Contact Us

Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 246 - Laws Governing Lending and Renting Articles to a Non-Jew on Shabbos

Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 246 - Laws Governing Lending and Renting Articles to a Non-Jew on Shabbos

 Email
Show content in:

SECTION 246 The Laws Governing Lending and Renting Articles to a Non-Jew on Shabbos (1-19)

סימן רמו דִּינֵי הַשְׁאָלָה וְהַשְׂכָּרָה לְנָכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת וּבוֹ י"ט סְעִיפִים:

1It is permissible to lend and rent out articles to a non-Jew, even though the non-Jew will perform work with them on Shabbos, for we are not commanded that our articles must rest on Shabbos1 — i.e., that a non-Jew not perform forbidden labor with them on Shabbos,or that forbidden work not be performed with them as a matter of course on Shabbos, as will be stated in sec. 252[:1].2 (With regard to renting out an entity that is used in public, see sec. 243[:6-10].)3

When [the Jewish owner] receives payment [for the rental of an article used on Shabbos], he should not receive payment for Shabbos [as a distinct entity], but only when it is combined with that of other days, e.g., [the Jewish owner] rents out an article to a non-Jew for a week or a month. [In such an instance,] he may accept the [entire] payment, even though payment for Shabbos is included in it. If, however, he rented out the article for separate days, a certain amount for each day individually, he may not accept the payment due for the Shabbos days, as stated in sec. 243[:11]. Consult that source.

Even if a Jewish [owner] hires [to a non-Jew] articles with which forbidden labor is not performed at all,4 and even if he rents a non-Jew a room in which to dwell, the Jew may only accept payment for Shabbos when it is combined with [payment for] other days. (See also sec. 306[:9].)5

א מֻתָּר לְהַשְׁאִיל כֵּלִים וּלְהַשְׂכִּירָם לְנָכְרִי א וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בָהֶם מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מְצֻוִּין עַל שְׁבִיתַת1 הַכֵּלִים שֶׁלָּנוּ ב שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶם הַנָּכְרִי מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵעָשֶׂה בָּהֶן מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת מֵאֵלֶיהָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רנ"ב ג,2 (וּלְעִנְיַן לְהַשְׂכִּיר דָּבָר שֶׁל פַּרְהֶסְיָא עַיֵּן סִמָּן רמ"ג ד).3

וּכְשֶׁנּוֹטֵל הַשָּׂכָר לֹא יִטּוֹל שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא בְּהַבְלָעָה כְּגוֹן אִם הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ לְשָׁבוּעַ אוֹ לְחֹדֶשׁ יָכוֹל לִטּוֹל הַשָּׂכָר אַף שֶׁשְּׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת מֻבְלָע בּוֹ אֲבָל אִם הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ לְיָמִים נִפְרָדִים בְּעַד כָּל יוֹם וְיוֹם כָּךְ וְכָךְ לֹא יִטּוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שָׂכָר הַמַּגִּיעַ לִימֵי הַשַּׁבָּת ה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ"ג ו עַיֵּן שָׁם וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל כֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂים בָּהֶם מְלָאכָה כְּלָל ז,4 וַאֲפִלּוּ הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ חֶדֶר לָדוּר בּוֹ לֹא יִטּוֹל שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת אֶלָּא בְּהַבְלָעָה ח (עַיֵּן סִמָּן ש"ו ט):5

2 There are authorities who maintain that implements with which forbidden labor is performed, e.g., a mill — in a place where it is permitted to rent it out to a non-Jew, as stated in sec. 243[:9] — a plow, or other similar craftsmen’s tools, may not be rented out to a non-Jew on a Friday.

[The rationale:] The Jewish [owner] also profits from the fact that the articles are rented out to the non-Jew on Shabbos. For it is well known that even though [the Jewish owner] is renting [the article] to [the non-Jew] for a week or for a month,6 if the rental did not include the Shabbos, i.e., if the non-Jew would not be allowed to perform work with the article(s) on Shabbos, he would slightly reduce the fee that he is paying. Now that they are rented to him without any stipulation, he may perform work with them on Shabbos.

Therefore, when the non-Jew performs work [with these implements] on Shabbos directly after the day on which they were rented out to him, i.e., Friday, it appears as if he is acting as the agent of the Jewish [owner] who instructed him to perform work with them on Shabbos after renting them out to him the previous day.7 [This concern is taken into consideration,] since the Jewish [owner] profits from the fact that [the non-Jew] is permitted to perform work [with the implements] on Shabbos. Fundamentally, [the halachah] follows this view.8

ב יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים י שֶׁהַכֵּלִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂים בָּהֶם מְלָאכָה כְּגוֹן רֵחַיִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁמֻתָּר לְהַשְׂכִּירָם לְנָכְרִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ"ג יא וּמַחֲרֵשָׁה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן מִשְּׁאָר כְּלֵי אֻמָּנוּת אָסוּר לְהַשְׂכִּירָם לְנָכְרִי בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ רֶוַח לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַה שֶּׁהַכֵּלִים נִשְׂכָּרִים לְנָכְרִי גַּם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי יָדוּעַ הוּא אַף שֶׁמַּשְׂכִּירָם לוֹ לְשָׁבוּעַ אוֹ לְחֹדֶשׁ6 אִם הָיָה מַשְׂכִּיר לוֹ חוּץ מִשַׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶם מְלָאכָה גַּם בְּשַׁבָּת הָיָה הַנָּכְרִי פּוֹחֵת לוֹ מְעַט מִשְּׂכִירוּת שֶׁנּוֹתֵן עַכְשָׁו כְּשֶׁמַּשְׂכִּיר לוֹ סְתָם וְיֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לַעֲשׂוֹת גַּם בְּשַׁבָּת לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת סָמוּךְ לְיוֹם שֶׁהִשְׂכִּירָם לוֹ דְּהַיְנוּ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הֲרֵי נִרְאֶה כְּאִלּוּ עוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁלִיחוּת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁצִּוָּהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת כְּשֶׁהִשְׂכִּירָם לוֹ אֶתְמוֹל7 כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ רֶוַח לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַה שֶּׁהוּא רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת וְכֵן עִקָּר: יב,8

3 It is, however, permitted to lend9 implements with which [forbidden] labor is performed10 to [a non-Jew] — even on Friday, close to nightfall.11 Since the Jewish [owner] does not profit from the fact that the non-Jew may perform work with them on Shabbos, [the non-Jew] does not appear to be acting as his agent.

Even if [the Jewish owner] lends [the article] to [the non-Jew] on the condition that the non-Jew will lend him a different article after Shabbos — and thus the Jewish [owner] is profiting from lending [the article] to the non-Jew on Shabbos — [there is,] nevertheless, [no prohibition involved]. Our Sages did not enact a decree in this instance, since [the Jewish owner] is not taking an actual fee [for the use of the article].

ג אֲבָל לְהַשְׁאִיל 9 לוֹ כֵּלִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂים בָּהֶם מְלָאכָה10 מֻתָּר אֲפִלּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת סָמוּךְ לַחֲשֵׁכָה יג,11 דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁאֵין רֶוַח לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַה שֶּׁהַנָּכְרִי רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶם בְּשַׁבָּת אֵין נִרְאֶה כְּאִלּוּ עוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁלִיחוּתוֹ יד וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם מַשְׁאִילוֹ בִּתְנַאי עַל מְנָת שֶׁיַּשְׁאִילֶנּוּ הַנָּכְרִי כְּלִי אַחֵר לְאַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת טו וְנִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ רֶוַח לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַה שֶּׁמַּשְׁאִיל לְהַנָּכְרִי גַּם בְּשַׁבָּת מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל שְׂכִירוּת מַמָּשׁ בְּעַד זֶה לֹא גָזְרוּ חֲכָמִים: טז

4 It is forbidden to lend any article12 to a non-Jew on Shabbos.13 [Indeed,] because of the impression that might be created, it is even forbidden to lend [a non-Jew] an article [late] on Friday [afternoon] when it is so close to nightfall that the non-Jew will not have time to remove the article from the entrance of the Jewish [owner’s] home to the public domain while it is still day.14 For an observer who will see the non-Jew depart from the Jew’s home with the Jew’s article in his hand will suspect the Jewish [owner] of sending his possessions [to others] on Shabbos via this non-Jew. It will not occur to him that [the Jewish owner] lent the article to [the non-Jew] and that [the non-Jew] is taking it for his own purposes.

[This prohibition applies] even in a town that does not have a public domain,15 but rather a karmelis. In this instance, there is no Scriptural prohibition, even for a Jew, to transfer an article to such a domain from a private domain. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to transfer an article into such a domain, even via a non-Jew, except for a purpose associated with a mitzvah, as will be explained in sec. 307[:12]. Hence, [if the non-Jew takes the article out to such a domain, people] will suspect that [the Jewish owner] is violating the Rabbinic decree.

ד אָסוּר לְהַשְׁאִיל שׁוּם חֵפֶץ12 לְנָכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת יז,13 וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אִם הוּא סָמוּךְ לַחֲשֵׁכָה כָּל כָּךְ עַד שֶׁאֵין שָׁהוּת לַנָּכְרִי לְהוֹצִיא הַחֵפֶץ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אָסוּר לְהַשְׁאִילוֹ יח,14 מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן שֶׁהָרוֹאֶה אֶת הַנָּכְרִי יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְחֵפֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיָדוֹ יַחְשׁוֹד אֶת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹלֵחַ חֲפָצָיו בְּשַׁבָּת עַל יְדֵי נָכְרִי זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁאִיל לוֹ וְהוּא מוֹצִיאוֹ לְצֹרֶךְ עַצְמוֹ יט וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים,15 אֶלָּא כַּרְמְלִית כ שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֲפִלּוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהוֹצִיא לְתוֹכָהּ מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים אָסוּר לְהוֹצִיא אֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי נָכְרִי שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ מִצְוָה כא כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש"ז כב אִם כֵּן יַחְשְׁדוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים:

5 When, however, a town is encompassed by an eruv, in which instance it is permitted to carry within it [on Shabbos],16 it is permitted to lend [a non-Jew an article]17 even on Shabbos, provided the non-Jew lives in the area encompassed by the eruv, where it is permitted to carry. [Moreover, license is granted] even if he lives in a place that is not encompassed by an eruv, but there is no reason for concern about the impression that might be created in the mind of an observer who sees [the non-Jew] depart from the house of the Jewish [owner]. (For example, the Jewish [owner’s] house is so far from the area outside the eruv [where the non-Jew lives] that a person who sees [the non-Jew] depart from the Jew’s home will not see him enter the area outside the eruv.)18

(Nevertheless, if [the Jewish owner] knows that the non-Jew will take the article beyond the town’s Shabbos limits19 [on Shabbos], he may not lend it to him on Shabbos. [The rationale:] When an article belonging to a Jew is in his possession during bein hashamashos,20 its Shabbos limits then become established as the same as those that [apply to its owner], i.e., [it may be taken] 2000 cubits [outside the town’s limits] in all directions, but no more.21 True, a person is not charged with [keeping] his articles within the Shabbos limits,22 just as he is not charged with having his articles rest on Shabbos.23Nevertheless, since the Shabbos limits for his articles became established within his domain, and they extend no further than 2000 cubits away from it, he cannot directly cause them to be taken beyond their Shabbos limits by giving them to a non-Jew. It is, however, permitted for him to show them to [the non-Jew] and tell him that he may take them himself.24 Since he does not actually hand them over to [the non-Jew, there is no prohibition involved].

There are authorities who even grant [the Jewish owner] license to hand [the articles] to the non-Jew, since it is [the non-Jew] who is taking them out of the Shabbos limits on his own initiative, for his own purposes. The Jewish [owner] is merely a [secondary] cause [in their being taken beyond the Shabbos limits]. Fundamentally, the halachah follows this view.25

There are authorities who differ with all the above and maintain that even in a city encompassed by an eruv — and even when the non-Jew lives in the area encompassed by the eruv — it is forbidden for [a Jewish owner] to lend [an article to a non-Jew] on Shabbos,or even on Friday if [the non-Jew] will not leave the entrance to [the Jew’s] home while it is still day.

[The rationale:] An observer who will see [the non-Jew] leave the house of the Jewish [owner] on Shabbos with an article belonging to the Jew in his hand, might say that [the Jewish owner] sold the non-Jew the article on Shabbos or lent it to him for a prolonged period (i.e., more than thirty days, the [standard] duration of a loan).26 For on Shabbos, all that was permitted was to lend out an article for a short amount of time, as will be stated in sec. 307[:18].

