וי״א דכלים שעושין בהם מלאכה כגון מחרישה וכיוצא בה אסור להשכיר לעכו״ם בע״ש וביום הה׳ מות׳ להשכיר לו ובלבד שלא יטול שכר שבת אלא בהבלעה כגון שישכיר לו לחדש או לשבוע ולהשאיל לו מותר אפי׳ בערב שבת:

הגה וכן עיקר כסברא האחרונה ומותר להשאיל לו בערב שבת (טור וסמ״ג וסמ״ק ותו׳ פ״ק דשבת) אע״ג שמתנה שהעכו״ם יחזור וישאיל לו לא אמרינן בכי האי גוונא דהוי כשכירות (הגהת מיי׳ פ״ז):

Heading of the siman: the laws of lending and renting vessels to a non-Jew for Shabbos. And it contains five seifim.

It is permitted to lend and to rent one's vessels to a non-Jew, and this even though he performs work with them on Shabbos — because we are not commanded concerning the rest of vessels (shevisas keilim).

And some say that vessels with which work is performed, such as a plough and the like, it is forbidden to rent them to a non-Jew on the eve of Shabbos; on Thursday it is permitted to rent them to him, provided that he take no payment for Shabbos other than by havla'ah — for example by renting them to him by the month or by the week. As for lending them to him, that is permitted even on the eve of Shabbos.

Gloss of the Rema: and so is the main ruling, like the latter opinion; and it is permitted to lend it to him on the eve of Shabbos (Tur, Semag, Semak and Tosafos, first chapter of Shabbos) — and even if he stipulates that the non-Jew will lend back to him in return, we do not say that in such a case it counts as a rental (Hagahos Maimoniyos, chap. 7).

The source of the sugya

The braisa of Shabbos 19a, and the question of whose view it follows

Talmud Bavli, Shabbos 19a

« תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יַשְׂכִּיר אָדָם כֵּלָיו לְגוֹי בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, בִּרְבִיעִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי מוּתָּר. » (שבת י״ט ע״א)

Our Rabbis taught: a man shall not rent out his vessels to a non-Jew on the eve of Shabbos; on Wednesday and on Thursday it is permitted.

The whole sugya turns on the second half of this braisa. If renting were forbidden for a reason belonging to Shabbos itself, why should it be permitted on Wednesday? And if it is permitted on Wednesday, what does Friday add? The question posed here, each in his own way, by the Taz and by the Mishnah Berurah is therefore: alibah de-man — in whose name was this braisa taught? If it is Beis Shammai, who hold that a man is commanded concerning the rest of his vessels as he is concerning that of his animal, it is not the halachah, since the halachah follows Beis Hillel. If it is everyone's view, the prohibition stands.

Taz, Orach Chayim 246, s.k. 1

« דהא דתני׳ לא ישכיר כליו לעכו״ם בע״ש ובד׳ וה׳ מותר היא מטעם שביתת כלים דאסור אתיא כב״ש אבל ב״ה ס״ל שביתת כלים אין אדם מצווה עליו ממיל׳ מותר להשכיר כליו אפי׳ בע״ש זה דעת הרמב״ם » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ו ס״ק א)

For what was taught — « a man shall not rent out his vessels to a non-Jew on the eve of Shabbos, and on Wednesday and Thursday it is permitted » — rests on the rest of vessels being obligatory, and follows Beis Shammai; but Beis Hillel hold that a man is not commanded concerning the rest of vessels, and consequently it is permitted to rent out one's vessels even on the eve of Shabbos. This is the view of the Rambam.

