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

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

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

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

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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].)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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