Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 252 - Which Tasks That Will Be Completed over Shabbos May Be Started on Friday & Which Are Forbidden

SECTION 252 Which Tasks That Will Be Completed [without the Need for Further Intervention] over Shabbos May Be Started on Friday and Which Are Forbidden (1-20)

1 It is permitted to begin a task on Friday close to nightfall,1 even though the person will not be able to complete it during that day, but rather it will be completed without the need for further [human] intervention2 on Shabbos. For example, [it is permissible] to place [dried cakes of] ink3 and herbs to soak in water [on Friday close to nightfall].4 Similarly, one may place [kernels of] barley in a barrel of water close to nightfall, where they will soak throughout Shabbos. Similarly, [one may place] incense on coals below clothes close to nightfall to perfume them over the course of the Shabbos.5[This license is granted] even when the incense and the coals are placed in one’s censer. Although the task was performed on Shabbos in a utensil belonging to a Jew, that is of no consequence, since a person is not commanded to have his utensils rest — i.e., that forbidden labor not be performed with them on Shabbos — [provided that labor is completed] without further [human] intervention. [This license applies] even when the forbidden labor [that will be performed] on Shabbos will be performed by the utensil itself, [as it were,] without further intervention, e.g., setting snares for wild animals, fowl, and fish while it is still day [on Friday, so that] they can be trapped [by the snare] on Shabbos. [No prohibition is involved,] even though the snare will trap [the animal]6 on Shabbos, for the snare will snap closed and trap the fowl without intervention. Similar [laws apply to] a trap that is set to catch wild animals by their feet, i.e., when they step on it, it springs closed of its own accord and captures [the animal].7

2 Similarly, it is permitted to place wool in a cauldron to be dyed while it is still day [on Friday],8 when the dying process will continue throughout the Shabbos day without further intervention, provided the cauldron was removed from the fire throughout the entire Shabbos.9Were it to remain on the fire, [with the wool remaining in the dye,] it would be forbidden as a [Rabbinical] decree, lest one forget and stir the coals on Shabbos to hasten the steeping of the herbs [or other ingredients] of the dye. Also, the cauldron must be sealed [by placing] mud around its cover, for if it is not sealed, [leaving the wool in the dye] would be forbidden, lest one forget [that it is Shabbos], remove the cover on Shabbos, and stir [the dye] with a spoon. For one who stirs a boiling pot, even after it was removed from the fire, is liable for cooking,10 since stirring hastens the cooking process. Even if the herbs for the dye were already steeped to the full extent necessary [to accomplish the dyeing process] while it was still day,11 nevertheless, were they to be stirred on Shabbos, one would be liable for dyeing, since stirring causes the dye to be [further] absorbed by the wool. When, however, [the cauldron] is sealed with mud, [it is permitted, because] one will not go to the additional trouble of removing the seal in order to stir [the cauldron].12

It is, however, permitted to place rolls of (spun) flax into a [burning] oven while it is still day [on Friday]13 so that they will whiten there throughout the entire Shabbos,even though the oven’s opening is not sealed by placing mud around its cover. Since the [cool] air [that would enter were the oven to be opened] would harm the flax, the person will not open the oven’s cover to stir the coals on the bottom [of the oven].14

3 It is permitted to sell [merchandise] to a non-Jew and load it on him [on Friday] close to nightfall, provided he leaves the entrance of [the Jew’s] house with the merchandise while it is still day.15 [This prerequisite] is required even in a town encompassed by an eruv, as stated in sec. 246[:5].16

Even if the Jew designates a room in his courtyard where the non-Jew may leave his merchandise on Friday, and afterwards, on Shabbos, the non-Jew comes to take it from there to bring to his home,17 the Jew should not allow the non-Jew to [take it]18 until after Shabbos.19[An exception, however, is made] when the non-Jew is a man of force who the Jew fears. Should that be the case, there is room for leniency20 even if [the Jew] did not designate a place for [the non-Jew] to leave his merchandise before Shabbos.21

4 A person is also permitted to give his garments to a non-Jewish launderer and his hides to a non-Jewish leather worker [to work on] close to nightfall22 [on Friday] on a contractual basis,23 whereby the non-Jewish [contractor] performs these activities on his own initiative. [The non-Jew may perform these labors] even on Shabbos, provided the Jew does not instruct him to perform them on Shabbos. Similarly, [the Jew] may not tell [the non-Jewish contractor] to make sure that the work is completed by Sunday or Monday, when it is obvious that he could not complete it by then unless he also worked on Shabbos, since this is equivalent to explicitly telling him to [perform these tasks] on Shabbos.

