Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

An animal should be given the opportunity to eat whenever it works with produce, whether the produce is still attached to the ground or has been harvested. Similarly, it may partake of produce from the burden it is carrying until it has been unloaded, provided that the person caring for the animal does not take the produce in his hand and feed it.

Whoever prevents an animal from eating while it is working should be punished by lashes, as Deuteronomy 25:4 states: "Do not muzzle an ox while threshing."

The prohibition applies to an ox and to all other species of animals and beasts, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher animal. Similarly, it applies with regard to threshing and all other types of work with produce. The Torah speaks about an ox threshing only to mention the most common instance.

An employer is not liable if he muzzles a worker. He is, however, liable for muzzling an animal. This applies whether he muzzles the animal while he is working with it or muzzles it beforehand and works with it while muzzled. He is liable even if he "muzzles it" with his mouth.

When a person rents an animal, muzzles it and then threshes with it, he receives lashes and must pay the owners the value of four kabbin of grain for a cow, and three kabbin for a donkey. Although generally a person does not receive both lashes and a financial penalty for the same transgression, an exception is made in this instance, because the renter was obligated to provide the animal with its sustenance from the time he pulled it after him, and he is not liable for lashes until he threshes with the animal while muzzled.

When a Jew threshes with a cow belonging to a gentile, he is subject to violating the prohibition against muzzling. When, by contrast, a gentile threshes with an ox belonging to a Jew, he is not subject to violating this prohibition.

If a Jew tells a gentile: "Muzzle my ox and thresh with it," a thorn becomes lodged in the ox's mouth and he threshes with it so it does not eat, he places a lion outside the threshing floor, he places the animal's son outside the threshing floor, he does not provide the animal with drink when it is thirsty, or spreads a hide over the grain so that it will not eat - all of these and similar acts are forbidden, but the person does not receive lashes.

When the produce with which the animal is working is bad for its digestion and will damage the animal's health or when the animal is sick and eating will cause it to become diarrheic, it is permitted to prevent the animal from eating. The rationale is that the Torah enacted this prohibition so that the animal would benefit, and in such an instance it does not benefit.

When a priest is threshing grain that is terumah or grain that is definitely terumat ma'aser with a cow that belongs to an Israelite, he is not subject to violating the prohibition against muzzling them.

This law also applies when cows thresh grain that is ma'aser sheni and when cows veer from the path. Nevertheless, because of the impression that might be created, when the cows are threshing grain that is terumah or ma'aser sheni the worker should bring that type of grain and place it in the food sack hanging below their mouths.

When a person muzzles a cow that is threshing produce that is ma'aser sheni which is demai terumat ma'aser which is demai or produce that grew from terumah he violates the prohibition against muzzling the animal.

The owner of an ox is permitted to make his animal hungry and thus cause it anguish so that it will eat a large quantity of the grain that it is threshing. Conversely, the renter of the ox may feed it hay so that it will not eat a large quantity of the grain that it is threshing.

Similarly, an employer may provide his workers with wine so that they will not eat many grapes. Conversely, the workers may dip their bread in brine so they will eat many grapes.

A worker may not, however, perform work at night and then hire himself out during the day, or work with his ox in the evening and then rent it out in the morning. Similarly, he should not starve and aggrieve himself and give his food to his sons, because this leads to stealing from the work due his employer, for his energy will be sapped and his thinking unclear, and he will not be able to perform his work robustly.

Just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor person or to withhold it from him, the poor person is forewarned not to steal from the work due his employer and neglect his work slightly here and there, spending the entire day in deceit.

Instead, he is obligated to be precise with regard to his time. The importance of such preciseness is indicated by our Sages' ruling that workers should not recite the fourth blessing of grace, so as not to neglect their work.

Similarly, a worker is obligated to work with all his strength, for Jacob the righteous man said Genesis 31:7: "I served your father with all my strength." Therefore, he was granted a reward even in this world, as indicated by ibid. 30:43: "And the man became prodigiously wealthy."

Blessed be God who grants assistance.

Introduction to Hilchos She'elah uFikkadon

They contain two positive mitzvot: The first, the laws pertaining to borrowers; and the second, the laws pertaining to an unpaid watchman. These mitzvot are explained in the chapters that follow.

When a person borrows utensils, an animal or other movable property from a colleague, and it is lost or stolen, or even if it is destroyed by factors beyond his control - e.g., an animal is injured, taken captive or dies - the borrower is required to make restitution for the entire worth of the article, as stated in Exodus 22:13: "If a person borrows an animal from a colleague and it will become injured or die, and the owner is not with him, he must make financial restitution."