Alternatively, (an observer) might say that [the Jewish owner] gave [the article] to [the non-Jew] as security, and it is forbidden to offer security on Shabbos, as will be stated there [307:20]. Or [an observer] might say that [the Jewish owner] gave [the article] to [the non-Jew] to fix or to perform work with it [for him]. And it is forbidden on Shabbos to give [a non-Jew] any article with which to perform work, even if [the non-Jew] works as a contractor and even if the [non-Jew’s] fee was established on Friday.27

With regard to the [actual] halachic ruling: In cases of necessity, leniency may be granted to lend articles out for a short time, as stated in the first opinion. If, however, [the Jewish owner] sold [the non-Jew] an article — even on Friday — or lent it to him for an extended period, i.e., more than thirty days, or gave it to him as security, or gave it to him to perform work with [for the Jew, the non-Jew] must leave the entrance of the [Jew’s] home [with it] while it is still day on Friday. This [restriction] applies even in a town encompassed by an eruv. For there is room for concern that one who sees [the non-Jew] leave the Jew’s house [with it]will find out that the Jewish [owner] sold [the article] to him, lent it to him for an extended period, gave it to him as security, or gave it to him to perform work for him — for indeed this is what happened. Therefore, he will suspect that [the Jewish owner] performed this activity on Shabbos.28In contrast, when [the non-Jew] borrowed the article for a short time, [there is no cause for concern]. Even if [an observer] discovers the truth, there are no grounds for suspicion at all, for even if he thinks that [the owner] lent it to him for a short while on Shabbos, [no prohibition is involved,] for on Shabbos one may lend out an article for a short while.

ה אֲבָל בְּעִיר הַמְעֹרֶבֶת שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּתוֹכָהּ16 מֻתָּר לְהַשְׁאִילוֹ17 אֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת כג אִם (א) הַנָּכְרִי דָר בְּמָקוֹם הַמְעֹרָב שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בּוֹ כד אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ דָר בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב אֶלָּא בָּעִנְיָן שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן שֶׁל הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ יוֹצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל (כְּגוֹן שֶׁבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל רָחוֹק כָּל כָּךְ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב בָּעִנְיָן שֶׁהָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ יוֹצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה כְּשֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב כה).18

וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם יָדוּעַ לוֹ (ב) שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי יוֹלִיכֶנּוּ הַיּוֹם חוּץ לַתְּחוּם19 אָסוּר לְהַשְׁאִילוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת כו לְפִי שֶׁחֶפְצוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּבֵין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת20 קָנוּ אֶצְלוֹ שְׁבִיתָה בִּשְׁבִיתָתוֹ דְּהַיְנוּ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ וְלֹא יוֹתֵר כז,21 וְאַף שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֻזְהָר עַל תְּחוּם,22 כֵּלָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת כֵּלָיו כח,23 מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּנוּ שְׁבִיתָה אֶצְלוֹ וְאֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה אָסוּר לוֹ לִגְרוֹם לָהֶם בְּיָדַיִם שֶׁיּוּבְאוּ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם עַל יְדֵי שֶׁמּוֹסְרוֹ בְּיַד נָכְרִי אֲבָל מֻתָּר לְהַרְאוֹתָם לוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ שֶׁיִּטְּלֵם מֵעַצְמוֹ 24 כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹסְרָם לוֹ בְּיָדַיִם כט וְיֵשׁ מַתִּירִין ל אֲפִלּוּ לִמְסוֹר לוֹ בְּיָדַיִם כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי הוּא הַמּוֹצִיאָן חוּץ לַתְּחוּם מִדַּעְתּוֹ לְצֹרֶךְ עַצְמוֹ וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא גּוֹרֵם בְּעָלְמָא וְכֵן עִקָּר. לא,25

וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין לב עַל כָּל זֶה וְאוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בְּעִיר הַמְעֹרֶבֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ הַנָּכְרִי דָר גַּם כֵּן בְּמָקוֹם הַמְעֹרָב אָסוּר לְהַשְׁאִילוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם לְפִי שֶׁהָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשַׁבָּת וְחֵפֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיָדוֹ יֹאמַר שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ חֵפֶץ זֶה בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ הִלְוָהוּ לוֹ לִזְמַן מְרֻבֶּה (דְּהַיְנוּ יוֹתֵר מִל' יוֹם שֶׁהִיא נִקְרֵאת הַלְוָאָה)26 וְלֹא הִתִּירוּ בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא שְׁאֵלָה שֶׁהוּא לִזְמַן מוּעָט כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש"ז לג אוֹ יֹאמַר (הָרוֹאֶה) שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לוֹ לְמַשְׁכּוֹן וְאָסוּר לִתֵּן מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּשַׁבָּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם לד אוֹ יֹאמַר שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לוֹ לְתַקְּנוֹ וְלַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה וְאָסוּר לִתֵּן בְּשַׁבָּת שׁוּם דָּבָר לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּקַבְּלָנוּת לה וַאֲפִלּוּ קָצַץ עִמּוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת.27

וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל בִּשְׁאֵלָה בְּעֵת הַצֹּרֶךְ כִּסְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לו אֲבָל אִם מָכַר לוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אוֹ שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ לוֹ לִזְמַן מְרֻבֶּה יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אוֹ שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לוֹ לְמַשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אֲפִלּוּ הִיא עִיר הַמְעֹרֶבֶת לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִוָּדַע לְהָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְכָרוֹ לוֹ אוֹ הִלְוָהוּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנוֹ אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁכֵּן הוּא הָאֱמֶת וְיַחְשְׁדֵהוּ שֶׁעָשָׂה כֵּן בְּשַׁבָּת28 מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאֵלָה כְּשֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ הָאֱמֶת אֵין כַּאן חֲשָׁד כְּלָל אַף אִם יִדְמֶה לוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁאִילוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁהֲרֵי מֻתָּר לְהַשְׁאִיל בְּשַׁבָּת: לז

6 All the above applies with regard to articles belonging to a Jew. When, by contrast, a non-Jew comes on Shabbos to retrieve his own articles that he had entrusted to a Jew for safekeeping, the Jew may give them to him, even though [the non-Jew] will take them out to the public domain,29 as will be stated in sec. 325[:3].30 Consult that source for more details concerning these laws.

ו וְכָל זֶה בַּחֲפָצִים שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל חֲפָצִים שֶׁל נָכְרִי שֶׁהָיוּ מֻפְקָדִים בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבָא לִטְּלוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת יָכוֹל לִתְּנוֹ לח וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹצִיאֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים29 כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שכ"ה לט,30 עַיֵּן שָׁם תַּשְׁלוּם דִּינִים אֵלּוּ:

7 It is forbidden to lend out an animal to a non-Jew to perform work,31 for the non-Jew will also perform work with it on Shabbos,and a person is commanded to have his livestock rest on Shabbos, as it is written:32 “…So that your ox and your donkey may rest.” Indeed, it is forbidden by Scriptural Law to even rent out an animal [to a non-Jew], even if he rents it out many days before Shabbos.33Even if [the Jewish owner] stipulates with the non-Jew that he will do nothing with the animal on Shabbos, and the non-Jew promises, it is of no consequence, because the non-Jew is not trusted in this regard for the reason to be explained in sec. 305[:36].34 Consult that source.

ז אָסוּר לְהַשְׁאִיל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְנָכְרִי לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ מְלָאכָה מ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ גַּם בְּשַׁבָּת וְאָדָם מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ מא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מב,32 לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ וְאַף לְהַשְׂכִּירָהּ לוֹ אָסוּר מג מִן הַתּוֹרָה מד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשְׂכִּירָהּ הַרְבֵּה יָמִים קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת מה,33 וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם מַתְנֶה עִמּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ כְּלוּם בְּשַׁבָּת וְהִבְטִיחַ לוֹ אֵין זֶה מוֹעִיל כִּי אֵין הַנָּכְרִי נֶאֱמָן עַל כָּךְ מו מִטַּעַם שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש"ה מז,34 עַיֵּן שָׁם:

8 When does the above apply? When the Jew actually owns the animal. When, by contrast, a Jew rents an animal from a non-Jew, he may then rent it out or lend it to another non-Jew. Since he is not the actual owner of the animal, he is not commanded to have it rest on Shabbos.35

[Even in such a situation,] there is an authority who forbids lending out [the animal to a non-Jew], for there is room for question whether by renting the animal from the non-Jew and paying for the right to perform work with it, the Jew [actually] acquires the animal for the days for which he rented it from the non-Jew. Afterwards, when he [in turn] lends it to a non-Jew and the non-Jew performs work with it on Shabbos, the Jew transgresses [the command to] have his animal rest on Shabbos. This does not apply if he rents the animal to a non-Jew, because then [both opinions would allow the arrangement]. Even [according to the stringent opinion that] the Jew actually acquires the animal [by renting it], the non-Jew also acquires it when he rents it from the Jew. Thus the Jew is not responsible for having it rest on Shabbos.

It is preferable to give weight to the words of the authority [who forbids a Jew who rented an animal from lending it to a non-Jew].36

ח בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁגּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׂכַר בְּהֵמָה מִנָּכְרִי יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר וּלְהַשְׂכִּירָהּ אוֹ לְהַשְׁאִילָהּ לְנָכְרִי אַחֵר דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁאֵין גּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ. מח,35

וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹסֵר מט לְהַשְׁאִילָהּ לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק נ שֶׁמָּא עַל יְדֵי הַשְּׂכִירוּת שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתֵן דָּמִים לְהַנָּכְרִי בַּעֲדָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ מְלָאכָה נִקְנֶה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי כָךְ הַבְּהֵמָה לְיָמִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ לוֹ מֵהַנָּכְרִי וּכְשֶׁחוֹזֵר וּמַשְׁאִילָהּ לְנָכְרִי וְהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת עוֹבֵר הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁחוֹזֵר וּמַשְׂכִּירָהּ לְנָכְרִי מֻתָּר מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ שֶׁאִם נִקְנֶה גּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נִקְנֶה גַם כֵּן לְנָכְרִי שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ נא(ג) וְטוֹב לָחוּשׁ לִדְבָרָיו: נב,36

9 It is permissible to rent out or lend one’s animal to a non-Jew on the condition that he will return it before Shabbos. If the non-Jew violates this condition, retains possession of the animal, and does not return it before Shabbos, the Jewish [owner] should privately declare [the animal] ownerless before Shabbos.37In that instance, he is not commanded to have it rest on Shabbos, for it is no longer his, since he declared it ownerless.

True, according to Rabbinic Law, a declaration to relinquish ownership is not at all effective unless it is made in the presence of three people. For when there are three people present, the person is certainly declaring it ownerless with a full heart and there is no suspicion of guile, since one of the three can immediately acquire it from its ownerless state, and the other two can testify that he acquired it while it was ownerless. Thus [the previous owner] who declared it ownerless cannot retract his declaration and expropriate it from him. Nevertheless, [in the instance at hand,] even though [the Jewish owner] declares [the animal] ownerless privately, he is certainly declaring it ownerless wholeheartedly [because he is doing so in order] that he will not violate a Scriptural prohibition.38

Nevertheless, another person may not acquire [the animal] even if [the owner] declared it ownerless in the presence of three people, as is required with regard to other ownerless articles. Since he is declaring it ownerless only to remove his responsibility for the violation of the prohibition [against his animal working on] Shabbos, it can be assumed that he is declaring it ownerless only for the Shabbos day,39[and only] for the time that the non-Jew performs work with it. [This is entirely effective,] because a declaration that property is ownerless for a day or even an hour is legally binding for that day or for that hour, as will be stated in Choshen Mishpat, sec. 273.40 On Saturday night, it immediately reverts to him and no one else may take possession of it.

Moreover, even on Shabbos, the animal is ownerless only at the time when [the non-Jew] performs work with it, for [the Jewish owner] declared it ownerless only to be saved from the prohibition that the non-Jew [would cause him to violate by] working [with the animal] on Shabbos. Accordingly, during the time that [the non-Jew] does not perform work with it, the ownership reverts [to the Jew] and no other person can acquire it (except during the time the non-Jew is working with it. And, at that time, the non-Jew will not let another person [acquire it in any case]. Moreover, even if the non-Jew would allow [another person to acquire it then, that acquisition would not be effective]. For at the moment [the other person seeks to] acquire it, [the animal] is not performing work for the non-Jew, and [consequentially] it reverts to the Jew’s [ownership].)

