנָּכְרִי מִתְכַּוֵּן כְּלָל בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת רַק בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמוֹ וְלֹא בִּשְׁבִיל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵינוֹ כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ52 אֲבָל אִם הוּא עוֹשֶׂה לְבַדּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁעָשָׂה הַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ פב הֲרֵי הַנָּכְרִי כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ פג,53 וְאֵין תַּקָּנָה לְזֶה אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יֵהָנֶה כְּלוּם מִמַּעֲשֵׂה הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁכָּל הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁל הַשַּׁבָּת יַנִּיחַ לְהַנָּכְרִי לְבַדּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא הֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל שֶׁאָז יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ עַל דַּעַת הַמַּתִּירִין לֵהָנוֹת מִשְּׂכַר שַׁבָּת בְּהַבְלָעָה עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר: פד,54

18 When a Jew takes an oven as security [for a loan],55 and [its] non-Jewish [owner] agrees that whatever profit the oven then earns will be paid to the Jewish [lender] as interest for his money, it is permitted for [the Jewish lender] to accept even the profits of Shabbos. [The leniency applies] even [when the profits of Shabbos are given] without being combined with those of the other days. [The rationale is:] The oven itself belongs to the non-Jew, and the Jew does not have a portion in it at all. Moreover, the Jewish [lender] is not instructing [the non-Jew] to operate [the oven] on Shabbos. Instead, the non-Jew is acting on his own initiative, for his own benefit, in order to pay his debt, for he obligated himself to pay the oven’s profits to the Jewish [lender] as interest for his money.

יח יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח תַּנּוּר לְמַשְׁכּוֹן55 וְקִבֵּל עָלָיו הַנָּכְרִי שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁיַּעֲלֶה שְׂכַר הַתַּנּוּר יִתֵּן כֻּלּוֹ לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית מְעוֹתָיו מֻתָּר לְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ גַּם שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְהַבְלָעָה לְפִי שֶׁגּוּף הַתַּנּוּר הוּא שֶׁל הַנָּכְרִי וְאֵין לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק בּוֹ כְּלָל וְגַם אֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא הַנָּכְרִי מֵעַצְמוֹ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה לְטוֹבָתוֹ כְּדֵי לְשַׁלֵּם חוֹבוֹ שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב לִתֵּן שְׂכַר הַתַּנּוּר לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית מְעוֹתָיו: פה

19 If non-Jews baked in an oven belonging to a Jew on Shabbos against his will, but paid him for the use of the oven, it is forbidden for the owner, or any other Jew, to benefit from [that money] forever, because the fee [paid] constitutes Shabbos profits.

יט אִם אָפוּ נָכְרִים בְּשַׁבָּת בְּתַנּוּרוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ שְׂכַר הַתַּנּוּר אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ פו עוֹלָמִית בֵּין לוֹ בֵּין לַאֲחֵרִים פז מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת: פח

Footnotes
1.
Avodah Zarah 22a.
2.
If, however, the Jew tells the non-Jew to work on Shabbos and keep all of the profits, without the Jew receiving any recompense or time off during the week, there is no difficulty.
3.
In sec. 307:35, the Alter Rebbe states that this leniency is granted only when the non-Jew performs this activity using his own farming implements. In the situation described here, however, the Jew owns a share of the tools and materials belonging to the partnership. See Biurei HaShluchan, p. 184, which offers several possible resolutions based on the Kuntreis Acharon (note 4; see footnote 37 below).
4.
For example, when the harvest yields an equivalent of 700 per week, the non-Jew might take 100 for himself, and divide the remaining 600 evenly, 300 for each.
5.
To use the example given in the previous note, each takes 350. Even though the non-Jew is counting his work on Shabbos as a distinct entity, the Jewish partner is not considered as profiting from work performed on Shabbos. This leniency is granted only with regard to a field, when the profits are not tallied until the end of the year. Different laws apply with regard to a bathhouse or the like, where the profits earned on each Shabbos are tallied up at the end of the day. See Kuntreis Acharon (note 2, summarized in footnote 18 below).
6.
Thus the non-Jew is not considered as working for the Jew.
7.
See subsection 6 below and the Kuntreis Acharon (note 3). As explained there, according to these authorities, since ultimately the Jew will profit from the non-Jew’s activity, the non-Jew is considered retroactively to have worked for him, as if he was his agent.
8.
If there are other non-Jews working for the partnership on Shabbos, they must be paid from the non-Jew’s share and not from the money belonging to the partnership. If, however, they are paid by the week or the month and receive their wages whether they work on Shabbos or not, they may be paid from the money belonging to the partnership. See Shevet HaLevi 5:26.