When, however, [the Jew] does not tell [the non-Jew] anything and the non-Jew performs the tasks on Shabbos of his own initiative, [the non-Jew] need not be cautioned [not to perform this labor on Shabbos].24 For the non-Jew is not acting on Shabbos for the Jew’s sake, since even if he [were to postpone his] activity until after Shabbos, he would, [in any case, still] be carrying out the Jew’s instructions, since the Jew did not make it known to him25 to perform the activity [specifically] on Shabbos. [Thus, when the non-Jew] performs the activity on Shabbos, [he is doing so]for his own sake, to complete the work that he contracted to perform, [doing so at the time he desires]. If he does not perform the work one day, he will have to perform it on the next. Now that he performs it on this day, [it will be to his advantage, because] he will be free on the following day.

5 When does the above apply? When the non-Jewish [contractor] performs the activity on Shabbos in his own home26 or in another domain that does not belong to a Jew.27 In such an instance, it is not apparent that the task is associated with a Jew. It is, however, forbidden to allow him to perform [forbidden labor] in a domain belonging to a Jew. For when he performs [the forbidden labor] in a domain belonging to a Jew, it is apparent that the task is associated with a Jew, and perhaps others will suspect that [the Jew] instructed the non-Jew on Shabbos to perform the task.28 Alternatively, they may suspect that the non-Jew is a day-worker and not a contractor, as explained in sec. 244.29

Even when the work is performed in the domain of the non-Jewish [contractor], there are some authorities who maintain that there is no license [to allow him to perform the work] unless the Jewish [employer] receives no [additional] gain from the fact that the work was performed on Shabbos,30i.e., that even were it to have been performed after Shabbos, the Jewish [employer] would have derived the same benefit as if it were performed on Shabbos.31 Although the [Jewish employer] prefers that the work be performed on Shabbos so that it will be completed earlier and he will be able to benefit from it earlier,32 this is not considered as [substantial] gain, because even if [the work] were to be performed after Shabbos, he would still benefit from it.

[A more stringent ruling applies,] by contrast, when, were the work to be performed after Shabbos, the Jewish [employer] would not be able to benefit from it, and he would have no desire for it at all if it were not performed on Shabbos. For example, he is setting out on a journey immediately on Saturday night or the like [and thus would only benefit if the work were performed on Shabbos]. In such a situation, [since] the Jewish [employer] profits from the fact that the non-Jewish [contractor] completes the task on Shabbos, it is forbidden to give the non-Jewish [contractor] the work [directly] before Shabbos. [License is granted only] if he is able to complete it on the weekdays, either before Shabbos or afterwards.

[Moreover, in the above situation,] even if [the Jew] gave [the task] to [the non-Jewish contractor] while it was possible for him to complete it before Shabbos,and he discovered that the non-Jewish [contractor] was working on it on Shabbos, he must admonish him [not to complete his work on Shabbos].33 [The rationale:] The Jewish [employer] derives benefit from the work that is being carried out [on Shabbos]. The non-Jewish [contractor] does not profit from this. From his standpoint, he could equally perform the work after Shabbos. He is merely routinely working on Shabbos to complete his task; in contrast to the Jew, he derives no benefit from its [early] completion. Therefore it appears that the work is being performed on Shabbos for the sake of the Jew.

There is an authority who permits the Jewish [employer] to give [the work] to [the non-Jewish contractor] on Friday close to nightfall, [knowing that the non-Jewish contractor] will perform the work on his own initiative in [the non-Jew’s] house on Shabbos, provided that [the Jew] does not reveal his intent — that he needs the work done on Shabbos — and [provided] that he does not inform [the non-Jew] in any manner that he is departing on a journey immediately on Saturday night.34

It is possible that these authorities do not actually differ. [Perhaps] the authority who is lenient granted this license only in an instance when — if [the non-Jewish contractor] does not do the work on Shabbos —the Jewish [employer] will no longer desire that he do the work at all after Shabbos and will not pay him for his work. Thus, by performing the work on Shabbos, [the non-Jewish contractor] is profiting, for [only then] will the Jewish [employer] pay him for his work. It is possible that in this instance, even the authority who is stringent would agree that it is permitted [to give the non-Jew the work to perform]. Since the non-Jewish [contractor] also benefits from performing the work on Shabbos, it does not appear that [the work] is being performed for the sake of the Jewish [employer] alone.