Shitas haRambam and haRif

The first school ① — the Rambam and the Rif (to permit)

Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos, chap. 6, hal. 16

« מֻתָּר לְהַשְׁאִיל כֵּלִים וּלְהַשְׂכִּירָן לְנָכְרִי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶן מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מְצֻוִּים עַל שְׁבִיתַת הַכֵּלִים. אֲבָל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְעַבְדּוֹ אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָנוּ מְצֻוִּין עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֵמָה וְעֶבֶד: » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ו הט״ז)

It is permitted to lend vessels and to rent them to a non-Jew, and this although he performs work with them on Shabbos, because we are not commanded concerning the rest of vessels. But his animal and his servant are forbidden, because we are commanded concerning the rest of animal and servant.

The Rambam does not divide by place or by day: he decides the question of principle. The verse that your ox and your donkey may rest was said of the animal, not of the tool; there is therefore no shevisas keilim. And since nothing but that explains the braisa, the braisa is Beis Shammai's — and we do not follow it. This is the reading that the Taz and the Mishnah Berurah both ascribe to the Rif and the Rambam.

Kushya on this school

If everything is permitted, what becomes of the prohibition of sechar Shabbos — profit drawn from the day of Shabbos itself? A man who rents out his plough for the single day of Shabbos does collect the price of that day.

Terutz — the Taz and the Mishnah Berurah answer together

The Taz writes that the Rambam himself permits renting only by havla'ah: « ונ״ל דגם הוא ס״ל דאין היתר להשכיר רק בהבלע׳ אבל לא על שבת לחוד דזה הוה ודאי שכר שבת » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ו ס״ק א) — « and it seems to me that he too holds that there is no permission to rent except by havla'ah, but not for Shabbos alone, for that is certainly payment for Shabbos ». The Mishnah Berurah says the same and extends it further in time.

« גם הם ס״ל דכל הכלים אין היתר להשכיר רק בהבלעה אבל לא על שבת לחוד אפילו אם משכירם בתחלת השבוע דזה הוי שכר שבת » (משנה ברורה רמ״ו ס״ק א) — « they too hold that for all vessels there is no permission to rent except by havla'ah, but not for Shabbos alone, even if he rents them out at the beginning of the week, for that is payment for Shabbos ». Let this be held on to: the lenient school bears on the date of handing over; on the manner of reckoning the price, the Taz and the Mishnah Berurah write in one and the same phrase:
« לא מצינו מי שמקיל » (מ״ב רמ״ו:א; and likewise ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ו ס״ק א) — « we have not found anyone who is lenient about this ».

Shitas Rabbeinu Yonah

The second school ② — the stringent school, and what grounds it

The second school reverses the reading: the braisa does not need shevisas keilim in order to stand, and it therefore holds for everyone, Beis Hillel included. But then it needs another reason — and that reason the Taz and the Mishnah Berurah name in the same words.

Taz, Orach Chayim 246, s.k. 1

« והי״א הוא דעת הרר״י דהך בריית׳ לא אסר׳ משום שביתת כלים אלא דנר׳ כשלוחו של ישראל » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ו ס״ק א)

And the « some say » is the view of Rabbeinu Yonah: that braisa did not forbid on account of the rest of vessels, but because he appears to be the Jew's agent.

Mishnah Berurah 246, s.k. 1

« והי״א הוא דעת הרב רבינו יונה דהך ברייתא לא אסרה משום שביתת כלים אלא ככו״ע אתיא והטעם דכשמוסר בע״ש את הכלים שעושין מלאכה בהן והא״י יעשה בהן מיד בשבת נראה כמו שעושה מלאכתו בשליחותו של ישראל וזה אסור דאמירה לא״י שבות » (משנה ברורה רמ״ו ס״ק א)

And the « some say » is the view of Rav Rabbeinu Yonah: that braisa did not forbid on account of the rest of vessels, but holds for everyone; and the reason is that when he hands over, on the eve of Shabbos, the vessels with which work is performed, and the non-Jew will use them at once on Shabbos, it appears as though he were doing his work as the Jew's agent — and that is forbidden, for telling a non-Jew is a shevus.