Shevet HaLevi, ibid. points out that according to today’s business practices, issues of maris ayin are likely to arise even if a stipulation was made from the onset. A Rav should be consulted with regard to actual practice.
9.
Hence, there is no reason to consider the non-Jew as the Jew’s agent.
10.
In this instance, as opposed to the field mentioned previously, money is actually earned on Shabbos itself.
11.
The Tzemach Tzedek (Orach Chayim, responsum 34) states that if it is possible to calculate the profit for the Shabbasos, but in actual fact, an inclusive reckoning of the profits and costs was not made, the agreement appears as a legal fiction. Instead, the profit for the Shabbasos should be calculated so that the non-Jew may — should he wish to do so — take it as his own. Afterwards, if the non-Jew desires to give the Jewish partner a portion of that profit as a gift, he may.
12.
In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 1), the Alter Rebbe explains that there are three approaches concerning this matter among the early halachic authorities:

a) That of Rashi, the Tur, and others, who maintain that since a stipulation was made, even if the non-Jew asked for a reckoning, the profit may be divided equally. We do not say that the request for an account shows that the initial agreement was nothing more than legal fiction (see subsection 3). These authorities, however, speak about a partnership for a field, where there is greater room for leniency, since the profit is not realized until the harvest time. Thus, every day of work is not a distinct entity. It is possible that these authorities would agree with regard to a partnership involving a store or merchandise, where the profits for each day are a separate matter (see this subsection).

b) That of the Maggid Mishneh, the Beis Yosef, and others who apply the above concepts even to a partnership involving a store or merchandise.

c) That of Rav Sherira Gaon, Ra’avad, and others, who maintain that if the non-Jew demands a reckoning, even if originally a stipulation was made, it is forbidden for the Jew to receive a share of the profits.

The Alter Rebbe concludes that the last — and most stringent — opinion should be followed with regard to partnerships involving a store or merchandise, but that leniency may be shown with regard to a partnership involving a field.
13.
A silver coin of the Talmudicera equal in value to 100 zuz.
14.
A silver coin of the Talmudicera containing slightly less than 5 grams of silver. See Nitei Gavriel, Nisuin, p. 338.Thus, for each to receive an equal share, the Jew would have to give the non-Jew five zuz.
15.
As mentioned (footnote 11), the Tzemach Tzedek (Orach Chayim, responsum 34) explains that this leniency applies only in a case where it is difficult to calculate the profits earned each day. True, in subsection 4, the Alter Rebbe ruled that as long as they made a stipulation at the beginning of the partnership, they may split the profits equally and it is considered that the non-Jew is giving the Jew a gift. However, the Tzemach Tzedek explains that in that instance it is referring to a case where it was easy to calculate each day separately, and that they actually did so. If it was easy to make the calculation and they did not do so, it is prohibited to split the profits equally.
16.
As reflected by subsection 2, once a partnership has been established, the fact that such a stipulation was not made is a positive factor, since the payment for Shabbos has not been singled out.
17.
If, however, the non-Jew is given the profits of the Shabbos day and the Jew receives the profits of one of the weekdays, it is forbidden for the Jew to accept them. For then the profits of the Shabbos are a distinct entity and it is forbidden to barter a share in them for the profits of another day.
18.
In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 2), the Alter Rebbe emphasizes that leniency is granted only when the profits for Shabbos are combined with those of other days. Therefore, even the non-Jew must not make a stipulation mentioning the Shabbos profits specifically.