[Conversely,] it is possible that even the authority who is lenient would agree that [such an arrangement] is forbidden if the Jewish [employer] would have to pay[the non-Jewish contractor] even if he did not perform the work on Shabbos, but would do so only afterwards, because [the Jew] did not initially stipulate [that he is giving the non-Jew] the work on the condition that he complete it entirely by Saturday night. [In this instance,] the non-Jewish [contractor] does not derive any benefit at all from performing the work on Shabbos, only the Jewish [employer] does [and all would agree that this is forbidden].35

6 All the above36 applies when: a) [the Jewish employer] established a fixed fee [for the non-Jewish contractor] as payment for his work, [in which instance] he is working for his own sake, to receive his fee, and he does not appear as the Jew’s agent;37 or

b) [the non-Jew] performs the task as a favor, gratuitously, in return for favors that the Jew had performed for him previously,38 in the manner explained in sec. 247[:9]. In such an instance, it is considered as if he established a fee for him.

[A different ruling applies,] however, if the non-Jew does not desire to perform the task gratuitously, but rather expects payment and yet is not absolutely confident of receiving it, because the Jew [for whom he is performing the task] did not establish a fee for him. [Because of this doubt,] he is [considered as] working for the Jewish [employer] without being assured [of payment], and [therefore] appears to be acting as his agent. Accordingly, [the Jewish employer] should not give [the non-Jewish contractor] the task unless he can complete it before Shabbos. [Nevertheless,] it is permitted to give [a non-Jewish contractor a task] for which there is a known fee, e.g., garments given to a launderer in our time, even directly before nightfall without having established a set fee. For does one [need to] establish a fee with the non-Jew every time [he asks him to perform such an ordinary task]?39

There are authorities who permit [giving a non-Jewish contractor a task] even when the fee is unknown, [provided] he gives it to him on Thursday or beforehand. [This leniency applies] even if he cannot complete the task before Shabbos. Were [the Jew] to give [the non-Jew the task] on Friday, if he could not complete it during that day, it would appear that [the Jew] is giving it to him on the condition that he complete it on Shabbos. For he gave it to him close to Shabbos and he cannot possibly complete it by the end of the day. When, by contrast, [he gives] it to him on Thursday [or earlier], it does not appear that he is giving it to him on the condition that he perform the task on Shabbos since it is not in direct proximity to Shabbos. [Accordingly,] the non-Jew’s performance of [the task] on Shabbos on his own initiative is of no consequence for he is working merely to complete the task he contracted to perform. He appears as the agent of the Jewish [employer] only at the time he contracts for the task. At that time, even if the Jewish [employer] does not establish40 a fixed price for the task, [the non-Jew] appears as the Jew’s agent. Thus, when [the Jew] gives him the task to perform well before the Shabbos day, even if he then appears as the Jew’s agent, nevertheless, it does not appear that the Jewish [employer] appointed him to perform the task on Shabbos,unless he gives him the task close to Shabbos. Fundamentally, the halachah follows this view.

(We rule stringently and follow the first opinion41 with regard to sending a letter [with a non-Jew], as stated in sec. 247[:5],42 for the following reason: When one sends [a non-Jew] on a journey to deliver a letter to its destination, it appears as if he is telling him to travel every day, even on Shabbos, until he reaches that destination. Therefore, [the non-Jew] must be able to reach the destination before Shabbos, even though he sent him many days before Shabbos.)43

7 Nevertheless, if [the Jewish employer] sees [the non-Jewish contractor] performing work on his [behalf] on Shabbos, [the Jewish employer] must tell him not to work.44 [This stringency applies] even if he gave him the work on Sunday [and] even if he could have completed it before Shabbos. (The rationale is that when the Jewish [employer] sees [the non-Jew] performing work on his [behalf] and remains silent, the non-Jew will understand that [his working] on Shabbos is desirable for the Jewish [employer] and will then intend to work for [the Jew’s] sake [on Shabbos]. When, by contrast, [the Jew] does not see him, [the non-Jew] works [exclusively for his own sake], to complete his contractual obligation.)