Two expressions here must be weighed. First on the eve of Shabbos: it is the immediate nearness between the handing over and the use that creates the appearance, which is why Wednesday does not raise the same difficulty. Second vessels with which work is performed: a rented garment appears as nothing at all. Yet an objection presses — Beis Hillel do permit giving hides to a tanner at dusk.

Terutz — the distinction the Taz writes, which the Biur Halachah attributes to the Rosh

« ואע״ג דשרו ב״ה עורות לעבדן עם חשיכה דעכו״ם אדעת׳ דנפשי׳ קעביד כיון דקוצץ לו דמים שאני התם שאין ריוח להישראל במה שהעכו״ם עושה בשבת אבל בשכירו׳ כלים יש ריוח לישראל במה שהכלי׳ נשכרים מיחזי כשלוחו » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ו ס״ק א) — « and although Beis Hillel permit hides to the tanner as night falls, that is because the non-Jew acts on his own account, since he fixed a price with him: there, the Jew has no profit in what the non-Jew does on Shabbos; but in renting vessels the Jew does have a profit in the fact that his vessels are rented out — that appears as his agent ». The pivot is therefore the profit (revach), not the non-Jew's act.
A note on names: the Taz himself does not name the Rosh here, nor does the Mishnah Berurah at s.k. 1. The one who attributes this reason to the Rosh is the Biur Halachah:
« הטעם שכתב הרא״ש באיסור שכירות לא״י משום דיש ריוח לישראל » (ביאור הלכה רמ״ו ד״ה ולא אמרינן) — « the reason the Rosh wrote in the prohibition of renting to a non-Jew, namely that there is a profit for the Jew ».

First chakira

The nature of the prohibition — a prohibition in itself, or a branch of mar'is ayin?

Chakira

When the Rishonim say here sechar Shabbos, do they mean a self-standing prohibition — one does not take money for the day of Shabbos — or a way of saying that profit generates the appearance, the prohibition then being one of mar'is ayin? This is no schoolroom question: the Taz poses it explicitly, because the Tur and Rabbeinu Yonah do not give the same reason.

Taz, Orach Chayim 246, s.k. 2 — the kushya

« בטור כת׳ ודוק׳ להשכיר אסור משום שכר שבת לכאור׳ קשה דהא זהו טעם התו׳ שזכרנו אבל הרר״י מפ׳ משום דנר׳ כשלוחו » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ו ס״ק ב)

In the Tur it is written: « and it is specifically renting that is forbidden, on account of payment for Shabbos ». At first sight this is difficult, for that is the reason of Tosafos which we recalled; but Rabbeinu Yonah explains that it is because he appears to be his agent.

Taz, Orach Chayim 246, s.k. 2 — the terutz

« ונ״ל דהך שכר שבת אין פי׳ שנוטל שכר שבת מן השוכר אלא פי׳ כיון שיש ריוח בזה ההשכרה במה שהי׳ נשכר בשבת דזה גזרו משום מראית עין ששולח שלוחו להרויח לו: » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ו ס״ק ב)

And it seems to me that this « payment for Shabbos » does not mean that he takes payment for Shabbos from the renter, but means: since there is a profit in this rental, in that they were rented out on Shabbos — and that they decreed on account of mar'is ayin, that he sends his agent to earn for him.

The Taz therefore does not delete either of the two terms: he makes the first a way of saying the second. In our siman sechar Shabbos names the profit, and the profit is what produces the appearance of agency. But — and this is what keeps the chakira from closing — the self-standing prohibition of sechar Shabbos does exist elsewhere, and the Acharonim apply it in this very siman.

Nafka mina

« אבל ליטול שכר שבת לחוד אפילו בכלי שאין עושין בו מלאכה או שמשכיר לו חדר לדור בו אסור לכו״ע וכמו שיתבאר לקמן בסימן ש״ו ס״ד: » (משנה ברורה רמ״ו ס״ק ג) — « but to take payment for Shabbos alone, even for a vessel with which no work is performed, or if he rents him a room to dwell in, is forbidden in everyone's view, as will be explained further on in siman 306, seif 4 ». There, neither work nor appearance of agency: this is indeed a prohibition in itself. The two reasons thus live side by side in this seif, one governing the date of handing over, the other the reckoning of the price. The exact relation between them the Acharonim discuss; we leave it open.