The Alter Rebbe clarifies the fundamental difference between this situation and the situation of a field mentioned previously. With regard to a field, the profits come only after the harvest. Therefore, the profits for the Shabbos are not a separate entity. The only question of Shabbos profits arises when the non-Jew works as the Jew’s agent. If that can be prevented, leniency is granted, as explained above (subsection 2). In the instance described here, the money earned on Shabbos is clearly defined and thus would be considered as Shabbos profits. Hence, leniency is granted only when these Shabbos profits are not at all calculated as a distinct entity, but combined together with the profits of the other days.
19.
We do not consider it as if the non-Jew gave the Jew a present. Since the Jew had a share in the work performed on Shabbos, it is obvious that considering his share of the Shabbos profits as a gift would be mere legal fiction.
20.
In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 3), the Alter Rebbe focuses on his statement in the main text that the rationale for the more stringent opinion is that, retroactively, the non-Jew is considered as the Jew’s agent, citing different Rabbinic sources as support.
21.
Subsection 2 above. See also subsection 17 and sec. 246:14.
22.
Even though the performance of Scripturally forbidden labor is not involved, the non-Jew is nevertheless prohibited from performing any task for a Jew which the Jew himself is forbidden to perform on Shabbos (see sec. 243:3). Therefore, the Jew may not instruct him to collect payments on Shabbos.
23.
Hence, there is no prohibition involved, for: a) the Jewish partner did not instruct the non-Jew to collect the money on Shabbos, and b) when the profits were divided, the Shabbos profits were not a distinct entity, but combined together with the profits of the other days.
24.
Thus it was never a distinct entity and therefore not prohibited as “payment for Shabbos.”
25.
On this basis, a Jewish professional, e.g., lawyer, doctor, or accountant, might be able to enter into a partnership with non-Jews even though the office of the partnership is open on Shabbos. A Rav should be consulted. Certainly, in such an instance, the Jew may not work extra during the week to compensate for his not working on Shabbos, nor is he permitted to give instructions regarding tasks to be performed on Shabbos. In the modern working environment, there could be other issues of maris ayin as well.
26.
In contrast to the subjects mentioned in the previous subsections, in this subsection, the Jew is the sole owner of the concern. Therefore, the question of maris ayin — the possibility of an undesirable impression being created — is considered. When, by contrast, a non-Jew is not only a worker, but a co-owner of the concern, there is no question of maris ayin, for it is known that the non-Jew is a partner and he is not obligated to observe the Shabbos. See subsection 13 below.
27.
Telling the non-Jew to work on Shabbos would be forbidden even if the Jew gives these instructions before Shabbos (see sec. 306:5).
28.
As explained there, in certain locales, it is common to rent out ovens and, hence, there is no question about the impression that might be created. See also subsection 13.
29.
The rest of this subsection, as well as subsections 11-12, return to the subject of an oven. As in the previous subsection, this is referring to an instance where the Jew owns the oven and the non-Jew operates it without the Jewish owner performing any work.
30.
In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 4), the Alter Rebbe states that this stringency applies even when the Jew does not specifically tell the non-Jew, “You take the profits for the Shabbos,” but rather the non-Jew takes the Shabbos profits on his own initiative and leaves the profits of one of the weekdays for the Jew.

The Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain the stringency he states in subsections 11 and 12: that for the Jew to receive a portion equal to the profits of Shabbos, not only must those profitsbe combined with the profits of another day, the Jew must also give the non-Jew rights to a portion of the concern. In that way, it does not appear as if the Jew is hiring a worker to operate the concern on Shabbos, but that the non-Jew is working in his own concern.
31.
For each day of the week is reckoned independently. This is the rationale for the distinction between this subsection (and those that follow) and the previous one. In the previous subsection, the profits were divided equally without making a day-to-day accounting. In this and the following subsections, each day is reckoned as a distinct entity.
32.
As stated in subsection 3, there is an advantage to making such stipulations beforehand.
33.
As a preface to this and the following subsection, it is desirable to clarify some principles regarding the concept of acquisition. When the Jew transfers ownership of an oven (or any similar entity) to the non-Jew, there are various degrees to which the non-Jew actually acquires it:

a) The Jew could rent it to him. Although in some contexts (see 246:8 below; Magen Avraham 246:8), such a transaction is considered to be a complete transfer, in this context, the oven is considered as still belonging to the Jew. The non-Jew would therefore be considered to be the Jew’s agent (see 243:1, 4). In order to avoid this issue, the non-Jew must have a share in the ownership of the oven, not merely the use of it. This is the meaning of “actual” (and “actually” later on in the section) ownership, used to translate the Hebrew term בגוף הדבר.