8 When does the above apply? When the Jewish [employer] did not establish a fixed fee [for the non-Jew’s work. Moreover,] even when [the non-Jew] performs work as a favor [for the Jew] — in which instance, he is considered as one whose fee was fixed with regard to giving him the work even on Friday45 — nevertheless, if the Jewish [employer] sees him working on Shabbos, he must admonish him. (Since [the non-Jew] is not sure that he will receive payment for his work, if he understands from the Jew’s attitude that [the Jew] desires this task to be performed for him, his intent [in performing it] is for the sake of the Jew.) If, however, [the Jewish employer] established a fixed fee, (the [non-Jew’s] intent in performing the work on Shabbos is to receive his fee and not for the sake of the Jew, even when the Jewish [employer] sees [the non-Jew working] and remains silent. Therefore,) he need not admonish him at all.46

Nevertheless, if the [non-Jew] performs the work in a public place and it is known to people at large that [he is working with objects] belonging to a Jew,47 [the Jew] must admonish [the non-Jew], because of the impression that could be created, as explained in sec. 244[:4]. Therefore, [since] in these countries, the outer garments worn [by Jews] are distinctly Jewish, when non-Jews launder these garments on the riverbanks, they must be admonished [and instructed to stop] because of the impression that might be created; people might say that [a Jew] gave them to [the non-Jews] on Shabbos to launder.48 Nevertheless, even as an initial preference, one may give [a non-Jew such garments to launder] even on Friday. One need not be concerned that perhaps he will wash them on Shabbos in a public place.

9 All the above applies when the work is being performed with articles belonging to a Jew, for example: garments belonging to a Jew that were given to a launderer, hides given to a leather-worker to process, [leather given] to a shoemaker to sew shoes from, or thread given to [a weaver to] weave a garment.49 [Greater leniency is granted,] however, if the Jew did not give the non-Jewish craftsman anything,50 but instead, [he commissioned the non-Jew and] the non-Jew sewed shoes from his own hides or wove a garment using his own thread, [doing all the above] in his own domain.51 [In such an instance,] the Jew need not say anything to the non-Jew, even if he sees him working on [the task] on Shabbos, even if he did not establish a fixed fee [for the non-Jew to perform the task], provided [the non-Jew] does not perform the task in public or it is not public knowledge that he is working for the Jew.52

[This leniency is granted because the articles the craftsman is fashioning] are not yet designated as the Jew’s. For if the non-Jew desires, he could sell these articles to another person and make other ones for [the Jew]. Even as an initial preference, [a Jew] may instruct the non-Jewish [craftsman] to make such articles, even on Friday close to nightfall, as long as he does not instruct him to make it on Shabbos.

10 Similarly, there is no need to admonish a non-Jew [who] performs a [forbidden] labor on Shabbos on his own initiative, without the Jew telling him, using his own property, even [when he does so] in the home of a Jew,53 for the sake of the Jew, e.g., to make a large fire54 using his own wood so that a Jew will be able to warm himself by it, or he lights his own lamp so that the Jew may use its light. Since he is acting on his own initiative, he is certainly acting for his own benefit. He knows that he will not lose [by doing this], for the Jew will surely reciprocate his kindness.

[More stringent rules apply if the non-Jew] kindles wood belonging to a Jew or lights a Jew’s lamp. Even though the fact that he acts on his own initiative indicates that he certainly relies on the Jew’s reciprocity,55 [there is] nevertheless [reason for stringency]. The non-Jew would need to receive permission from the Jew to kindle [the Jew’s firewood or light [the Jew’s] lamp on Shabbos. Thus, when [the non-Jew] does so on his own initiative and the Jew remains silent despite observing his actions, the non-Jew understands from the Jew’s attitude that he considers [the non-Jew’s] actions as desirous. [Hence, the non-Jew] is [considered as] intending to perform these actions for the sake of the Jew.56 Therefore, he should be admonished [and instructed to stop] even [when he performs them] in places other than the Jew’s home.