The ruling of the Beis Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch

The Mechaber's decision — Rabbi Yosef Karo

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 246, seif 1 — the anonymous view

« מותר להשאיל ולהשכיר כליו לעכו״ם ואע״פ שהוא עושה בהם מלאכה בשבת מפני שאין אנו מצווים על שביתת כלים » (שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רמ״ו:א)

It is permitted to lend and to rent one's vessels to a non-Jew, and although he performs work with them on Shabbos, because we are not commanded concerning the rest of vessels.

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 246, seif 1 — the « yesh omrim »

« וי״א דכלים שעושין בהם מלאכה כגון מחרישה וכיוצא בה אסור להשכיר לעכו״ם בע״ש וביום הה׳ מות׳ להשכיר לו ובלבד שלא יטול שכר שבת אלא בהבלעה כגון שישכיר לו לחדש או לשבוע ולהשאיל לו מותר אפי׳ בערב שבת: » (שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רמ״ו:א)

And some say that vessels with which work is performed, such as a plough and the like, it is forbidden to rent them to a non-Jew on the eve of Shabbos; and on Thursday it is permitted to rent them to him, provided that he take no payment for Shabbos other than by havla'ah, for example by renting them to him by the month or by the week. And as for lending them to him, that is permitted even on the eve of Shabbos.

The Mechaber writes the lenient school as the anonymous view (the Rambam and the Rif, two of his pillars), and the stringent school as yesh omrim. The structure is therefore a stam followed by a yesh omrim, and the Beis Yosef's ordinary rule is that the halachah follows the stam. Two remarks of reading, before turning to the Rema.

First, the stringent school itself does not touch the free loan: it closes with the words « and as for lending them to him, that is permitted even on the eve of Shabbos ». Second, the havla'ah clause does not belong to the machlokes at all: it holds for both schools, as was seen in chapter 2.

Pilpul — how far does « vessels with which work is performed » reach?

« כגון ריחיים וכל כלי אומנות [הרא״ש] ועיין בפמ״ג דה״ה כלים שאין עושין בעצמן מלאכה כגון גיגית שהשכר נעשה בה או קדרה שמבשלין בה » (משנה ברורה רמ״ו ס״ק ב) — « such as a millstone and every craftsman's tool [the Rosh]; and see in the Pri Megadim that the same applies to vessels which do not themselves perform work, such as a vat in which beer is made, or a pot in which one cooks ». And the other edge:
« ולא בא הרר״י למעוטי אלא כשמשכיר לו חלוק וטלית וכה״ג איזה כלי שאין עומד לעשות בה מלאכה דמותר להשכיר לו אפילו בע״ש: » (משנה ברורה רמ״ו ס״ק ב) — « and Rabbeinu Yonah came to exclude only the case where he rents him a shirt, a tallis or some like vessel that is not set for work to be performed with it: there it is permitted to rent it to him even on the eve of Shabbos ». The Biur Halachah narrows further, in the name of the Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger:
« י״ל דבא לאורויי דדוקא דברים שעושה בהם מלאכה דאורייתא אבל בעושה בהם מלאכה דרבנן מותר כיון דלא מיחזי רק כעובר על שבות דשבות (חידושי רע״א): » (ביאור הלכה רמ״ו ד״ה כגון מחרישה) — only vessels serving a melachah of the Torah; for a rabbinic melachah there would be no more than the appearance of a shevus de-shevus.