b) The Jew could not merely rent out the oven, but actually transfer ownership of it for the Shabbos day to the non-Jew under the condition described in subsection 11, i.e., the non-Jew actually acquires it on Shabbos, but only on condition that he work on a weekday and give all the proceeds to the Jew. Even though the non-Jew is not considered an agent, this conditional transfer is nevertheless insufficient in this case, because the Jew is receiving s’char Shabbos (“Shabbos earnings”).

c) The Jew could transfer ownership to him without any conditions regarding Shabbos per se, such as in subsection 12, where the non-Jew acquires it for a number of days, and the conditions do not apply to Shabbos alone. In that case, the conditional transfer is sufficient, because the conditions do not involve Shabbos alone; hence, the Jew is not receiving s’char Shabbos separately.

If, however, the Jew does not transfer “actual” ownership, then the arrangement is prohibited, even if the condition involves a number of days together (as in case “c”). The non-Jew would be considered as an agent of the Jew, and it is prohibited (as in case “a”).
34.
See the previous footnote.
35.
I.e., the non-Jew is paying for his rental of the oven on Shabbos by operating it during the week for the Jew.
36.
I.e., the wage he would have paid the non-Jew for his work during the week is considered as the fee that the non-Jew pays for the rental of the oven on Shabbos. Thus the Jew is receiving payment for Shabbos as an independent entity.
37.
In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 4),the Alter Rebbe questions whether it is necessary to make the stipulation initially or whether it is also possible to do so in the middle of their working relationship. He concludes that it can even be made later; but because — according to one interpretation — the stipulation must be made from the onset, he alludes to this opinion by placing the word “initially” within parentheses.
38.
I.e., part of the payment the non-Jew receives for heating the oven for the Jew during the week is the right to heat it for himself on Shabbos.
39.
To summarize the Alter Rebbe’s approach: When a Jewish owner owns an oven or similar concern and wishes to have it operated by a non-Jewish worker, three conditions are necessary:

a) The non-Jew must be granted a portion in the ownership of the concern itself. The non-Jew then does not appear as the agent of the Jew.

b) A stipulation must be made between them regarding the distribution of the profits.

c) Payment for Shabbos must be combined with payment for other days. That way, the payment for Shabbos will not be a distinct entity.
40.
For then payment for Shabbos is a distinct entity. Instead, as the Alter Rebbe proceeds to state, the payment for Shabbos must be combined with that of other days.
41.
See sec. 243:8, 10.
42.
The Tzemach Tzedek (Orach Chayim, responsum 34, sec. 4) elaborates in explanation of the concept that since the non-Jew has a share in the ownership of the concern itself, no question of maris ayin applies.

Note, however, Shevet HaLevi, Vol. 3, responsum 23, which states that there are three types of partnership common at present:

a) One in which a Jew and a non-Jew are partners in both the ownership and the operation of the concern, and this is a well-known fact.

b) One in which the Jew is a silent partner, having invested in the concern, but the concern is operated by the non-Jew alone and publicly known as belonging to the non-Jew.

c) One in which the non-Jew is a silent partner, but the concern is operated by the Jew alone, and publicly known as belonging to the Jew.