ט מֻתָּר לְהַשְׂכִּיר אוֹ לְהַשְׁאִיל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְנָכְרִי וּלְהַתְנוֹת עִמּוֹ שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנָּה לוֹ קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת נג וְאִם עָבַר הַנָּכְרִי עַל תְּנָאוֹ וְעִכְּבָהּ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִירָהּ קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת יַפְקִירֶנָּה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת נד,37 שֶׁאָז אֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁכְּבָר הִפְקִירָהּ.

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כָּל הֶפְקֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינוֹ הֶפְקֵר נה כְּלָל שֶׁכְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּוַדַּאי הוּא מַפְקִיר בְּלֵב שָׁלֵם וְאֵין כַּאן חֲשַׁשׁ הַעֲרָמָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶחָד מֵהַשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָכוֹל לִזְכּוֹת מִיָּד בַּהֶפְקֵר הַזֶּה וְהַשְּׁנַיִם הַנִּשְׁאָרִים יְכוֹלִים לְהָעִיד לוֹ שֶׁזָּכָה מֵהַהֶפְקֵר וְלֹא יוּכַל הַמַּפְקִיר לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ וּלְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ נו מִכָּל מָקוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּפְקִיר בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ נז בְּוַדַּאי מַפְקִיר בְּלֵב שָׁלֵם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּצֵל מֵאִסּוּר שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. נח,38

וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵין אָדָם אַחֵר יָכוֹל לִזְכּוֹת בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ אִם מַפְקִירָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה כִּשְׁאָר הֶפְקֵר דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַפְקִירָהּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְהַפְקִיעַ מֵעָלָיו אִסּוּר שַׁבָּת בִּלְבָד (ד) אִם כֵּן מִן הַסְּתָם אֵינוֹ מַפְקִירָהּ אֶלָּא לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת בִּלְבָד נט,39 בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה שֶׁהֶפְקֵר לְיוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ לְשָׁעָה אַחַת הֲרֵי הוּא הֶפְקֵר גָּמוּר לְאוֹתוֹ יוֹם וְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה ס כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּחֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט סִמָּן רע"ג סא,40 וּבְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת מִיָּד הִיא חוֹזֶרֶת לִהְיוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ וְאֵין שׁוּם אָדָם יָכוֹל לִזְכּוֹת בָּהּ וְאַף בְּשַׁבָּת אֵינָהּ הֶפְקֵר אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה סב שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הִפְקִירָהּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְהִנָּצֵל מֵאִסּוּר עֲשִׂיַּת הַמְּלָאכָה שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת סג וְאִם כֵּן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ כְּלוּם הִיא חוֹזֶרֶת לִהְיוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ וְאֵין שׁוּם אָדָם יָכוֹל לִזְכּוֹת בָּהּ (אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ וְאָז לֹא יַנִּיחֶנּוּ הַנָּכְרִי וְאַף אִם יַנִּיחֶנּוּ הַנָּכְרִי מִכָּל מָקוֹם אוֹתָהּ רֶגַע שֶׁזּוֹכֶה בָּהּ הִיא בְּטֵלָה מִמְּלֶאכֶת הַנָּכְרִי וְחוֹזֶרֶת הִיא לִהְיוֹת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל סד):

10 [Alternatively,] if [the Jewish owner] desires, before Shabbos, he may transfer the actual ownership of the animal to [the non-Jew] for the Shabbos day by saying directly to [the non-Jew], “My animal is acquired by you.” In such an instance, the non-Jew intends to acquire the animal, and this statement brings about a transfer of the ownership, since the animal is in the domain of the non-Jew.41 If, however, [the Jewish owner] makes this statement outside the presence of the non-Jew, the non-Jew does not acquire [the animal] at all.

י וְאִם הוּא רוֹצֶה יָכוֹל לְהַקְנוֹת גּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה לְנָכְרִי זֶה לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת וְהוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ סה בְּפָנָיו בְּהֶמְתִּי קְנוּיָה לְךָ שֶׁאָז מִתְכַּוֵּן הַנָּכְרִי לִקְנוֹתָהּ סו וְהִיא נִקְנֵית לוֹ בַּאֲמִירָה זוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִיא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ סז,41 אֲבָל אִם אוֹמֵר כֵּן שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לֹא קְנָאָהּ הַנָּכְרִי כְּלָל: סח

11 All the above applies after the fact, i.e., when [the Jewish owner] already rented out or lent out [his animal] to the non-Jew in a permitted manner, stipulating with him that he will return it before Shabbos. Initially, however, it is forbidden to rent out or lend out [an animal to a non-Jew] without a stipulation, relying on the fact that he will declare [the animal] ownerless or transfer ownership of it to the non-Jew when42 Shabbos arrives.43 [The rationale:] It is public knowledge that this animal belongs to the Jew, but the declaration of it as ownerless or the transfer of ownership will not be made public knowledge.44 [Hence,] there is concern about the impression that might be created.45

There are authorities who, even as an initial preference, permit [an animal] to be rented out or lent out [to a non-Jew without making a stipulation], relying on the fact that when46 Shabbos arrives, [the Jew] will declare [the animal] ownerless or transfer ownership of it to the non-Jew in the presence of three [other] Jews. [The rationale:] Because of the three Jews, the matter will be publicized to anyone who knows that the animal belongs to a Jew.47

One may rely on their words in a pressing situation. For example, a Jew who owns fields and cannot [find] a non-Jew [who will undertake] to work them under a sharecropping arrangement unless he also rents oxen with which to plow [to the non-Jew]. He cannot prevent the non-Jew from plowing with them on Shabbos and he cannot place complete responsibility on [the non-Jew for the oxen] even if they appreciate or depreciate [in value] or die because of forces beyond his control, in the manner that will be explained.48 [In such a situation, the Jewish owner] is permitted to declare [the oxen] ownerless in the presence of three [Jews]. It is preferable to instruct him to declare them ownerless in the presence of the town’s Rabbinical judges. They will explain to him the concept of declaring property ownerless, i.e., that it involves wholeheartedly declaring [the oxen] ownerless and not demanding payment for them from the non-Jew even if a loss concerning [the oxen] was caused on Shabbos due to [the non-Jew’s] negligence. [Moreover,] they will publicize the fact that [the oxen] were declared ownerless to everyone, thereby eliminating any concern regarding the impression that may be created.

Similarly, such a practice may be permitted for the sake of a mitzvah, e.g., sending esrogim [to other communities] via an animal [owned by a Jew, that is ridden] by a non-Jew, as will be explained in sec. 655,49 if [the Jewish owner] declares his animal ownerless in the presence of three [Jews. Moreover,] if the above is not possible, [the Jewish owner] may declare his animal ownerless even privately, for when a purpose associated with a mitzvah is involved, no concern is paid to the impression that may arise.

When, however, a purpose associated with a mitzvah is not involved and the situation is not pressing, such a practice should not be permitted as an initial preference. [This applies] even if [the Jewish owner] desires to publicize that he declared the animal ownerless or transferred the ownership of the animal to the non-Jew for the Shabbos day. For it is possible to find many who know of [the animal] being rented or lent out, since that encompasses the entire week, but do not know of [the animal] being declared ownerless, or ownership of it having been transferred, which relates to Shabbos alone. Thus it will appear to them that on Shabbos as well, the animal is merely rented or lent out to the non-Jew, but the animal itself belongs to the Jew, just as it does on all other days of the week.

[Leniency may be granted] when the animal itself has been acquired by the non-Jew, even during the weekdays.50 [This leniency applies] even when [the Jewish owner] did not transfer ownership of the animal in a complete manner to the extent that the [non-Jew] has the prerogative of selling the animal and giving the Jewish owner the money he received for it. Instead, [the Jewish owner] only transferred ownership with regard to its appreciation or depreciation [in value] and [the non-Jew’s] responsibility in the event of its death, i.e., [the Jewish owner] had the animal’s worth evaluated for the non-Jew51 at the time he rented or lent it out to him. If it appreciated in value at the end of the duration of the rental or the loan, the addition in its worth would belong to the non-Jew.52 [Conversely,] if it depreciated in value, [the non-Jew] would be obligated to pay the difference [to the Jewish owner] from his own resources, even though the depreciation came about due to forces beyond his control. Similarly, if the animal died, even as a result of forces beyond his control, [the non-Jew] would be obligated to reimburse [the Jew for it]. Thus the entire profit and loss resulting from this animal are the non-Jew’s, as if it actually belonged to him.

The Jew is therefore no longer commanded that [this animal] rest on Shabbos. Although the actual animal itself is under lien to [the Jew], and thus the non-Jew may not sell it without [the Jew’s] consent, nevertheless, as long as the [animal] is mechuseress guveina,53i.e., [the Jew] has yet to take [the animal] from the non-Jew’s home to his own, it is considered as the non-Jew’s animal.54 For the Jewish [owner] has nothing but a lien on it; all the loss and profit [derived from the animal] belong to the non-Jew.

There is no concern about the impression that may be created, since [the animal] belongs to the non-Jew not only on Shabbos, but throughout the duration of the time it was rented out or lent out, even on the weekdays. This being so, [the situation] resembles one in which a person sells his animal to a non-Jew, and the non-Jew performs labor with it on Shabbos. In such a situation, there is no concern about the impression that could be created, because the matter [of the sale] is public knowledge. Nevertheless, since [in our case] he did not actually sell [the animal] to [the non-Jew, the Jew] should publicize that he carried out [the arrangement] in a permitted fashion.55 For a person should do everything he can to remove any suspicions involving him that might possibly arise.

יא וְכָל זֶה בְּדִיעֲבַד שֶׁכְּבָר הִשְׂכִּירָהּ אוֹ הִשְׁאִילָהּ לְנָכְרִי בְּהֶתֵּר שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנָּה לוֹ קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִלָּה אָסוּר לְהַשְׂכִּירָהּ אוֹ לְהַשְׁאִילָהּ סְתָם עַל סְמַךְ שֶׁכְּשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ42 הַשַּׁבָּת43 יַפְקִירֶנָּה סט אוֹ יַקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ לְהַנָּכְרִי ע לְפִי שֶׁמְּפֻרְסָם לָרַבִּים שֶׁהִיא בֶּהֱמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַהֶפְקֵר וְהַהַקְנָאָה אֵינָן מְפֻרְסָמִים כְּלָל44 וְיֵשׁ כַּאן חֲשַׁשׁ מַרְאִית הָעַיִן. עא,45

וְיֵשׁ מַתִּירִין עב לְהַשְׂכִּיר אוֹ לְהַשְׁאִיל לְכַתְּחִלָּה עַל סְמַךְ שֶׁכְּשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ46 הַשַּׁבָּת יַפְקִירֶנָּה אוֹ יַקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ לְהַנָּכְרִי בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִים שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִים יִתְפַּרְסֵם הַדָּבָר לְכָל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא בֶּהֱמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל.47

וְיֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵיהֶם בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחַק עג כְּגוֹן מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׂדוֹת וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִתְּנָן לְנָכְרִי בַּאֲרִיסוּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יַשְׂכִּיר לוֹ גַּם שְׁוָרִים לַחֲרוֹשׁ בָּהֶם וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְמָנְעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲרוֹשׁ בָּהֶם בְּשַׁבָּת וְגַם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהַטִּיל עָלָיו כָּל אַחֲרָיוּת הַשְּׁוָרִים אַף לְעִנְיַן יֹקֶר וְזוֹל וּמִיתָה בְּאֹנֶס עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר48 אֲזַי יֵשׁ לְהַתִּיר לוֹ שֶׁיַּפְקִירֵם בִּפְנֵי ג' עד וְטוֹב לְהוֹרוֹת לוֹ שֶׁיַּפְקִירֵם בִּפְנֵי דַּיָּנֵי הָעִיר וְהֵם יְפָרְשׁוּ לוֹ עִנְיַן הַהֶפְקֵר שֶׁיַּפְקִירֵם בְּלֵב מָלֵא וְלֹא יִתְבַּע מִן הַנָּכְרִי אֲפִלּוּ אִם עַל יְדֵי פְּשִׁיעוּתוֹ יֶאֱרַע בָּהֶם הֶפְסֵד בְּשַׁבָּת עה וְהֵם יְפַרְסְמוּ הַהֶפְקֵר לַכֹּל שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה חֲשַׁשׁ מַרְאִית הָעַיִן עו וְכֵן יֵשׁ לְהַתִּיר לְצֹרֶךְ מִצְוָה כְּגוֹן לִשְׁלוֹחַ אֶתְרוֹגִים עַל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ עַל יְדֵי נָכְרִי עז עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן תרנ"ה עח,49 אִם מַפְקִיר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַפְקִיר אֲפִלּוּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלִּדְבַר מִצְוָה אֵין לָחוּשׁ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן עט אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ מִצְוָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחַק אֵין לְהַתִּיר לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֲפִלּוּ רוֹצֶה לְפַרְסֵם לָרַבִּים שֶׁמַּפְקִירָהּ אוֹ שֶׁמַּקְנֶה גּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה לְהַנָּכְרִי לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְפִי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמָּצְאוּ הַרְבֵּה שֶׁיּוֹדְעִים מֵהַשְּׂכִירוּת וְהַשְּׁאֵלָה שֶׁהֵן לְכָל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁבוּעַ וְאֵינָן יוֹדְעִים מֵהַהַפְקָר (ה) וְהַהַקְנָאָה פ שֶׁהֵן לְשַׁבָּת בִּלְבָד וְיֵרָאֶה לָהֶם שֶׁגַּם בְּשַׁבָּת הִיא שְׂכוּרָה וּשְׁאוּלָה בִּלְבָד לְהַנָּכְרִי וְגוּף הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ בְּכָל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁבוּעַ. פא