The Rema's gloss

The Rema's chiddush — what he tightens, and what he leaves open

Rema, gloss on Orach Chayim 246, seif 1

« הגה וכן עיקר כסברא האחרונה ומותר להשאיל לו בערב שבת (טור וסמ״ג וסמ״ק ותו׳ פ״ק דשבת) אע״ג שמתנה שהעכו״ם יחזור וישאיל לו לא אמרינן בכי האי גוונא דהוי כשכירות (הגהת מיי׳ פ״ז): » (שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רמ״ו:א)

Gloss: and so is the main ruling, like the latter opinion; and it is permitted to lend it to him on the eve of Shabbos (Tur, Semag, Semak and Tosafos, first chapter of Shabbos) — and even if he stipulates that the non-Jew will lend back to him, we do not say that in such a case it counts as a rental (Hagahos Maimoniyos, chap. 7).

The Rema makes two moves here, not one. He rules like the latter opinion — thus against the Mechaber's stam, and renting out a work-tool on the eve of Shabbos becomes forbidden for Ashkenazi practice. Then, in the same sentence, he confirms the permission to lend and extends it to the case of a loan in return. This is the opposite of a general stringency: he tightens the rental and keeps the loan free.

What exactly does « like the latter opinion » mean? The Biur Halachah refuses to read it as a plain adoption of Rabbeinu Yonah: « ועיין בד״מ שטעמו דסמ״ג וסמ״ק וסה״ת ותוספות ועוד כמה ראשונים ס״ל דהברייתא דלא ישכיר כליו בע״ש אתיא ככ״ע וזהו שכתב כסברא אחרונה ר״ל שלא כסברא ראשונה דדחי לגמרי הברייתא » (ביאור הלכה רמ״ו ד״ה וכן עיקר) — « and see in the Darkei Moshe that his reason is that the Semag, the Semak, the Sefer haTerumah, Tosafos and several other Rishonim hold that the braisa “a man shall not rent out his vessels on the eve of Shabbos” holds for everyone; and that is what he called “like the latter opinion”, that is to say: not like the first opinion, which rejects the braisa entirely ».

And the Biur Halachah at once adds the qualification that this reading requires: « ואף דלדידהו אסור בע״ש אפילו בכלים שאין עושין בהן מלאכה לענין זה תפס להקל כשיטת רבינו יונה משום שכן הוא גם דעת רש״י והטור ובחידושי הרשב״א כתב שזה הוא שיטה המחוורת » (ביאור הלכה רמ״ו ד״ה וכן עיקר) — « and although, for them, it is forbidden on the eve of Shabbos even for vessels with which no work is performed, on this point he took the lenient side according to the shita of Rabbeinu Yonah, because such is also the view of Rashi and the Tur; and in the Chiddushei haRashba it is written that this is the clearest shita ». The Rema therefore borrows the principle from one group of Rishonim and the scope from another.

Kushya on the end of the gloss

If the Jew stipulates that the non-Jew will lend him a vessel in return, he does receive something. Why is that not a rental — and why is there no profit (revach) there, which the Taz has just made the pivot of the appearance?

Terutz — and the point the Biur Halachah leaves in צריך עיון

The Mishnah Berurah first gives the Beis Yosef's answer: « היינו שאע״פ שאינו משאילו חנם כ״א בשכר שישאילנו אח״כ מ״מ כיון דלא הוי בדרך שכירות ממש לומר אתן לך כך כדי שתשאילני כלי שלך שרי [ב״י] ועיין בה״ל: » (משנה ברורה רמ״ו ס״ק ה) — « that is, although he does not lend it to him for nothing but in return for the loan he will receive afterwards, nevertheless, since it is not in the manner of a true rental, to say “I will give you such-and-such so that you lend me your vessel”, it is permitted [Beis Yosef] — and see the Biur Halachah ». Now the Biur Halachah is precisely not content with this:
« והנה ע״כ מוכרחין אנו לומר דטעם ההיתר הוא כמו שכתב הגר״א בביאורו דכאן לא שייך הטעם שכתב הרא״ש באיסור שכירות לא״י משום דיש ריוח לישראל [וכמו שהעתקתי במ״ב סק״א ע״ש] ולפ״ז במתנה שיתן לו הא״י אח״כ בשביל זה את כליו על יום אחד יותר הרי יש לו ריוח עי״ז וצ״ע: » (ביאור הלכה רמ״ו ד״ה ולא אמרינן) — after reporting that the Eliyah Rabbah cites the Malbushei Yom Tov, who objects from the Hagahos Maimoniyos themselves, he writes: « and behold we are forced to say that the reason of the permission is the one the Vilna Gaon wrote in his commentary: that here the reason the Rosh wrote in the prohibition of renting to a non-Jew does not apply, namely that there is a profit for the Jew… and accordingly, if he stipulates that the non-Jew will afterwards give him, in return for this, his vessels for one day more, behold he does have a profit thereby — and this requires examination ». The question stays open; we do not decide it.