Moreover, even if [the non-Jew] kindles his own wood and lights his own lamp, in which instance [the Jew] is not required to admonish him, [the Jew] is nevertheless forbidden to benefit on Shabbos from the lamp or fire that was kindled for his sake.57 For if he will derive physical benefit on Shabbos from [the non-Jew’s activity], the fact will be that the [forbidden] labor was fundamentally performed for his sake on Shabbos.58Although the non-Jew [also] has his own benefit in mind,59 nevertheless, the primary reason he performed the [forbidden] labor was for the Jew to derive physical benefit from it on Shabbos. Were the Jew not to derive physical benefit on Shabbos from [the non-Jew’s activity, the non-Jew] would not have performed it at all on Shabbos. Hence, since the [forbidden] labor is being performed primarily for [the Jew’s] sake, it is appropriate that a decree be issued [forbidding him to benefit from it. The rationale:] If it would be permitted for him to benefit from [the forbidden labor] when it is performed on his behalf, it is possible that he would [specifically] ask [the non-Jew] to perform it on his behalf on Shabbos.60

11 When, however, a non-Jewish contractor fashions an article for a Jew on Shabbos that he was contracted for on Friday for an established fee, [the Jewish employer] is permitted to benefit from it on Shabbos itself.61 For the non-Jew worked for his own sake — to complete the task given him and to earn his fee; he did not intend for the Jewish [employer] to benefit from the task on Shabbos itself. Even if [the Jewish employer] would not benefit from it on Shabbos itself, the non-Jew would not refrain from performing his work on Shabbos. As such, [the Jewish employer] should not be prohibited from benefiting from [the work] the non-Jew performed for his own sake. For even if [the Jewish employer] is permitted to benefit from [this work], he would not instruct the non-Jew to perform the work [on Shabbos so that he could benefit from it on Shabbos], since he is granted permission [to benefit from the non-Jew’s work] only when the non-Jew has his own benefit in mind and not when he has the Jew’s [benefit] in mind.

There are authorities who forbid using a utensil that a non-Jew completed on Shabbos. [Moreover, they maintain that] even on Saturday night, it is [also] necessary to wait bichdei she­yaasu,62 i.e., for the passage of the amount of time that the non-Jew spent in fashioning the utensil on Shabbos [before using the utensil],so that one will not derive any benefit from the work [performed] on Shabbos. As an initial preference, one should follow this view, unless he needs [to use] the utensil on Shabbos, in which instance, he may follow the lenient view.63

If one is unsure whether the utensil was completed on Friday [or on Shabbos], one may be lenient in all instances, since there are authorities who permit [use of the utensil] in any event. (If [a utensil] was completed on the first day of a holiday, it is permitted on the night of the second day of the holiday bichdei sheyaasu; see sec. 515[:1].)64

If a non-Jew completed sewing shoes on Friday, and merely added the final touches and smoothed them out on Shabbos, it is permitted to put them on that [Shabbos] day, according to all opinions. For by wearing them, one is not benefiting from work performed on Shabbos, but from work performed during the week, because one would have been able to wear them even had these final touches not been added. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

12 All the above applies with regard to articles that [a non-Jew specifically] made for a Jew. [Different rules apply,] however, when a non-Jewish [craftsman] makes utensils to sell to anyone who chooses [to purchase them] from him. In a town primarily populated by non-Jews,65 it is permitted to purchase a garment from him on Shabbos on credit, without specifying a price, in the manner to be explained in sec. 323[:1].66 It is permitted [for a Jew] to wear it on that Shabbos, even when he knows that it was made on Shabbos. [The rationale is that] since the majority of the inhabitants of the town are non-Jews, we can assume that [the craftsman] made them for the sake of the non-Jews. For whenever a craftsman makes articles, he makes them with the majority of the populace in mind.