אֲבָל אִם גַּם בִּימוֹת הַחֹל50 גּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה קָנוּי לְהַנָּכְרִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִקְנָה לוֹ קִנְיָן גָּמוּר שֶׁיְּהֵא רְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ לְמָכְרָהּ וְלִתֵּן לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל דָּמֶיהָ אֶלָּא לֹא הִקְנָה אוֹתָהּ לוֹ רַק לְעִנְיַן יֹקֶר וְזוֹל וְאַחֲרָיוּת מִיתָה פב דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁשָּׁם אוֹתָהּ בְּדָמִים לְהַנָּכְרִי51 בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִשְׂכִּירָהּ אוֹ הִשְׁאִילָהּ לוֹ פג וְאִם (ו) תִּתְיַקֵּר בְּסוֹף מֶשֶׁךְ זְמַן שְׂכִירוּתוֹ אוֹ שְׁאִילָתוֹ כְּשֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנָּה לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל יִהְיֶה הָעֹדֶף לְהַנָּכְרִי52 וְאִם תּוּזַל יִתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ הָעֹדֶף מִבֵּיתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָנוּס בְּזוֹל זֶה וְכֵן אִם תָּמוּת אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֹנֶס יִתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם וְנִמְצָא רֶוַח בְּהֵמָה זוֹ וְחֶסְרוֹנָהּ הַכֹּל לְנָכְרִי כְּאִלּוּ הָיְתָה בְּהֶמְתּוֹ מַמָּשׁ לְפִיכָךְ אֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ שֶׁאַף שֶׁגּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה מְשֻׁעְבָּד לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יוּכַל הַנָּכְרִי לְמָכְרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ מִכָּל מָקוֹם כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא מְחֻסֶּרֶת גּוּבַיְנָא53 שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא גָבָה אוֹתָהּ מִבֵּית הַנָּכְרִי לְבֵיתוֹ הֲרֵי הִיא כְּבֶהֱמַת הַנָּכְרִי פד,54 כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא שִׁעְבּוּד בְּעָלְמָא פה וְכָל חֶסְרוֹנָהּ וְרִוְחָהּ לְהַנָּכְרִי.

וְאֵין לָחוּשׁ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת לְבָד אֶלָּא בְּכָל זְמַן מֶשֶׁךְ שְׂכִירוּתוֹ אוֹ שְׁאִילוּתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בִּימוֹת הַחֹל אִם כֵּן הֲרֵי זֶה דוֹמֶה לְמוֹכֵר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְנָכְרִי וְהַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁאֵין שָׁם חֲשַׁשׁ מַרְאִית הָעַיִן לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ פִּרְסוּם לַדָּבָר וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרָהּ לוֹ מַמָּשׁ (ז) יֵשׁ לוֹ לְפַרְסֵם לָרַבִּים שֶׁעָשָׂה דֶּרֶךְ הֶתֵּר פו,55 שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת לְהוֹצִיא אֶת עַצְמוֹ מִידֵי חֲשָׁד יֵשׁ לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת: פז

12 Similarly, [the Jewish owner] may rent or lend out [an animal] to a non-Jew [in the following manner]: He should warn [the non-Jew] not to perform work with it on Shabbos, [telling him that] if he violates this stipulation and performs work [with the animal on Shabbos], it is acquired by him for the Shabbos day, and he is obligated for any losses incurred on Shabbos, [even]by forces beyond his control. [The Jewish owner] should have [this agreement] written up [and certified] by the non-Jewish legal authorities. Thus, should the non-Jew perform labor with [the animal] on Shabbos, it is not the Jew’s animal at all, because the non-Jew already acquired it to the extent that he is liable for losses incurred on Shabbos, [even]by forces beyond his control. Even though [the non-Jew] acquires it only for Shabbos, there is no concern about the impression that may be created. [The rationale:] Since [the agreement is formalized by] a written document composed by the secular legal authorities, the matter will be publicized and made known.

יב וְכֵן יָכוֹל לְהַשְׂכִּירָהּ אוֹ לְהַשְׁאִילָהּ לְנָכְרִי עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיַּזְהִיר אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְאִם שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹר עַל תְּנָאוֹ וְיַעֲשֶׂה אֲזַי הִיא קְנוּיָה לוֹ לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְיִתְחַיֵּב בְּאֹנָסִין שֶׁיֶּאֶרְעוּ לָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת וְיִכְתּוֹב כֵּן בְּעַרְכָּאוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁנִּמְצָא כְּשֶׁבָּא הַנָּכְרִי לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת אֵינָהּ בֶּהֱמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּלָל שֶׁהֲרֵי קְנָאָהּ הַנָּכְרִי לְהִתְחַיֵּב בְּאֹנָסֶיהָ פח וְאַף שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְנוּיָה לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּשַׁבָּת בִּלְבָד אֵין לָחוּשׁ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּתַב כֵּן בְּעַרְכָּאוֹתֵיהֶם יֵשׁ לַדָּבָר קוֹל וּפִרְסוּם: פט

13 When a Jew and a non-Jew are partners in [the ownership of] an animal that is used for grinding [grain] in a mill or the like, it is permitted for the non-Jew to perform work with it on Shabbos [under the following conditions]: Initially, at the time they purchase [the animal], the Jew should stipulate with the non-Jew that all of the profits for Shabbos will belong to the non-Jew alone, and, in compensation, the Jew alone will receive all the profits for one of the weekdays. When such an agreement is made at the beginning of their partnership, the entire animal itself is considered to be owned by [the non-Jew] alone on the Shabbasos and by the Jew alone on another day. The Jewish [partner] has no portion in the animal on the Shabbasos and he is not obligated to have it rest on those [Shabbos] days. If, afterwards, on his own accord, the non-Jew agrees to divide all of the profits equally with [the Jewish partner], this is permitted,56 as stated in sec. 245[:4].

Even if the responsibility for the animal57 during all the days of the week — even on Shabbos — is shared equally by them, the Jewish [partner] is not commanded that [the animal] rest on Shabbos, despite the fact that he shares responsibility for the animal on Shabbos. Since [the Jewish partner] stipulated with [the non-Jew] that [the non-Jew] alone will receive all the fees for Shabbos, the animal is considered as his alone on Shabbos, and the Jewish [partner] does not have a share in it at all [on that day]. The fact that [the Jewish partner shares in] the responsibility [for the animal on Shabbos]58 is an [additional] stipulation that the Jewish [partner] grantedthe non-Jew as a financial benefit [beyond what was obligatory], for on Shabbos, [by right, the animal and its responsibility] belongs to the non-Jew. The non-Jew [on his part] made an additional stipulation granting a financial benefit to the Jew [beyond what was obligatory] by sharing in the responsibility [for the animal] on one day during the week when the animal belongs to the Jew.

יג יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָכְרִי שֶׁהֵם שֻׁתָּפִים בִּבְהֵמָה לִטְחוֹן בָּרֵחַיִם וְכַיּוֹצֵא יֵשׁ הֶתֵּר שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיַּתְנֶה עִם הַנָּכְרִי בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁקְּנָאוּהָ שֶׁיִּטּוֹל הַנָּכְרִי כָּל שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת בִּלְבַדּוֹ וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל יִטּוֹל כְּנֶגֶד זֶה כָּל שְׂכַר יוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל בִּלְבַדּוֹ שֶׁכְּשֶׁמַּתְנֶה עִמּוֹ כֵּן בִּתְחִלַּת הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְנֶה לוֹ בִּלְבַדּוֹ כָּל גּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה לְשַׁבָּתוֹת וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַדּוֹ בְּיוֹם אַחֵר וְאֵין לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת צ וְאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ וְאִם אַחַר כָּךְ נִתְרַצָּה הַנָּכְרִי מֵאֵלָיו לַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ כָּל הַשָּׂכָר בְּשָׁוֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר צא,56 כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ"ה. צב

וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם אַחֲרָיוּת הַבְּהֵמָה57 הוּא עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּשָׁוֶה כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁבוּעַ אֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ מֵחֲמַת שֶׁאַחֲרָיוּתָהּ גַּם עָלָיו בְּשַׁבָּת כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיִּטּוֹל כָּל שְׂכַר הַשַּׁבָּת לְעַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי הִיא קְנוּיָה לוֹ בִּלְבַדּוֹ לְשַׁבָּת וְאֵין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק בָּהּ כְּלָל וּמַה שֶּׁאַחֲרָיוּתָהּ58 גַּם עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל זֶהוּ תְּנַאי אַחַר שֶׁהִרְוִיחַ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְהַנָּכְרִי מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְקִבֵּל גַּם עָלָיו אַחֲרָיוּת הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁאָז הִיא שֶׁל הַנָּכְרִי וְהַנָּכְרִי הִרְוִיחַ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְקִבֵּל גַּם עָלָיו אַחֲרָיוֹת יוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל שֶׁאָז הִיא שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל: צג

14 If [the Jewish partner] did not make such a stipulation at the beginning of the partnership, he should not do so afterwards. True, even in such a situation, there is no prohibition [in having the animal perform work on Shabbos] because ofthe commandment to have one’s animal rest on Shabbos. For, in this situation, the Jewish [partner] is forced to accept that the non-Jew will not refrain from performing work with [the animal on Shabbos], since they already established the partnership and [the non-Jew] has a share in [the animal].59 Nevertheless, [the Jewish partner] is prohibited from taking the profits for one of the weekdays in return for those of Shabbos, for then he is taking profits for Shabbos without them being combined with those of the other days, as stated in sec. 245[:6].

In such a situation, when a stipulation was not made at the outset, rather than telling him: “You take the profits for Shabbos and I will take them for a weekday,” it is preferable60 for [the Jewish partner] to divide the entire weekly profits equally with [the non-Jew], for then he receives the Shabbos profits in combination with those of other days. Nevertheless, even this license is granted only when a great loss is involved. [In such a situation, the arrangement is permitted even]61 if the non-Jew must perform labor on Shabbos with the animal and the Jewish partner must work in compensation for this on a weekday, as stated in the above source.62

יד וְאִם לֹא הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ כֵּן בִּתְחִלַּת הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת לֹא יַתְנֶה עִמּוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁאַף אִם עַכְשָׁו אֵין כַּאן אִסּוּר מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי עַכְשָׁו אֵין הַנָּכְרִי נִמְנָע מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ מְלָאכָה בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּבָר נִשְׁתַּתֵּף וְיֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּהּ59 מִכָּל מָקוֹם יֵשׁ אִסּוּר בְּמַה שֶּׁנּוֹטֵל רֶוַח יוֹם אֶחָד בְּחֹל כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁהֲרֵי נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת שֶׁלֹּא בְהַבְלָעָה צד כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ"ה צה וּבִכְגוֹן זֶה שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִלָּה יוֹתֵר יֵשׁ הֶתֵּר60 כְּשֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר לוֹ כְּלָל טֹל אַתָּה בְּשַׁבָּת וַאֲנִי בְּחֹל אֶלָּא יַחֲלוֹק עִמּוֹ כָּל הָרֶוַח שֶׁל כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁבוּעַ בְּשָׁוֶה שֶׁאָז הוּא נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת בְּהַבְלָעָה צו אֶלָּא שֶׁגַּם זֶה אֵין לְהַתִּיר אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם הֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל צז אִם61 גַּם הַנָּכְרִי בְּעַצְמוֹ צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת עִם הַבְּהֵמָה וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל יַעֲשֶׂה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּחֹל כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם:62

15 [Moreover,] even when a great loss is involved or even when [the Jewish partner] does not desire to receive anything during the week to compensate for [the profits the non-Jew received on] Shabbos, [there is a halachic issue with the non-Jew performing work with the animal on Shabbos. True,]in such an instance, there is no prohibition for receiving the profits of Shabbos, nor for not having the animal rest on Shabbos, becausethe Jewish [partner] is forced to accept [the fact] that the non-Jew will not refrain from performing work with [the animal on Shabbos]. Nevertheless, retroactively, a prohibition is involved, due to the fact that [the Jew] entered into a partnership with a non-Jew concerning an animal with which the non-Jew will perform labor on Shabbos against the will [of the Jewish partner].