In the last instance, since the non-Jew’s involvement is not known, the operation of the business on Shabbos is prohibited because of maris ayin. In the first two instances, in theory, there is no maris ayin, because it is public knowledge that the non-Jew has a share in the concern. Nevertheless, Shevet HaLevi, Vol. 5, responsum 26, points out that even in such cases, according to today’s business practices, for example, when the official documents are in the name of both partners, issues of maris ayin do apply. A Rav should be consulted.
43.
See subsections 3-4 above.
44.
An act that constitutes the formalization of a contract which marks the transfer of ownership.
45.
These sections are not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro, Choshen Mishpat 194:1 and 189:1. In the first source, Rav Yosef Caro emphasizes that a non-Jew may acquire property from a Jew only through both payment of money and transfer of a legal contract (shtar). In the second source, Rav Yosef Caro emphasizes that business agreements must be formalized by a binding act of transfer (kinyan); verbal agreements alone are not binding. See also the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, sec. 441:9, 12; sec. 448:8, 12; and his Seder Mechiras Chametz, where, with regard to the sale of chametz, the Alter Rebbe describes which methods of kinyan are valid for transactions with a non-Jew.
46.
The same laws apply to depositing money in banks owned by non-Jews.
47.
Needless to say, the Jew may not be involved in the purchase or sale of the concern’s merchandise on Shabbos (see sec. 306:4).
48.
The Jew may not tell the non-Jew to engage in business on Shabbos. Moreover, if he wants the non-Jew to purchase a certain object, and he knows this object can only be purchased on Shabbos, e.g., it is only available at a business fair that takes place on Shabbos, he should not give him the money for it on Friday (sec. 307:9).
49.
Needless to say, the arrangement is permitted when the entire profits belong to the non-Jew and he merely pays a designated share or a designated amount to the Jew.
50.
See sec. 243:7 with regard to a similar ruling that applies to a sharecropper.
51.
See subsection 8. Since the Jew receives payment in one lump sum for an entire period, the Shabbos days are never considered as distinct entities.
52.
See subsection 8 above.
53.
For the Jewish partner benefits from the proceeds of his work. See subsections 4 and 6 above. Although the non-Jew also benefits from his own work, the benefit the Jew derives is considered as Shabbos profits and is forbidden, unless a great loss is involved.
54.