Similar laws apply with regard to holidays. Although one should be stringent with regard to entities that come into being on a holiday (nolad),67 as will be explained in sec. 495[:13], nevertheless, in this instance, [the stringency of] nolad does not apply, because the entity is fashioned by human hands, as will be explained in sec. 325[:6].68

13 When does the above apply? When the non-Jew had the articles sent or brought them himself to the Jew’s house. It is, however, forbidden [for the Jewish purchaser] to send someone — even [another] non-Jew — to take articles from [the craftsman’s] home (on Shabbos), even if the articles were completed on Friday. For it is forbidden to bring articles from a craftsman’s home [on Shabbos and holidays. Indeed, this prohibition applies] even on Chol HaMoed,69and even if [the articles] were completed before the festival, unless the articles are required for the sake of the festival.70 [The prohibition was instituted] because of the impression that might be created,71 i.e., others might say that the person gave them to [the non-Jewish craftsman] on the festival to fix. When, however, the articles were necessary for the [Chol HaMoed] festival, [our Sages] were not concerned with the impression that would be created, for [the prohibition regarding work on] Chol HaMoed is slight [in comparison with that applying to Shabbos and holidays], as will be explained in sec. 535.72

On Shabbos and holidays,73 [the laws are more stringent]. (Even if an article was completed on Friday [or on the day preceding a holiday]), it is forbidden to take it from a craftsman’s house to a Jew’s house [on those sacred days,] even if it is required for the sake of the Shabbos or holiday. [This restriction applies] even [to taking articles] from house to house in the same courtyard.

It does not, however, apply when the non-Jew is not a craftsman at all, but a merchant who purchases [articles] from craftsmen and sells them to others. In such a situation, it is permitted to take articles from him — even from his house or store74 — and bring them to a Jew’s home, even through a street, if the city is encompassed by an eruv.

14 One who waters [plants] on Shabbos is liable [for performing a forbidden labor.75 Nevertheless, even] shortly before Shabbos, it is permitted to cause water to flow into a garden, i.e., to open an offshoot channel from the edge of a stream to a garden and have it flow into the garden throughout the entire Shabbos,watering the vegetation [growing there].76

Similarly, [on Friday afternoon,] it is permitted to place a thick salve on one’s eyes as a medication and a compress on a wound [so that] they will continue to promote healing throughout the entire Shabbos, even though it is forbidden to apply such substances on Shabbos itself,as will be explained in sec. 328[:27ff].

Similarly, although one who squeezes [olives and grapes] on Shabbos is liable [for the violation of the prohibition against forbidden labor],77 it is permitted to place the [pressing] beams of an olive press on olives, and the round, wooden plates of a winepress on grapes close to nightfall [on Friday so that the olives and the grapes] will be pressed throughout the entire Shabbos. Nevertheless, [on that Shabbos itself,] it is forbidden to use the oil and the wine that emerge from the press after nightfall,78 as is the law regarding liquids that ooze from [fruits] on Shabbos on their own accord, which are forbidden on Shabbos as a decree, lest one come and squeeze [the fruits] with one’s hands, as will be stated in sec. 320[:3].

When does [the prohibition against using these liquids] apply? When [the fruits] are placed in the press directly before nightfall. If, however, they are placed in the press while there is still much time left in the day [on Friday], in a manner where they will be crushed because of the press before nightfall, the oil and the wine that emerge throughout the entire Shabbos are permitted. In this instance, there is no reason to institute a decree [forbidding the liquids], lest one squeeze [the fruit] with one’s hands. For even if he squeezes the fruit, he is not violating a Scriptural commandment, merely a Rabbinic ordinance. [The rationale is that the produce] has already been crushed [by the time Shabbos begins] and the liquids will flow out from [the crushed fruit] on their own accord, even if [the produce] has not been placed beneath the beams or plates or squeezed by hand. It is just that the liquids emerge more rapidly when they are pressed or squeezed.

Similarly, the liquids that emerge on Shabbos from unripened grapes and kernels of grain that were crushed while it was still day [on Friday] are permitted.79

15 It is permitted to place kernels of wheat in a watermill close to nightfall [on Friday, so that] they will be ground [without the need for further intervention] throughout the entire Shabbos. [This leniency is granted] even when the mill belongs to a Jew. We are not concerned about the noise the mill makes on Shabbos [and the possibility] that people will say so-and-so’s mill is grinding [flour] on Shabbos. [The rationale:] Everyone knows that the mill grinds without human intervention and thus people will not come to suspect that [the miller] placed grain in the mill on Shabbos.