When does the above apply? When the loss due to factors beyond his control does not take place while the borrower is working with the animal. If, however, a person borrows a colleague's animal to plow, and it dies while plowing, the borrower is not liable. If, however, the animal dies before he plowed with it or after he plowed with it, or he rode upon it or threshed with it and the animal died while he was threshing or riding, the borrower is liable to make financial restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

Similarly, if a person borrows an animal to travel to a particular place and the animal dies under him on that journey, he borrows a bucket to fill water with it and it falls apart in the cistern while he is filling it, he borrows a hatchet to split wood and it breaks because of the chopping while he is splitting the wood, he is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. The rationale is that he borrowed the article solely to perform this task, and he did not deviate from his original request.

The following rules apply when a person borrows an animal from a colleague, it dies, and the borrower claims that it died while in the midst of work. If he borrowed it to travel to a place where people are commonly present, he must bring witnesses who testify that it died or it was destroyed by forces beyond his control while he was working with it, and he did not deviate from his original request. He is then freed of liability. If he does not bring proof, he is liable.

Different rules apply when a person borrows an animal to fill up the earth in his ruin, i.e., a place where it is not common for witnesses to be present, or he borrowed a bucket to fill the cistern in his house and the bucket was destroyed in the cistern. If he brings proof that the animal or the object was destroyed in the process of performing the task for which it was borrowed, he is not liable even to take an oath. If he cannot bring proof, he must take the oath required of watchmen that the animal died during the performance of the task for which it was borrowed. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

When a person borrows a utensil from a colleague and it breaks, the utensil is evaluated in the same way as a utensil one damages is evaluated. We evaluate how much the object was worth while it was complete and how much it is worth in its present state. The borrower returns the broken utensil or the injured animal to the owner and makes financial restitution for the damages. Similarly, if the animal dies, he may return the carcass and make restitution for the animal's decrease in value.

When a person borrows an animal, he becomes liable to provide it with food from the time he performs meshichah until the conclusion of the time for which he borrowed it. If its meat depreciates in value, he is liable to pay for that reduction. If its meat depreciates in value because of the work the animal performs, he is not liable. He must, however, take the oath required of a watchman, swearing that it depreciated because of the work.

When a person borrows an article or an animal from a colleague without making any stipulation, the lender may require him to return it at any time. If he borrowed it for a set time, once he performs meshichah with it, he acquires it, and the owner may not compel the borrower to return it from his possession until the conclusion of the period for which it was borrowed. Indeed, even if the borrower dies, his heirs are entitled to continue using the borrowed article until the conclusion of the period for which it was lent out.

This concept can be appreciated by logical deduction. A purchaser acquires the body of the article he purchases forever in return for the money he gave. The recipient of a present acquires the body of the article he receives forever, although he did not give anything. Similarly, a renter acquires the body of an article for the sake of deriving benefit from it for a limited time in return for the money he gave. And a borrower acquires the body of an article for the sake of deriving benefit from it for a limited time without giving anything. Thus, just as the giver of a present resembles a seller in that he cannot retract his gift forever, so too, a person who lends an article resembles one who hires it out, in that he cannot retract in the midst of the term of the agreement.

When a father leaves his sons a cow that he had borrowed and it dies, they are not liable for the loss its owner suffers [because that is a factor beyond their control]. If they thought that it belonged to their father and they slaughtered it and ate it, they are required to pay the price of its meat at a low price. If their father left them an estate, and the borrowed cow died or was slaughtered by them, they must pay its worth from the estate.

When a person borrows a utensil for the sake of performing a particular task, the person who lent it cannot force the borrower to return it from his possession until the borrower performs that task. Similarly, if he borrows an animal in order to travel to a particular place, the owner may not compel the borrower to return it until he goes to that place and returns.

When a person asks a colleague: "Lend me your spade to hoe this orchard," he is allowed to hoe only that particular orchard. He may not hoe another orchard with it.

If the borrower said: "to hoe an orchard" without describing it further, he may use it to hoe any orchard he desires. If he borrowed it to hoe his orchards, he may hoe all the orchards he owns. Even if the iron of the spade becomes entirely worn away while hoeing, it is sufficient for him to return the wooden handle of the hoe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

The following rule applies when a person borrows a utensil from a colleague to use and tells him: "Lend me this item according to your generosity." That expression implies "Don't lend it to me like others who lend out articles, but according to the goodness of your heart and your generosity, that you will not be concerned about the time, even if it becomes extended."

If a kinyan was established with the lender concerning this, the borrower may use the article without limit until it is no longer suitable to perform its function. He must then return its broken pieces or the remnants. The borrower may not, however, fix the utensil and thus make it useful again.

When a person asks a colleague: "Lend me this stone tub of water," and it was destroyed, he may not rebuild it. If the borrower asks the owner: "Lend me a stone tub," without any description, and it is destroyed, he may rebuild it.

If he asked him: "Lend me the place of a stone tub," if a kinyan was established affirming this agreement, the borrower may build on the property of the lender until he constructs a stone tub that he may use to water his animal or irrigate his land, as he stipulated when speaking to the lender.