Subsection 6 above.
55.
I.e., the oven remains in the physical possession of the non-Jew; it is, however, on lien to the non-Jew.
Sources
א.
ברייתא ע"ז כב, א. טור ריש הסי'.
ב.
ראה רש"י שם ד"ה שקיבלו.
ג.
ספר התרומה סי' קמז. ב"י תחלת הסי'. וראה גם מ"א ס"ק ב. קו"א ס"ק ב.
ד.
סעיף לה. וראה קו"א ס"ק ד ד"ה ועוד יש לפרש, שכ"ה רק לשיטת המ"א דלקמן שם ס"ק כט, שכשאין ריוח לישראל מותר לומר לו אפילו בחפצים של ישראל, ושגם כאן אחרי שאמר לו טול כו' אין לישראל ריוח במעשה שבת. וראה לקמן שם סל"ה דקיי"ל שאסור בזה אפילו כשאין ריוח לישראל. וראה מ”מ וציונים. ביאורי השולחן ע' קפד.
ה.
רש"י ור"ן שם ד"ה שקיבלו וד"ה לא יאמר. לבוש ס"א.
ו.
תוס' שם ד"ה לא יאמר. לבוש שם. מ"א סק"א. וראה מה שהאריך בקו"א ס"ק ד, שעיקר טעם זה שבתוס' הוא כשאין המלאכה מוטלת על שניהם ויש ריוח לישראל במעשה דשבת (כמעשה דתנור דלקמן סי"ב). וראה ביאורי השולחן ע' קפה.
ז.
רמב"ם פ"ו הי"ז (לפי' המ"מ שם, וב"י ד"ה ועל ואם באו לחשבון). רש"י שם ד"ה ואם באו. סמ"ג ל"ת סה (כא, ד). ספר התרומה סי' קמו. טור ולבוש ס"ב.
ח.
ברייתא ע"ז שם.
ט.
משמעות רש"י שם ד"ה ואם באו וד"ה סתמא מאי.
י.
רש"י שם ד"ה אסור.
יא.
אוצ"ל: שאם.
יב.
רמב"ם פ"ו הי"ז. שו"ע ס"א.
יג.
ע"ז שם בעיא דלא איפשטא, לפי' רש"י שם ד"ה סתמא מאי. מ"א סק"ג.
יד.
בעיא דלא איפשטא שם, לפי' רבינו ירוחם. מ"א שם. וראה קו"א ס"ק ב שלפירוש זה האיבעיא רק בשדה, ולקמן ס"ו בשאר מלאכות הובא רק הפירוש הא'.
טו.
הרא"ש שם סו"ס כה. וטור בשמו. רמ"א ס"א.
טז.
ראה קו"א סק"ג.
יז.
רמב"ם שם. שו"ע סוס"א.
יח.
מ"א סק"ג.
יט.
לקמן סוף ס"ו. ובקו"א ס"ק ג.
כ.
רמ"א ס"א.
כא.
ברייתא ע"ז שם כב, א.
כב.
ס' התרומה סוס"י קמז, לפירוש הב"י ריש הסי'.
כג.
מ"א ס"ק ב.
כד.
משמעות רש"י שם ד"ה ואם באו לחשבון. טור והפוסקים שהביא ב"י בסוד"ה ישראל ועכו"ם. וראה קו"א סק"א ד"ה ולענין הלכה.
כה.
רמב"ם פ"ו הי"ז. שו"ע ס"א.
כו.
מהר"י אבוהב ד"ה ואם לא (מסתפק בזה). ב"י ד"ה וכתב הגאון (מתיר). שו"ע ס"ב.
כז.
ב"ח יו"ד סי' רצד ד"ה ישראל ונכרי. אליה רבה סק"ב.
כח.
תשובת הגאונים בשם רב שרירא גאון. הובא בב"י ד"ה וז"ל תשובת. ראב"ד ע"ז שם ד"ה ואם באו. הובא בר"ן ספ"ק דע"ז. ב"ח ד"ה כתב הר"ן. מ"א סק"ב. ט"ז ביו"ד סי' רצד סק"כ. וראה קו"א ס"ק א.
כט.
ראב"ד שם.
ל.
ראה ביאורי השולחן ע' קצה.
לא.
שו"ת רלב"ח סי' קו. מ"א סוף סק"ב. וראה צ"צ חאו"ח סי' לד אות ב.
לב.
כדלעיל ס"ב לענין שדה.
לג.
ראה קו"א ס"ק ב, שדוקא אז הוי שכר שבת בהבלעה, משא"כ כשהנכרי נוטל מאליו שכר יום השבת הן רב הן מעט והישראל נוטל שכר יום חול, הוי שכר שבת שלא בהבלעה ואסור לדברי הכל, כדלקמן סי' רמו סי"א (משא"כ לעיל שם לענין שדה, גם בזה איבעיא דלא איפשטא).
לד.
בעי' דלא איפשטא שם. ר"ת בתוס' שם ד"ה לא (דמיירי הסוגיה אף בשאר מלאכות).
לה.
רא"ש שם פ"א סוף סי' כה. טור בשמו. רמ"א ס"א.
לו.
שו"ת ריב"ש סי' קנא. וכדלקמן סי' רמו סי"ד. וראה קו"א ס"ק ב. קובץ דברי תורה ח"ז ע' נג.
לז.
רמב"ם שם. שו"ע ס"א.
לח.
משמעות המ"א סק"א. עי' ש"ך יו"ד (ר)סי' רצד ס"ק כו ודו"ק. ונתבאר בקו"א סק"ג.