There are authorities who differ with this ruling and forbid [the use] on Shabbos of a mill and any other implement that makes noise while performing its task [without human intervention,] because this brings about the denigration of the Shabbos, for [people] will say that the task was begun on Shabbos.80 [License is granted] only when the work is performed in the domain of a non-Jew and the name of a Jew is not associated with [the concern] at all. For example, [one may] place wheat in a mill belonging to a non-Jew while it is still day [on Friday,] or give [the wheat] to a non-Jewish [miller] while it is still day [on Friday] and the non-Jew may place it in his mill, even on Shabbos, if he established a fixed fee for him, as explained above.81 Nevertheless, the Jew should not stand next to [the non-Jewish miller] on Shabbos to ensure that he does not steal [flour], because of the impression that may be created, i.e., [people] will say that [the miller] was the agent of the Jew who was standing over him. [License is granted only] when a substantial loss is involved, in which case [the Jew] does not have to be concerned with the possibility of creating such an impression, as was explained in sec. 244[:17]. How much more so [is leniency granted] in situations that require watching [the milling], e.g., before Pesach when a Jew must watch the mill to see that water does not enter [and mix with the flour]!

With regard to the halachah, in a place where there is no established custom, one should rule stringently as mandated by the latter approach, unless there is a loss involved,82 in which instance, one may rely on the first approach.

16 Nevertheless, it is permitted to set up83 a clock that chimes on the hour that is operated by weights, even though it produces tones on Shabbos.84[Although it produces sounds on Shabbos,]people will not say that one set it up on Shabbos and [thus] violated the decree of our Sages who forbade producing tones on Shabbos (using a utensil designated for that purpose), as will be explained in sec. 338[:4. The rationale is that] people know that [such a clock] is set up on the preceding day, for this is the ongoing practice: to set up such clocks each day for the following day.

17 A person should not go out into the public domain close to nightfall [on Friday] while carrying an object in his hand.85 [This is] a decree lest he forget until after nightfall to remove the object from his hand [to] store it away. [Afterwards,] he will remember that the object is in his hand, but forget that it is Shabbos and go out carrying the object from a private domain to a public domain, or he will carry it [more than] four cubits in the public domain, or bring it in from a public domain to a private domain.86

If, however, he would not recall [that he was continuing to hold] the object after nightfall, he would not violate a Scriptural prohibition. For the Torah forbade only intentional labor,87 i.e., that the person think about and intend to perform a [forbidden] labor. The unwitting violation [of this prohibition], which warrants that one bring a sin-offering [for atonement], is [the unintentional performance of a forbidden labor, i.e.,] when the person does not know that it is Shabbos or does not know that this labor is forbidden, [but has full intent to perform the act].88

18 It is, however, permitted to go out to the public domain close to nightfall [on Friday wearing] a pin inserted into one’s garments89 or the like, i.e., any object for which he would not be liable according to Scriptural Law, were he to go out [wearing] it on Shabbos, as will be stated in sec. 301[:4-5, 9].90 Although this is forbidden according to our Sages’ decree, nevertheless, they did not issue a decree regarding such a situation close to nightfall [on Friday], because a decree is not issued concerning a decree.91 Therefore, in the present era, when it has become the widespread custom to follow the opinion that maintains that in the present era there is no concept of a public domain in the full sense, merely a karmelis,92as will be explained in sec. 345[:11],93 there is absolutely no prohibition against going out close to nightfall, even while holding an article in one’s hands.94 [The rationale is that] the prohibition against transferring an article [from a private domain] to a karmelis is merely a Rabbinic decree, and a Rabbinic decree95 is not issued [as a safeguard] for a Rabbinic decree.96

19 It is permitted to go out even to a [place deemed as] a public domain in the complete sense while wearing tefillin on one’s head (and arm) close to nightfall [on Friday].97 There is no concern that the person will forget to remove them until after nightfall, at which time, he might need to relieve himself and will remove98 the tefillin from his head (and arm) and carry them in his hands to deposit them. He might [then] forget that it is Shabbos and carry them four cubits in the public domain. [We are not concerned about the above] because it is forbidden to divert one’s attention from tefillin and act frivolously when wearing them, as explained in sec. 28[:1]. As a result, he will keep them in mind at all times and he will remove them before nightfall.

20 It is a mitzvah for every person to feel [and check] his clothes on Friday close to nightfall,99 so that they will not have anything [in or] on them that is forbidden to take out [to the public domain while] carrying on Shabbos.100[This applies even] according to our custom, which follows the opinion that at present there is no concept of a public domain in the full sense.101 He should [also] unfasten his belt and remove anything hanging from it.102