[The Jewish partner] can correct the situation [in a number of ways, for example,] by stipulating with [the non-Jew] that if he performs labor with [the animal] on Shabbos, he will acquire it for the Shabbos day and become liable for any [loss] that occurs on Shabbos, [even] due to factors beyond his control. [The Jew] must draw up [a contract stating this], as explained above.63 Alternatively, he may transfer ownership [of the animal to the non-Jew] with regard to its appreciation or depreciation and his responsibility for it in the event of death due to forces beyond his control, as explained above.64

Alternatively, he may sell his share [to the non-Jew] in a completely binding transaction that, nevertheless, prevents the non-Jew from selling it without [the Jewish partner’s] consent. For example, instead of accepting payment for the animal, the Jewish partner] will consider the money owed to him as a loan that must be repaid when he requests payment. The non-Jew must then establish the animal as an apotiki for the debt. [That term implies that] as long as [the non-Jew] does not pay the debt with money, he can only satisfy the obligation by giving [the Jew his appropriate share in] this animal.65 Therefore, as long as [the non-Jew] has not given [the Jew] the money owed, [the non-Jew] may not sell [the animal] without the Jew’s consent. Nevertheless, [when the non-Jew performs work with the animal on Shabbos, the Jew] does not transgress because the animal did not rest on Shabbos, since, as of yet, he did not take possession of this animal as payment (for the debt). [Thus, he does not own it; his claim to it] is no more than a lien he has on it.

[This is another way that — after selling his share to the non-Jew — the Jewish partner can prevent the non-Jew from selling the animal without his consent.] If he desires, he may take the animal to his home as security and consider its value owed to him as a loan, and tell [the non-Jew]: “If you will not pay me my share of the animal with money when I demand it, [that share of] the animal will be acquired by me at that time as collection of my debt.” He may then give the non-Jew the animal to work with.

[Under this arrangement,] as long as [the non-Jew] does not give [the Jew] the money, [the non-Jew] may not sell [the animal] without [the Jew’s] consent. Nevertheless, [when the non-Jew performs work with the animal on Shabbos, the Jew] does not transgress because the animal did not rest on Shabbos,as long as he does not demand payment and thus does not acquire the animal in payment [for the debt].

[Such an agreement is acceptable,] provided [the Jew] does not tell [the non-Jew]: “If you do not pay me my share with money when I demand payment from you, [the appropriate share in the animal] will retroactively be acquired by me.” [Under such an agreement,] when he demands payment for his share from [the non-Jew] at the time of the division [of the assets and profits of the partnership], or when there is a loss [to the animal], or when the non-Jew desires to sell it, should [the non-Jew] not repay the money, [the animal] will have been owned retroactively by the Jew [for the entire time]. Thus he will have [retroactively] transgressed by not having his animal rest on Shabbos.66

טו וְגַם בִּמְקוֹם הֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לִטּוֹל כְּלָל בְּחֹל כְּנֶגֶד הַשַּׁבָּת אַף שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר מִשּׁוּם שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי אֵינוֹ נִמְנָע מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִכָּל מָקוֹם יֵשׁ אִסּוּר לְמַפְרֵעַ בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם הַנָּכְרִי בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ צח וְיֵשׁ תִּקּוּן לְזֶה עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיַּתְנֶה עִמּוֹ שֶׁאִם יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת אֲזַי הִיא קְנוּיָה לוֹ לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְיִתְחַיֵּב בָּאֹנָסִין שֶׁיֶּאֶרְעוּ בְּשַׁבָּת וְיִכְתּוֹב כֵּן צט כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְמַעְלָה ק,63 אוֹ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיַּקְנֶה לוֹ גַּם חֶלְקוֹ לְעִנְיַן יֹקֶר וְזוֹל וּמִיתָה בְּאֹנֶס קא כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְמַעְלָה. קב,64

אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יִמְכּוֹר לוֹ חֶלְקוֹ בִּמְכִירָה גְמוּרָה קג וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא יוּכַל הַנָּכְרִי לְמָכְרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּזְקוֹף עָלָיו הַדָּמִים בְּמִלְוָה שֶׁיִּפְרָעֵם לוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ וְיַחֲזוֹר הַנָּכְרִי וְיַעֲשֶׂה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה זוֹ אַפּוֹתִּיקִי לְחוֹבוֹ קד דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא יִפְרַע לוֹ חוֹבוֹ בְּמָעוֹת לֹא יוּכַל לְסַלְּקוֹ בְּדָבָר אַחֵר כִּי אִם בִּבְהֵמָה זוֹ קה,65 וּלְפִיכָךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְמָכְרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא גָבָה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּהֵמָה זוֹ לְפֵרָעוֹן (חוֹבוֹ) וְאֵין לוֹ עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא שִׁעְבּוּד בְּעָלְמָא.

וְאִם הוּא רוֹצֶה יָכוֹל לִקַּח הַבְּהֵמָה לְבֵיתוֹ לְמַשְׁכּוֹן קו לְאַחַר שֶׁזָּקַף עָלָיו הַדָּמִים בְּמִלְוָה וְיֹאמַר לוֹ אִם לֹא תִפְרָעֵנִי חֶלְקִי בְּמָעוֹת כְּשֶׁאֶתְבָּעֲךָ תְּהֵא בְּהֵמָה זוֹ קְנוּיָה לִי אָז לְהִפָּרַע מִמֶּנָּה חוֹבִי וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן לוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה לַעֲבוֹד בָּהּ קז וּלְפִיכָךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְמָכְרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא תְבָעוֹ וְלֹא נִקְנֵית לוֹ לְפֵרָעוֹן וּבִלְבָד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר לוֹ מֵעַכְשָׁו תְּהֵא קְנוּיָה לִי אִם לֹא תִפְרָעֵנִי חֶלְקִי בְּמָעוֹת כְּשֶׁאֶתְבָּעֲךָ קח לְפִי שֶׁכְּשֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ חֶלְקוֹ בִּשְׁעַת חֲלֻקָּה אוֹ כְּשֶׁיֶּאֱרַע בָּהּ הֶפְסֵד אוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה הַנָּכְרִי לְמָכְרָהּ וְלֹא יִפְרַע לוֹ בְּמָעוֹת נִמְצָא שֶׁלְּמַפְרֵעַ הָיְתָה קְנוּיָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל קט וְעָבַר עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ:66

16 Whether or not the animal was designated as an apotiki and whether or not it was taken as security, [even] if [the Jewish partner] sold [the animal] to [the non-Jew] in a completely binding sale, so that he would [even] have permission to sell it without [the Jewish partner’s] consent, as long as [the non-Jew] has not sold it, he and [the Jew] are partners in [the ownership of the animal], and there is reason for concern about the impression that might be created. Hence, [the Jewish partner] should make it known publicly that he [enabled the non-Jew to use the animal on Shabbos] in a permitted manner.67

טז וּבֵין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָה אַפּוֹתִּיקִי וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא עֲשָׂאָהּ וּבֵין שֶׁנְּטָלָהּ לְמַשְׁכּוֹן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא נְטָלָהּ אֶלָּא מְכָרָהּ לוֹ בִּמְכִירָה גְמוּרָה שֶׁיְּהֵא רְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ לְמָכְרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרָהּ הֵם שֻׁתָּפִים בָּהּ וְיֵשׁ חֲשַׁשׁ מַרְאִית עַיִן לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לוֹ לְפַרְסֵם לָרַבִּים שֶׁעָשָׂה דֶּרֶךְ הֶתֵּר: קי,67

17 The license [to enable the non-Jew to use an animal to work on Shabbos when the Jew transfers ownership to a non-Jew and then] designates it as an apotiki or takes it as security, also applies when the animal is owned entirely by the Jew and he rents or lends it out to a non-Jew. [The Jew] must, however, make it known publicly that he did so in a permitted manner.

יז הֶתֵּר זֶה שֶׁל עֲשִׂיַּת אַפּוֹתִּיקִי אוֹ שֶׁיִּטְּלָהּ לְמַשְׁכּוֹן מוֹעִיל אַף כְּשֶׁכָּל הַבְּהֵמָה הִיא שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַשְׂכִּירָהּ אוֹ מַשְׁאִילָהּ לְנָכְרִי רַק שֶׁיְּפַרְסֵם שֶׁעָשָׂה דֶּרֶךְ הֶתֵּר: קיא

18 When does the above apply? When [the Jew] rents it or lends it out to a non-Jew [on Shabbos] to enable [the non-Jew] to perform his own work. There is, by contrast, no license at all [to rent or lend it out to a non-Jew] to perform work on behalf of the Jew on Shabbos. [This applies] even if he sells [the animal] to [the non-Jew] in a completely binding sale, for regardless [of who owns the animal], the non-Jew is performing work for the sake of the Jew on Shabbos. [Leniency is granted only when the Jew] determines a fixed wage for [the non-Jew’s] work.68 Similarly, [there is a difficulty] if [the Jew] hires [the non-Jew] to perform all necessary tasks for the [entire] year, in which instance, the laws are the same as if he did not determine a fixed wage, as explained in sec. 243[:3] and sec. 244[:9-11].

[Leniency may be granted,] however, if [the non-Jew] is hired by the Jew for one particular task, which he is to perform whenever necessary for the duration of his hire.69 For example, a Jew owns a horse and wagon and hires a non-Jew for a year to serve as the driver whenever it is necessary to transport merchandise with them during that year. The non-Jew travels [with the horse and wagon not only during the week, but] on Shabbos as well, [doing so] on his own initiative, without the Jew telling him to do so. [In such an instance,] the Jew need not tell the non-Jew not to travel on Shabbos,as long as he leaves the Jew’s home while it is still day [on Friday], for the reason explained in sec. 244[:9].70 [The Jewish owner] must, however, sell the non-Jew [the horses] using one of the arrangements explained [above], and [furthermore,] make it known publicly that he [enabled the non-Jew to use them on Shabbos] in a permitted manner.

[The above applies] provided the horses are owned by the non-Jew on the weekdays as well for the duration of his journey. If, however, he transfers ownership [of the horses] only for the Shabbasos, [then the above arrangement] is forbidden because of the impression that may be created, as explained above.71

Similarly, [the arrangement is forbidden] if [the Jewish owner] also travels with the horses on all of the weekdays and he provides for their sustenance. They are [then] considered as his, even though he sold them to the non-Jew in a completely binding sale that included even the weekdays, for [it appears to all] that the non-Jew is only his worker. Therefore, because of the impression that may be created, he must admonish [the non-Jew] not to travel on Shabbos.

יח בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁמַּשְׂכִּירָהּ אוֹ מַשְׁאִילָהּ לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלֶאכֶת עַצְמוֹ אֲבָל לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלֶאכֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשַׁבָּת אֵין הֶתֵּר כְּלָל אֲפִלּוּ אִם מְכָרָהּ לוֹ בִּמְכִירָה גְמוּרָה שֶׁמִּכָּל מָקוֹם הַנָּכְרִי עוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת בִּשְׁבִיל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל קיב אִם לֹא קָצַץ לוֹ שָׂכָר עַל זֶה68 וְכֵן אִם הוּא שְׂכִירוֹ לְשָׁנָה לְכָל הַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ שֶׁדִּינוֹ כְּאִלּוּ לֹא קָצַץ כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ"ג קיג וְרמ"ד קידאֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ שָׂכוּר לוֹ אֶלָּא לִמְלָאכָה זוֹ בִּלְבָד לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ לוֹ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֶשֶׁךְ זְמַן שְׂכִירוּתוֹ קטו,69 כְּגוֹן מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סוּסִים וַעֲגָלָה וְשָׂכַר לוֹ נָכְרִי לְשָׁנָה שֶׁיִּסַּע עִם סוּסִים וַעֲגָלָה שֶׁלּוֹ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ לְהוֹלִיךְ בָּהֶם סְחוֹרָה בְּתוֹךְ שָׁנָה זוֹ וְהַנָּכְרִי נוֹסֵעַ גַּם בְּשַׁבָּת מֵעַצְמוֹ בְּלֹא אֲמִירַת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִסַּע בְּשַׁבָּת אִם נוֹסֵעַ מִבֵּית הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם קטז מִטַּעַם שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ"ד קיז,70 רַק שֶׁיַּקְנֶה לוֹ הַסּוּסִים בְּאֶחָד מֵהַדְּרָכִים שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֲרוּ וִיפַרְסֵם שֶׁעָשָׂה דֶּרֶךְ הֶתֵּר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ קְנוּיִים לוֹ גַּם בִּימוֹת הַחֹל בְּתוֹךְ מֶשֶׁךְ זְמַן נְסִיעָתוֹ אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ מַקְנֶה לוֹ אֶלָּא לְשַׁבָּת בִּלְבָד אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְמַעְלָה קיח,71 וְכֵן אִם הוּא עַצְמוֹ נוֹסֵעַ גַּם כֵּן עִם הַסּוּסִים כָּל יְמוֹת הַחֹל וּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם עָלָיו הֲרֵי הֵם נִקְרָאִים עַל שְׁמוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּכָרָם לְהַנָּכְרִי בִּמְכִירָה גְמוּרָה אַף לִימוֹת הַחֹל כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכִירוֹ וּלְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ הוּא לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִסַּע בְּשַׁבָּת מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן: קיט

19 Just as a person is obligated to have his animals rest on Shabbos, so too is he obligated to have them rest on festivals.72 Therefore, all of the detailed laws that were explained with regard to lending or renting out an animal to a non-Jew [on Shabbos]or [engaging] in a partnership with him on Shabbos also apply on the festivals. For there is no difference between [the observance of] the festivals and [that of] Shabbos except [for the license to perform] those labors permitted because [they involve the preparation of] food, as it is written:73 “No work shall be performed on them, except for what will be eaten by any person….”