לט.
רמ"א ס"א.
מ.
לעיל ס"ב (בשדה). וכ"ה לקמן סי"ז. סי' רמו סי"ד.
מא.
שזה אסור מטעם המבואר לעיל סי' רמג ס"ג (במוסגר). וראה ביאורי השלחן ע' קצט.
מב.
מ"א סק"א.
מג.
ר"ן סופ"ק דע"ז. ובשבת סו"פ טז (מו, ב) ד"ה וישראל. רמ"א ס"א.
מד.
ראה ב"י ד"ה ומרחץ. ב"ח ד"ה כתב הר"ן.
מה.
ר"ן שם. וראה גם לקמן סט"ז-יז.
מו.
ר"ן שם. מ"א סק"ה.
מז.
ר"ן שם. רמ"א שם.
מח.
ר"ן שם. מ"א סק"ו.
מט.
מ"א סק"ו.
נ.
שאסור גם באריס, כדלעיל סי' רמג סוף ס"ז. וראה לקמן סי' רמז ס"א וש"נ.
נא.
כדלעיל שם וש"נ.
נב.
מ"א סק"ג. משא"כ לעיל ס"ח, שאין חוששין למראית העין בשותף, כדלקמן סי"ג.
נג.
סעיף ט.
נד.
שדינם שוה לתנור בכל האמור לעיל, כמבואר בשו"ע ס"א (מרחץ מבואר בתוספתא דמאי פ"ו הי"ג. הובא בתוס' ע"ז שם. רחיים מבואר ברא"ש ע"ז שם בשם ר"ח. חנות מבואר ברמב"ם פ"ו הי"ז ולעיל ס"ד). והמשך הסעיף, ולקמן סי"א-ב מיירי בתנור.
נה.
הגהות אשרי שם סי' כד. ותוס' כב, א ד"ה לא יאמר בשם ה"ר אלחנן. מ"א ס"ק ג (ומיירו בתנור).
נו.
מ"א שם. וראה קו"א סק"ד.
נז.
תוס' שם בשם ה"ר אלחנן. הגהות אשרי שם. מ"א שם.
נח.
הגהות אשרי שם. לפי מה שנתבאר בקו"א ס"ק ד. ולענין פסח ראה לקמן סי' תנ ס"ו-ז.
נט.
ראה קו"א ס"ק ד הטעם שצריך שניהם, להתנות (כדי שלא יהיה כשלוחו) ושיהיה בהבלעה (כדי לא יהיה שכר שבת).
ס.
ראה מה שהאריך בקו"א שם, ב' אופנים, אם צריך להתנות בתחלה, או סגי במה שמתנה עתה. וכאן נכתב במוסגר (מספק).
סא.
מ"א סק"ג.
סב.
משמעות הגהות אשרי. וע' מ"א סק"ו. וע' בקו"א סק"ד.
סג.
רמ"א ס"ג.
סד.
מ"א סק"ח. ט"ז ס"ק ג.
סה.
כדלעיל סי' רמג ס"י.
סו.
מ"א שם ובס"ק א.
סז.
ראה צ"צ או"ח סי' לד ס"ד.
סח.
רמ"א ס"ג.
סט.
מ"א שם. וכדלעיל סי' רמד ס"א.
ע.
סעיף יב.
עא.
כדלעיל סי"ג.
עב.
ב"י ד"ה ואם לקח השדה ממשמעות התוס' שם. שו"ע ס"ג. ונתבאר בקו"א ס"ק ד.
עג.
מ"א סק"ז. וראה גם לקמן סי' תמא ס"ט וסי"ב. סי' תמח ס"ח וסי"ב.
עד.
רמב"ם פ"ו הי"ח בשם הגאונים (תשובת רב שרירא גאון. הובא בב"י ד"ה וז"ל תשובת). טור ושו”ע ס"ד וס"ה. וראה גם לקמן סי' שז ס"ט.
עה.
ראה לעיל סי' רמד סי"ב, שאם קובע לו מלאכתו בשבת אסור אפילו כשנותן לו חלק בריוח. וראה שו"ת סי' ב, שעכ"פ יש עצה למכור לנכרי את הסחורה שימכור בשבת.
עו.
שו"ע ס"ה.
עז.
כדלעיל סי' רמג ס"ז - לענין אריס. ולענין קבלנות ראה לעיל סי' רמד קו"א ס"ק א.
עח.
כדלעיל ס"ח, אף שמעיקר הדין אין כאן איסור שכר שבת בכל אופן.
עט.
מגיד משנה שם. שו"ע סוס"ד.
פ.
תשובת רב שרירא גאון שם. רמ"א ס"ד.
פא.
כדלעיל ס"ח וש"נ.
פב.
תשובת רב שרירא גאון שם. רמ"א שם.
פג.
לבוש סוס"ד. וכיון שהמלאכה בשביל הישראל הרי מעות אלו שכר שבת כדלעיל ס"ד וס"ו.
פד.
לעיל ס"ו.
פה.
תוס' ע"ז כב, א ד"ה לא. ורא"ש שם. טור ושו”ע ס"ה.
פו.
מרדכי שבת פ"ק סי' רמו. שו"ע ס"ו.
פז.
ריטב"א ע"ז כו, ב. וראה מ”מ וציונים. שו"ת מהרש"ג ח"ב סי' כג. הערות בשו"ע אדמוה"ז ע' 34.
פח.
מרדכי שם . ריטב"א שם. תוספת שבת ס"ק יג.
© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright policy.
 Email
Start a Discussion
1000 characters remaining