When a person borrows an inn from a colleague "to spend the night," the intent is no less than one day. "To spend the Sabbath," the intent is no less than two days. "For marriage," the intent is no less than 30 days.

When a person borrows a garment from a colleague to visit a person in mourning, he may keep it for the time it takes to go and return. When a person borrows a garment to attend a wedding celebration, he may keep it for that entire day. If he borrows it for his own wedding, he may keep it for at least seven days.

When a person borrows an article while the owner is working with him, he is not liable, even if the article that he borrowed is stolen or lost through negligence, as Exodus 22:14 states: "If the owner is with him, he need not make restitution." This applies, provided he asked the owner to work with him at the time he borrowed the article, as we have explained.

This leniency applies whether the borrower asked the owner to work for him as a favor or hired him, and whether he asked him to perform the same work as he performs with the article, he asked him or hired him to perform another task, or he had him perform any task in the world. Even if he told a colleague, "Give me a drink of water," and the person asking for the water asked to borrow his colleague's animal, if the owner gives him a drink and lends him the animal, it is considered as if he lent him the animal while "with the owner," and he is not liable.

If the borrower performed meshichah with the animal first, and afterwards the owner gave him to drink, this is not considered to be borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a person lent or rented out his animal to carry a burden and went out to help the borrower or the renter to help him load his burden on it, this is considered to be borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower. If he goes out with him to inspect the burden and to see that he was not overloaded, it is not considered borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower.

The following rules apply with regard to a teacher of young children, a person who plants trees for a city, a bloodletter for the city and their scribe. On the day any one of these individuals - or a person in a similar position - sits to perform the work of the city's inhabitants, if he lends or rents out an article to any of the people whose work he is performing, it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. Even if the watchman was negligent, he is not liable. If, however, one of these individuals borrowed or rented an article from one of the inhabitants of the city, he is liable in the event of damages. For they do not perform work for him.

When a teacher reads to his students at will, at the time he desires, whichever tractate he desires, they are obligated to come to him at all times, and even if he has already started studying one tractate with them, he has the license to switch from tractate to tractate, they are considered to be at his command, and he is not at their command. On the day of public study, when everyone comes to hear about the matters that concern the festival, he is considered to be at their command, and they are not at his command.

When a person tells his agent: "Go out and work together with my cow," it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. This is intimated by Exodus 22:14: "If the owners are with him, he need not make restitution." The wording implies that verse refers to the owners themselves, and not their agents.

If by contrast a person tells his Canaanite servant: "Go out and work together with my cow," it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. The rationale is that a Canaanite servant is considered an extension of the physical person of his master.

If the servant goes to work for the borrower without his master's consent, it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower.

When a person borrows an article from a woman, and her husband is performing a task for the borrower, it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. The rationale is that the right to benefit from property is not equivalent to ownership of the property itself. And a woman's husband is entitled only to benefit from her property. He is not the owner.

When a husband borrows property from his wife or when partners borrow property from each other, it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. If one partner says to the other, "Lend me property today, and I will lend you tomorrow," it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower.

When a person borrows property from a partnership and also asks one of the partners to work for him, or if partners borrow property and one of the partners asks the owner to work for him, there is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower or not. Therefore, if the animal dies, the borrower is not required to make restitution. If, however, the owner seizes the value of the article from property belonging to the borrower, it should not be expropriated from his possession. If the borrower was negligent, he is required to make restitution.

There is an unresolved doubt whether a person who borrows an animal to sodomize it, or to create an impression, or to perform work that is worth less than a p'rutah, or borrowed two cows to do work that is worth one p'rutah while the owner is working with him is considered as an instance when an object is borrowed while the owner is working with the borrower or not.

If a person borrowed an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, rented it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him, he is not liable if the animal is not returned. The rental is dependent on - and considered as an extension of - the borrowing.

There is, by contrast, an unresolved doubt with regard to all of the following situations:

The person rented the animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, borrowed it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him.

He borrowed an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, rented it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him and then borrowed it again while the owner was not working for him.

Or he rented an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, borrowed it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him, and then rented it again while the owner was not working for him.

When a woman borrows an article from one person and then marries another man, her husband is considered a purchaser - not a paid watchman nor a borrower. Accordingly, if the borrowed article was an animal that died, the husband is not liable even though he used it throughout the time that it was borrowed.This ruling applies even if he was negligent. The rationale is that he is considered as a purchaser.

When the woman receives money, she is obligated to make restitution. If she notified her husband that the article is borrowed, he undertakes her responsibility.

In all the situations that we have defined as borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower, if a renter or a paid watchman were involved, it would be considered as a rental while the owner is working for the renter, and he would not be held liable. Conversely, in all the situations that are not defined as borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower, if a renter or a paid watchman were involved, it would not be considered a rental while the owner is working for the renter. And with regard to all the situations for which there are unresolved doubts whether it is considered to be borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower; so, too, there are unresolved doubts with regard to rentals.