There are authorities who maintain that on a festival, a person is not commanded by Scriptural Law to have his animal rest. For with regard to festivals, we were commanded only not to perform labor [ourselves. Work] performed by our animals, by contrast, is not considered as our labor, only [the labor] of the animals. Even with regard to Shabbos, the prohibition [against having an animal perform work] is not derived from the prohibition:74 “Do not perform any work,” for [the animal’s work] is not at all considered as our labor. Instead, [the requirement that our animals rest] is mandated by another mitzvah:75 “So that your ox and your donkey may rest.” This charge does not apply to festivals at all.

A similar ruling applies with regard to having one’s bondman76 rest; according to these authorities, this [obligation] does not apply on festivals, because [their performance of labor] is not included in the labor [forbidden to us]. Instead, [on Shabbos, they may not be compelled to work, because of] another mitzvah:77 “So that your maidservant and your bondman may rest as you do.”

With regard to actual practice, one should be stringent and follow the first opinion, [since] a Scriptural command is involved. (See sec. 495[:11].)78

יט כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָדָם מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת כָּךְ הוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב קכ,72 לְפִיכָךְ כָּל פְּרָטֵי הַהֲלָכוֹת שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֲרוּ לְעִנְיַן שְׁאֵלָה וּשְׂכִירוּת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְנָכְרִי וְשֻׁתָּפוּת עִמּוֹ גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת הֵן נוֹהֲגִים גַּם כֵּן גַּבֵּי יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁאֵין בֵּין יוֹם טוֹב לְשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהֻתְּרוּ בִּגְלַל אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר קכא,73 כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶם אַךְ אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל לְכָל נֶפֶשׁ וְגוֹ'.

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםקכב שֶׁבְּיוֹם טוֹב אֵין אָדָם מְצֻוֶּה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִצְטַוִּינוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּמַה שֶּׁבְּהֶמְתֵּנוּ עוֹשָׂה אֵין זוֹ נִקְרֵאת מְלָאכָה אֶצְלֵנוּ אֶלָּא אֵצֶל הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַף בְּשַׁבָּת לֹא לָמַדְנוּ אִסּוּר זֶה מִמַּה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר 74 לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵין זוֹ מְלָאכָה כְּלָל אֶצְלֵנוּ אֶלָּא מִצְוָה אַחֶרֶת הִיא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר קכג,75 לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ וְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּיוֹם טוֹב כְּלָל קכד וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁבִיתַת עַבְדּוֹ76 שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּיוֹם טוֹב לְפִי דִבְרֵיהֶם קכה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּכְלַל מְלָאכָה אֶלָּא מִצְוָה אַחֶרֶת הִיא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר קכו,77 לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ כָּמוֹךָ. וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה כִּסְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה (עַיֵּן סִמָּן תצ"ה קכז):78

Footnotes
1.
Shabbos 18a.
2.
In that section, the Alter Rebbe speaks about clothes being dyed or perfumed, or traps being set for catching animals, when, on Friday, the person completes everything necessary for the activity to be performed and then it is performed as a matter of course on Shabbos. For example, the traps are fully set on Friday and the animals are trapped on Shabbos without any labor being performed by the trapper.
3.
In that source, the Alter Rebbe explains that when it is a matter of public knowledge that an entity belongs to a Jew, a non-Jew may not perform work with it on Shabbos,unless it is common practice for such an article to be rented out to a contractor.
4.
E.g., clothes.
5.
In that section, the Alter Rebbe discusses in detail the concept of receiving payment for rental of property for Shabbos when combined with payment for other days.
6.
And thus no separate payment is being made for Shabbos.
7.
Since the non-Jew would pay less (or not rent the article at all) if the Jew did not allow him to use the article on Shabbos, it is as if the Jew is instructing him to use it on Shabbos. See Kuntreis Acharon to sec. 252, note 6.
8.
See sec. 247:7, which brings another example of a restriction enacted with regard to renting on Friday.
9.
I.e., without charge.
10.
E.g., a mill, a plow, or the like, as mentioned in the previous subsection.
11.
See, however, the following subsection, which states that the article should not be lent out very close to the commencement of Shabbos.
12.
This restriction applies even to articles with which work is not performed.
13.
See Shabbos 18b.
14.
If, however, the non-Jew has time to leave the Jew’s domain while it is still day, it is permitted to lend him articles. Indeed, it is even permitted under certain conditions to instruct him to deliver the articles or to sell articles to him (see sec. 247:1; sec. 252:3).
15.
As explained in sec. 345:11, according to Scriptural Law, a public domain is defined as a thoroughfare that is at least sixteen cubits by sixteen cubits. According to the lenient view mentioned there, at least 600,000 people must pass through that thoroughfare daily. Many thoroughfares do not meet these criteria. Accordingly, the communal space of such locales is considered a karmelis, in which it is forbidden to carry only according to Rabbinic Law.
16.
The entire town is then considered a single, private domain, in which one may freely carry.
17.
This leniency applies even to articles with which work can be performed, as long as the non-Jew intends to perform the work for his own benefit and not for the benefit of the Jew.
18.
As such, the observer will not suspect that the Jewish owner had the non-Jew transfer the article for him on Shabbos.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 1), the Alter Rebbe clarifies his ruling in the main text, in which he allows an article to be lent to a non-Jew even after nightfall in a city encompassed by an eruv if the non-Jew lives in the area encompassed by the eruv or if he lives far enough away that an observer who sees him leave the Jew’s home will not see him depart from the area encompassed by the eruv. In that note, the Alter Rebbe states that although the wording of Magen Avraham 246:6 and Turei Zahav 246:3 appear to run contrary to the latter point, their statements can be reconciled with this understanding.
19.
2,000 cubits from the borders of the town, beyond which it is forbidden to proceed on the Shabbos, according to Rabbinic Law. Similarly, a person’s articles may not be taken beyond these limits. See sections 396-397.
20.
The time between the setting of the sun and the appearance of three stars. At the beginning of this time period, the prohibitions associated with the Shabbos take effect.
21.
See sec. 397:3.
22.
The definition of the Shabbos limits as 2000 cubits is a Rabbinic decree. According to some opinions (see 396:1, 404:2), that is a Rabbinic safeguard and according to Scriptural Law, the Shabbos limits are 12 mil (24,000 cubits). These limits apply, however, only to the person himself, He is not obligated to keep his articles within these limits.
23.
See sec. 305:37-38.
24.
The Jewish owner may not, however, tell the non-Jew to take the article beyond the Shabbos limits, as stated in the following note.
25.
In the main text, the Alter Rebbe states that the halachah follows the view that grants permission to hand over an article or livestock to a non-Jew with the knowledge that he will carry or lead it beyond its Shabbos limits. This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion among the halachic authorities. In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 2), the Alter Rebbe explains the basis of his lenient ruling in the main text. He clarifies, however, that the leniency involves only giving an article or an animal to a non-Jew when the non-Jew takes it beyond the Shabbos limits on his own initiative. It is forbidden to instruct a non-Jew to take an article beyond its Shabbos limits. For this reason, when one employs a non-Jew as the shepherd of his animals, there is reason to give weight to the more stringent opinions when one knows that the non-Jew will take the animals to pasture beyond the Shabbos limits. For by not forbidding him from doing so, the Jew is considered as having given the non-Jewish shepherd implicit instructions to take his animals beyond those limits.

The latter explanation enables the resolution of an apparent con- tradiction between the Alter Rebbe’s lenient ruling here and his more stringent ruling in sec. 305:38, which concerns a shepherd.
26.
See the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Halvaah, subsection 17. See also sec. 252:3 and the glosses of the Kuntreis Acharon to that subsection which deal with related issues.
27.
On Shabbos, when a Jew gives a non-Jew an article and charges him with performing a task, even if the non-Jew has the option of performing the task whenever he desires, since he was charged with the performance of the task on Shabbos, it is as if the Jew instructed him to perform the task on Shabbos (see sec. 247:1). Moreover, even if the Jew specifically tells the non-Jew not to perform the task on Shabbos, he is violating the prohibition against involvement in one’s ordinary mundane activities, as stated in sec. 306.
28.
And not before nightfall on Friday.
29.
This leniency applies even in a locale where there is no eruv.
30.
Since the non-Jew is motivated entirely by his own self-interest and his own object is involved, there is no reason for any restrictions. See also sec. 307:35.
31.
Avodah Zarah 15a. See Bach 246:4.
32.
Shmos 23:12; see Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbos 5:3. This is not considered as an independent Scriptural commandment. Instead, the scope of the positive commandment to rest on Shabbos also includes having one’s animals rest on that day. See sec. 305:1, which elaborates with regard to this prohibition, emphasizing that having one’s animal carry anything that it does not normally wear into the public domain constitutes a violation of this prohibition.
33.
By renting the animal, the non-Jewish renter is not considered to have acquired it, even during the time it is rented. See note 36, which explains Kuntreis Acharon (note 3).
34.
In that source, the Alter Rebbe explains that since the animal was rented or lent to the non-Jew with the understanding that he will work with it, and Shabbos is included in the days that he is rented or borrowing it, the non-Jew does not consider performing work with it on Shabbos to be such a severe breach of the terms of their agreement.
35.
Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.
36.
Although it is desirable to act stringently, there is no obligation to do so, because, according to halachah, renting out an animal is not considered equivalent to acquiring it. In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 3), the Alter Rebbe elaborates in explanation of this concept, citing Avodah Zarah 15a, which states that an Israelite who rents an animal from a kohen is permitted to feed it kernels of grain that are terumah. Now, a kohen may feed his animals terumah, but an Israelite may not feed his own animals such grain. Thus, the fact that the Israelite is permitted to feed the animal terumah indicates that even while it is rented to the Israelite, it is still owned by the kohen. Similarly, in the situation at hand, even though the animal is rented to the Jew, it is still owned by the non-Jew, and thus the Jew has no obligation to make sure that it rests on Shabbos. Therefore, when he subsequently lends it to another non-Jew, he has no responsibility when the animal works on Shabbos.

Although that ruling is accepted as halachah, the Alter Rebbe nevertheless rules that it is preferable to be stringent, and not rent out or lend a rented animal to a non-Jew. See also the Kuntreis Acharon (note 1) to sec. 266, which touches on this issue.
37.
See Shabbos 18b, which offers such a suggestion with regard to utensils. Although this declaration is inadequate according to Rabbinic Law, it is acceptable in this instance, as the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain.
38.
I.e., the prohibition against having his animal work on Shabbos.
39.
In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 4), the Alter Rebbe cites his statements in his Kuntreis Acharon to sec. 445 (note 1). In that note, he discusses whether it can be said — as maintained here in the main text — that when a Jew declares an object ownerless so as not to transgress a Scriptural command, he is doing so with a full heart. There is reason to say that when an object is not declared ownerless in the presence of three Jews, or when an object is declared ownerless only for a limited time, the relinquishment of ownership is not considered as valid. It is only when there is no alternative that our Sages accepted such a declaration as valid. See Dover Shalom, pp. 93-96, which attempts to resolve the apparent contradictions between the Alter Rebbe’s statements here and those in sec. 445 (and in his Seder Mechiras Chometz).
40.
This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Choshen Mishpat 273:10).In that source, the Shulchan Aruch states that if a person declares property ownerless for a specific period of time — a day, a month, or a year — another person may take possession of it during that time.
41.
A kinyan, a formal contractual act, is necessary to transfer ownership, and a statement of intent is not effective. In this instance, it is problematic why the Jew’s statement brings about the transfer of ownership. It cannot be said that the non-Jew acquires the animal because of its presence in his domain, because as stated in sec. 448:11, unlike a Jew, a non-Jew does not acquire an object because of its presence in his domain. {In the case of a Jew, the domain is considered as an agent (shliach), and therefore, an article can be acquired by virtue of its presence in his domain. The concept of agency does not apply, however, with regard to a non-Jew.} See Yad Efraim to Magen Avraham 246:10; Zichron Yosef (Pak) 185-6. Dvar HaHisachdus 46:53quotes Tzemach Tzedek, Orach Chayim 34:3, who maintains that if the non-Jew is standing next to the domain, the domain acquires the animal for him.
42.
I.e., before.
43.
As the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain, the problem is not that the Jew might forget to declare the animal ownerless, but rather that there is a difficulty regarding the impression that might be created.
44.
Indeed, were the animal to remain in the domain of the Jew, such a renouncement of ownership would not be effective (Kuntreis Acharon, sec. 445, note 1).
45.
Nevertheless, if the person transgressed and renounced his ownership over the animal, the renouncement of ownership is effective. We assume that he renounced his ownership with a full heart so that he would not violate the prohibition against having his animal work on Shabbos, as stated in subsection 9.
46.
I.e., before.
47.
Thus, the issue of maris ayin, the impression that might be created, will not arise.
48.
As explained later in the subsection, if the non-Jew accepts such responsibility, it is as if he owns the animal.
49.
This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. In previous eras, esrogim and lulavim were very difficult to obtain in Eastern Europe. Often, there was only one set of the four species for an entire area. The set would be taken from village to village by a non-Jew.

See Turei Zahav 655:2, which states that in an area where there is only one esrog, an esrog maybe transported from town to town by a non-Jew on the festival of Sukkos, even though he is transporting it beyond the town’s Shabbos limits. However, he does not allow it to be transported on Shabbos. Tzemach Tzedek Kadmon (responsum 35) allows transporting the esrog on horsebackif one declares the animal ownerless. This license is granted even though the animal on which the non-Jew rides belongs to a Jew and the non-Jew is no more than a simple porter.
50.
In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 5), the Alter Rebbe focuses on his statement in the main text that, as an initial preference, it is forbidden for a Jew to transfer ownership to a non-Jew only for Shabbos. Nevertheless, leniency may be granted if he transfers ownership for the weekdays as well. The source for that distinction is taken from Magen Avraham 246:9, based on a responsum from the Tzemach Tzedek Kadmon (responsum 35). The Alter Rebbe explains that the reason for the leniency is that when the transfer of ownership is made only for Shabbos, there is a question concerning the impression that might be created.

There are others who maintain that the reason for the leniency is associated with the prohibition against selling a large grazing animal to a non-Jew. The Alter Rebbe explains that this cannot be the intent of Magen Avraham, because Magen Avraham maintains that this prohibition does not apply in the present era. See Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah 151:12.
51.
So that the non-Jew is made aware of the animal’s present value.
52.
In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 6), the Alter Rebbe focuses on his statement in the main text that the non-Jew must acquire the animal as his own to the extent that he gains from its increase in value and suffers a loss from its decrease in value.

The definition of ownership of the animal in this instance is clarified by a comparison to two other instances where the ownership of livestock has halachic ramifications:

a) Under what conditions may a kohen, who receives an animal to raise from an Israelite, feed it terumah? The relevance of that subject depends on the concept that a kohen is only permitted to feed terumah to an animal when he owns it.

b) When a firstborn animal is born from a female animal owned by a Jew, it has a special status. If it was given to a non-Jew to raise, is it exempt from the obligations incumbent on a firstborn animal? As long as the non-Jew has a share in the animal itself, it is exempt.

Based on the ample halachic literature on the above subjects, the Alter Rebbe clarifies that accepting responsibility for the theft or death of the animal is not sufficient to establish one as its owner, nor is accepting responsibility for its decrease in value. Instead, one must also own the right to profit from its increase in value. Only then is one considered as an owner.
53.
Literally, “lacking repossession.”
54.
Yevamos 66b.
55.
I.e., the arrangement is, in and of itself, permitted. Publicizing is required only because of the undesirable impression that might be created.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 7), the Alter Rebbe questions his statement in the main text that there is a possibility that an undesirable impression will be created (maris ayin) and hence, it is necessary for the Jew to publicize his arrangement with the non-Jew. Seemingly, he asks, the relationship between the Jew and the non-Jew here resembles a partnership, and with regard to a partnership, it was stated (sec. 245:13) that there is no question of maris ayin. Why, then, must the Jew publicize the agreement in the instance at hand?

In resolution, the Alter Rebbe states that the two cases are different, but does not explain how. The Tzemach Tzedek, Orach Chayim, responsum31:1, explains the Alter Rebbe’s intention: Sec. 245 describes a partnership established with regard to a field or the like. In that instance, there is no obligation that a Jew’s field rest on Shabbos. With regard to livestock, by contrast, there is an obligation that a Jew’s animal rest on Shabbos. Hence, there is a greater need for safeguards with regard to maris ayin.
56.
This license is granted even when the profits for the Shabbos day that belong exclusively to the non-Jew and the profits for one of the weekdays that belongs exclusively to the Jew may well be uneven. From sec. 245:4, it is evident that the arrangement described is acceptable only when a simple division is made, without going into a precise reckoning, for then it is considered as if the non-Jew is giving the Jew a present. If, however, a precise reckoning is made, it is apparent that they are operating under a business relationship and any talk of a present is merely legal fiction.
57.
For theft, death, and similar matters.
58.
I.e., he remains its owner and will suffer a loss if it dies or is stolen.
59.
And thus he may perform work with it whenever he desires.
60.
Literally, “the permissibility is greater,” i.e., both options have implicit halachic difficulties. Nevertheless, this option is preferable, since it has fewer difficulties.
61.
This bracketed addition is found in the Luach HaTikkun to the new edition of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch.
62.
If, however, the task does not involve the performance of one of the labors forbidden by Scriptural Law, the arrangement is permitted (see sec. 245:7).
63.
Subsection 12.
64.
Subsection 11.
65.
See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro, Choshen Mishpat 117:1.
66.
See similar rulings in sec. 441:2ff.
67.
See subsection 11, footnote 55, which explains Kuntreis Acharon (note 7), regarding the relevance of maris ayin in this situation, although the Jew and the non-Jew are partners.
68.
In such a situation, he is considered a contractorand as working for his own benefit.
69.
As stated in a marginal note in sec. 244, in his Mahadura Basra, the Alter Rebbe gave greater license, permitting the non-Jew to perform the task on Shabbos even when he was hired to perform this task at all times, not only when he desired. Moreover, there are certain leniencies that apply even when the non-Jew was hired to perform any and all tasks that the Jew requires of him.
70.
As stated in that source, the Jewish employer does not profit at all from the non-Jew working on Shabbos. If the non-Jew did not do this work on Shabbos, he would do it instead after Shabbos.

The Alter Rebbe did not mention the subsection in sec. 244 to which he was referring. Our text — and the explanation above — follows the notes to the recent printing of the Alter Rebbe’'s Shulchan Aruch that states that the intent is sec. 244:9. Nevertheless, since the reference is placed in immediate proximity to the statement that the non-Jew must leave the Jew’s house before Shabbos, it is possible that the intent is sec. 244:1, which speaks of related issues.
71.
See subsection 11, above.
72.
I.e., the festive days of the holidays, in contrast to Chol HaMoed, the intermediate days.
73.
Shmos 12:16; see Shabbos 60b.
74.
Shmos 20:10; Devarim. 5:14. (Even though these verses conclude with “you, your son, your daughter…and your animal….”)
75.
Shmos 23:12. See subsection 7 above. Thus, this charge is not part of the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbos, but an extension of the positive command to rest on Shabbos.
76.
This refers to a non-Jewish bondman (an eved Canaani) who has undergone circumcision and immersion for this purpose. Although he is not Jewish, he is nevertheless required to keep all prohibitions, and all positive commandments that are not time-bound.
77.
Devarim 5:14. This charge is not considered as an independent Scriptural mitzvah, but as an element of the mitzvah to observe Shabbos. Although the servant is obligated to observe the Shabbos prohibitions himself, his master is also charged with the mitzvah of seeing that he observes it.

Although the servant is charged with the observance of the festivals, there is a difference of opinion (see Beis Yosef, Orach Chayim 526) if the master is charged with requiring him to maintain that observance. The Alter Rebbe follows the view that he is not so obligated.

The verse from Shmos 23:12 also mentions the obligation to have “the son of your bondwoman rest.” This refers to a non-Jewish bondman who has yet to attain the status of an eved Canaani. Such a servant is not personally obligated to observe Shabbos. Nevertheless, his Jewish master may not allow him to perform work for him on that holy day. See Rashi, Sifsei Chachamim, to Shmos 23:12; Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 304:1.
78.
In that source, the Alter Rebbe states that one should not use an animal to transfer articles from one domain to another on a festival. Although the actual transfer does not involve a prohibition, because carrying on the festivals is allowed even for a Jew; how much more so for an animal, nevertheless, doing so on a festival shows a lack of respect for the sacred nature of the day.
Sources
א.
רמב"ם פ"ו הט"ז. משמעות הרי"ף שבת דף יט. ב"י ריש הסי'. שו"ע ס"א.
ב.
גמרא שבת יח, א כב"ה. רמב"ם שם. שו"ע שם.
ג.
סעיף א.
ד.
סעיפים ו-ז.
ה.
תוס' שבת יט, א ד"ה לא ישכיר. רא"ש שם. ס' התרומה סי' רכא. סמ"ג ל"ת סה (יט, ב). מגמרא ב"מ דנ"ח ע"א. טור ושו”ע שם.
ו.
סעיף יא.
ז.
ב"י ריש הסימן. ט"ז סק"א. מ"א סק"ג. גמרא הנ"ל.
ח.
מ"א שם.
ט.
סעיף ט.
י.
הרב רבינו יונה הובא ברא"ש שבת פ"א סי' לו. וטור ושו”ע ס"א. וראה לקמן סי' רנב קו"א ס"ק ו, שגם הפוסקים שאין חוששים לריוח הישראל גבי שכיר שנה (ראה לעיל רמג ס"ג, ובמצויין שם, שכן היא מסקנת רבינו במהדורא בתרא), לא יחלקו על הדין שלפנינו.
יא.
סעיף ט.
יב.
רמ"א ס"א.
יג.
סמ"ג שם. סמ"ק סי' רפא (ע' שא). מרדכי שבת סי' רמג. והגהות מיימוניות (דפוס קושטא) פ"ו. וטור מ"א סק"ד.
יד.
ב"ח ד"ה ומ"מ נראה.
טו.
ב"י ד"ה ודוקא בשם הג"מ פ"ו. ב"ח ד"ה וכתב בשם הגהות מרדכי (ראה הג"ה במרדכי רמז רמו בשם הר"י מקורביל).
טז.
ב"י ד"ה ודוקא. לבוש סוס"א.
יז.
טור ושו”ע ס"ב.
יח.
שבת יח ע"[ב] לר"ע אליבא דב"ה. שו"ע שם. ראה גם לקמן סי' רמז ס"א. סי' רנב ס"ג.
יט.
ס' התרומה סי' רכא. סמ"ג ל"ת סה (יט, ב). שו"ע שם.
כ.
מ"א סק"ו. וראה ט"ז סק"ג.
כא.
ב"י ריש סי' שכה ד"ה ומ"ש או אפי'.
כב.
סעיף יב. וראה גם לקמן סי' תמד ס"י.
כג.
מ"א שם.
כד.
ט"ז סוסק"ג. ועי' בקו"א סק"א.
כה.
ראה תוספות שבת סק"ה. וראה קו"א שם.
כו.
ט"ז סי' תמד סק"ה. שאלות ותשובות מהר"ם אלאשקר סי' מא ומב. עי' מ"א סוס"י שה ס"ק יח. לקמן שם סל"ח לענין בהמה לרועה.
כז.
כדלקמן סי' שצז ס"ג.
כח.
מ"א סי' שו סק"ד. לקמן סי' שה סל"ז-ח.
כט.
שאלות ותשובות מהר"ם אלאשקר שם.
ל.
הגהות מרדכי קידושין סי' תקסה. רמ"א סו"ס שה.
לא.
ראה לקמן סי' שה סל"ח (לענין בהמה לרועה) שמסיים: וטוב לחוש לדבריו. ונתבאר החילוק בקו"א ס"ק ב.
לב.
רמב"ם פ"ו הי"ט. מ"א סק"ו. וראה הגהות על שו"ע הל' פסח (לר"א אבלי) בתשובה השייכת לסי' תמד.
לג.
סעיף יח.
לד.
סעיף כ.
לה.
כדלקמן סי' רמז ס"א וש"נ.
לו.
מ"א שם.
לז.
מ"א סי' רנב סק"ד. וכ"ה לקמן שם ס"ג. וכעין הסברא דלעיל סי' רמג ס"ח. ונתבאר לקמן סי' רנב קו"א ס"ק ה ד"ה והאמת.
לח.
טור ושו”ע סי' שז סכ"א, ולקמן שם סל"ה, שאסור לומר לנכרי בשבת לעשות מלאכה חפצים של ישראל בשביל עצמו שנראה כשלוחו (משא"כ בשל עצמו). ולגבי הוצאה ראה לעיל ס"ד (מהרמב"ם) "וחפץ ישראל בידו". מ"א סי' שכה ס"ק ד. לקמן שם ס"ג. ונתבאר בקו"א שם.
לט.
סעיף ג.
מ.
גמרא ע"ז טו ע"א. טור ושו”ע ס"ג.
מא.
רש"י שם ד"ה גזרה משום שאלה. רמב"ם פ"כ ה"ג. טור ושו"ע שם. וראה גם לקמן סי' שה ס"א. ולענין מחמר ראה לקמן סי' רסו ס"ד.
מב.
שמות כג, יב. ירושלמי שבת פ"ה ה"ג. תוס' נא, ב ד"ה במה בהמה.
מג.
גמרא ע"ז שם. טור ושו”ע שם.
מד.
מ"א סק"ח. וראה קו"א ס"ק ג.
מה.
טור ולבוש ס"ג.
מו.
ס' התרומה סי' רכא (אם סבור שיעשה בה מלאכה בשבת). סמ"ג ל"ת סה (יט, ג). רמ"א ס"ג.
מז.
סעיף לו.
מח.
מ"א סק"ח ממשמעות הגמרא דע"ז טו ע"א.
מט.
הגהות אשרי ע"ז פ"א סי' כב בשם רבינו אפרים (הובא במ"א שם). הגהות מרדכי סופ"ק דעירובין. וראה תהלה לדוד מפתחות לסי' רמו. יגל יעקב יו"ד סי' מה אות ג. מ”מ וציונים.
נ.
משמעות הג"א שם והגמ"ר שם.
נא.
מ"א שם לשיטת הג"א.
נב.
הגהות אשרי שם. רמ"א ביו"ד סי' קנא ס"י. וראה קו"א ס"ק ג.
נג.
רמ"א ס"ג בהגה"ה ראשונה.
נד.
ריב"ש סי' כה. שו"ע ס"ג (וכדאמרינן בגמרא יח, ב לענין כלים).
נה.
רבי יהושע בן לוי נדרים מה, א. טור ושו”ע חו"מ סי' רעג ס"ז.
נו.
פירוש הרא"ש שם ד"ה ומה טעם.
נז.
ראה רמ"א חו"מ סי' רעג ס"ז דקיי"ל שמה"ת סגי אפילו בינו לבין עצמו. ובש"ך שם ס"ק יא, שמה"ט סגי הכא אפילו בינו לבין עצמו.
נח.
ר"ן בפ"ק דשבת יז, ב במשנת אין שורין לבית שמאי ע"ש. וכ"ה בתוס' שבת יח, ב ד"ה דמפקרא וב"מ ל, ב ד"ה אפקרה לענין כלים. וכן משמע ברא"ש סוף פ"ד דנדרים (בפירושו שם, ובפסקיו פ"ד סי"א). דלא כריב"ש שם (שמתיר מפני שא"א בשלשה ואוקמוה אדאורייתא). וראה לקמן סי' תמה קו"א סק"א, דלא סמכינן על היתר זה אלא כשכבר השכירו וא"א בענין אחר, ולכן השמיט הרא"ש סברא זו. וראה העו"ב תתכח ע' 53.
נט.
טור בשם הר"פ בהגהות הסמ"ק סי' רפא (ע' שא). רמ"א סוס"ג.
ס.
טור שם. מגמרא דספ"ד דנדרים מד, א.
סא.
סעיף י. וראה קו"א לקמן שם, בביאור דעת המתירים בזה כאן, שאף שבחו"מ שם מבואר דלא הוה הפקר גמור עד שיזכה בה אחר, מ"מ זהו רק מחשש הערמה, וכאן לענין שבת לא חששו להערמה. אמנם בקו"א שם מסיק שגם לענין שבת (וחמץ) לא הוי הפקר גמור כשהוא רק ליום השבת (והפסח), ולא התירו בשבת אלא כשהוא כבר בידי נכרי שא"א בענין אחר. וכ"ה בתחלה סדר מכירת חמץ, שמטעם זה חמץ הנמכר אינו בכלל ביטול והפקר. וראה העו"ב שם.
סב.
לבוש ס"ג. מ"א ס"ק יא.
סג.
רמ"א ס"ג. לבוש שם.
סד.
ראה מ”מ וציונים.
סה.
הגהות מרדכי שבת סי' תנב. וכ"ה במרדכי שם סי' רמה. שו"ע ס"ג.
סו.
מ"א סק"י.
סז.
ראה לקמן סי' תמח סו"ס יא. מ”מ וציונים.
סח.
מ"א שם.
סט.
תוס' שבת יח, ב ד"ה דמפקרא. וסמ"ג ל"ת סה. ומרדכי רמז רמ. והטור ומ"א סק"ט.
ע.
שו"ע ס"ג. מ"א ס"ק ט.
עא.
טעם הב' שבתוס' ומרדכי שם, וברא"ש פ"ק דשבת סי' לג. טור ולבוש ס"ג. וראה לקמן סי' תמה קו"א ס"ק א שעיקר הטעם הוא לפי שהפקר שלא בפני ג' והפקר לזמן אינו הפקר גמור מדרבנן, ורק כשא"א בענין אחר אוקמוה אדאורייתא (כטעם הא' שבתוס' ומרדכי ורא"ש שם). ושלפי הדיעות שהוא הפקר גמור מועיל גם בחמץ.
עב.
ב"ח ד"ה כתב במרדכי. וב"י ד"ה אבל בהמתו לפי משמעות הטור (אף שבשו"ע לא הביא היתר זה). הובא במ"א שם.
עג.
ראה לקמן סי' תמה קו"א סוף ס"ק א: לכתחלה לא סמכינן אסברא זו לענין שבת, כהסכמת הב"י (שלא הביא היתר זה בשו"ע) וט"ז (ס"ק ד) ולבוש (ס"ג) וצמח צדק (הראשון סי' לה) ועולת שבת (ס"ק ג) והנחלת צבי (ס"ק ג) והאליה זוטא (ס"ק ח. אמנם באליה רבה ס"ק ט חזר והסיק להתיר כהב"ח).
עד.
צמח צדק שם. וראה צ"צ (החדש) או"ח סי' לד ס"ד.
עה.
שו"ת תודת שלמים ח"ב (לחמי תודה) סי' כ (פז, ג).
עו.
ראה ב"י סו"ס רמה בשם מהר"י בי רב לענין ערכאות. קו"א ס"ק ה.
עז.
צמח צדק שם ד"ה הרי מבואר. הובא אליה זוטא סק"ח.
עח.
סי' זה בשוע"ר לא הגיע לידינו, וראה ט"ז שם ס"ק ב. לקמן סי' שו בסופו.
עט.
ראה מ”מ וציונים.
פ.
טור ולבוש ס"ג.
פא.
צ"צ שם ד"ה ועוד נראה לומר דעד כאן. מ"א סק"ט. ונתבאר בקו"א סק"ה, שכן משמע בשו"ע ובשאר פוסקים, שכשמקנה לכל ימות השבוע אין לחוש למראית העין אף לכתחלה. וראה מסקנתו שם, שבמקום שדרכם לקנות כדי להשאיל ולהשכיר, אין להתיר אף במכירה גמורה אלא במקום פסידא.
פב.
דעת המתירין בס' התרומה (סימנים סי' קמח), סמ"ג ל"ת סה (כא, ד), ובשו"ע ס"ד. רמ"א סוף סי' זה (שפסק כדעה זו). מ"א סוס"ק טז. דיעות האוסרים והמתירים נתבארו בקו"א ס"ק ג.
פג.
ראה קו"א ס"ק ו, שכן הוא גם אם קיבל שבח פיטום. וראה מ”מ וציונים.
פד.
כרבא ביבמות סו, ב. ונתבאר בקו"א ס"ק ג.
פה.
רש"י שם ד"ה מי לא מודה.
פו.
רמ"א סוף הסי'. וראה קו"א סק"ז. שו"ת צ"צ או"ח סי' לא אות א.
פז.
נתבאר בקו"א ס"ק ה.
פח.
ב"י סו"ס רמה בשם מהר"י בירב. שו"ע סוף הסי' (לענין שותפות). רמ"א סוף סי' זה (אף כשכולה של הישראל). וראה זכרון יוסף סי' קפה.
פט.
ב"י שם. מ"א ס"ק טו.
צ.
ריב"ש סי' קנא. הובא בב"י סו"ס רמה. שו"ע ס"ה. וראה צ"צ שם.
צא.
מ"א ס"ק יג.
צב.
סעיף ד.
צג.
שו"ת רלב"ח סי' קו. מ"א שם.
צד.
ריב"ש שם. ב"י סוס"י רמה. מ"א שם.
צה.
סעיף ו וקו"א ס"ק ב.
צו.
ריב"ש שם. ב"י שם. מ"א שם.
צז.
מ"א שם. וכדלעיל שם. ובהגהות מהרי"ב עה"ג תיקן: שאז מותר אף אם.
צח.
ריב"ש שם. ב"י שם. וראה גם רלב"ח שם. זכרון יוסף סי' קפג. שדי חמד מילואים (דברי חכמים) סי' פג.
צט.
ב"י שם בשם ר"י בי רב. שו"ע סוס"ה.
ק.
סעיף יב.
קא.
הגהת סמ"ק. שו"ע.
קב.
סעיף יא וש"נ.
קג.
ראה זכרון יוסף סי' קפז.
קד.
ריצב"א. הובא בב"י סוף סי' רמה. שו"ע ס"ה.
קה.
ראה שו"ע חו"מ סי' קיז ס"א.
קו.
ריצב"א שם. שו"ע שם.
קז.
מ"א ס"ק יד.
קח.
ריצב"א שם. שו"ע שם.
קט.
וכדלקמן סי' תמא ס"ב ואילך.
קי.
רמ"א סוס"ה, וכדלעיל סוף סי"א. וראה קו"א סק"ז שזהו בכל צדדי ההיתר דשותפות.
קיא.
רמ"א שם. וראה זכרון יוסף סי' קפה.
קיב.
מ"א ס"ק טז.
קיג.
סעי' ג.
קיד.
סעי' ט-יא.
קטו.
מ"א שם. עי' סי' רמג ס"ג ורמד ס"ט-יא. ומ"ש בהג"ה שם שלפי מה שחזר במהדורא בתרא, מותר אפילו שכרו לעשות מלאכה זו תמיד (לא רק בכל עת שירצה), ובאיזה אופנים מותר אפילו בשכרו לעשות כל המלאכות.
קטז.
נידון שו"ת צ"צ (הראשון) סי' לה. מ"א שם.
קיז.
סעיף ט.
קיח.
סעיף יא.
קיט.
צ"צ (הראשון) סי' לה ד"ה ועוד נראה לומר דעד כאן.
קכ.
ב"י סי' תצה ד"ה כתב הכלבו. רש"ל ביש"ש פ"ה דביצה. מ"א ס"ק יב.
קכא.
שמות יב, טז. שבת ס, ב.
קכב.
ב"י סוס"י שה בשם שבלי הלקט סי' קיג. רמ"א ס"ג. דעה הב' בכלבו סי' נח (יז, ד). הובא בב"י סי' תצה ד"ה כתב הכל בו. שו"ת צ"צ (הראשון) סי' לה ד"ה וכל זה.
קכג.
שמות כג, יב. וכדלעיל ס"ז.
קכד.
לבוש סוף הסי'. פר"ח סי' תצה ס"ג.
קכה.
שעה"מ פ"ה מהל' יו"ט ה"ב. לשיטת המתירים.
קכו.
דברים ה, יד. וראה ס' התרומה סי' רכב; רנב. מהדו"ב לסי' רנב וסי' דש.
קכז.
סעיף יא.
© 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