Second chakira

Sechar Shabbos or nir'eh ki-shelucho — which is the principal reason?

Chakira — two reasons, two perimeters

The Shulchan Aruch names sechar Shabbos in the havla'ah clause. Rabbeinu Yonah, for his part, grounds the eve-of-Shabbos prohibition on nir'eh ki-shelucho. The two do not cover the same ground, and that is what can be measured: the first catches every collection of money, the second every appearance.

Reason	Who gives it	Where it reaches	If it is the principal reason
שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת	the Tur, as the Taz cites him (s.k. 2)	renting	the free loan stays permitted — there is no payment
נִרְאֶה כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ	Rabbeinu Yonah (Taz s.k. 1; Mishnah Berurah s.k. 1)	renting a work-tool, on the eve of Shabbos	what triggers the appearance is the Jew's profit, not the exchange of money
both, but nested	the Taz, s.k. 2	« sechar Shabbos » here names the profit; the decree itself is mar'is ayin	renting is caught; the free loan, where there is no profit, is not
what comes out of it in halachah	Mishnah Berurah s.k. 4: « דכיון שאין ריוח לישראל במלאכת הא״י לא יאמרו שלוחו הוא לזה וע״כ מותר להשאיל לו אפילו ליום השבת לחוד אפילו כלים שיעשה הא״י מלאכה בהן: » (משנה ברורה רמ״ו ס״ק ד) — « since the Jew has no profit in the non-Jew's work, they will not say he is his agent in this; therefore it is permitted to lend it to him even for the single day of Shabbos, and even vessels with which the non-Jew will perform work ».

8–9

The view of the Taz and of the Magen Avraham

What each of the two fixes — and where the boundary runs

Taz, Orach Chayim 246, s.k. 2

The Taz therefore does not make sechar Shabbos a money prohibition: he makes it the name of the profit, and the profit the name of the appearance. The reach of this shift should be measured: it removes from our seif's prohibition any footing on collection, and rests it entirely on what the onlooker sees.

Magen Avraham 246, s.k. 2

« בע״ש דמחזי כשלוחו. אבל בחנם לא מיחזי כשלוחו: » (מגן אברהם רמ״ו ס״ק ב)

« On the eve of Shabbos, for he appears as his agent » — but for nothing, he does not appear as his agent.

The Magen Avraham sets the boundary in a handful of words, and on the lenient side: without a counterpart there is no appearance of agency. This is the exact consequence of the pivot of profit, and it is what the Mishnah Berurah will take up at s.k. 4. He adds, at s.k. 4, the scope of that permission:

Magen Avraham 246, s.k. 4

« ולהשאיל וכו׳. אפי׳ בכלי שעושין בו מלאכה שרי (הג״מ): » (מגן אברהם רמ״ו ס״ק ד)

« And as for lending them to him, etc. » — even a vessel with which work is performed, it is permitted (Hagahos Maimoniyos).

And on havla'ah the Magen Avraham is, on the contrary, the firmest: « אבל ליטול שכר שבת לחוד אפי׳ בכלי שאין עושין בו מלאכה אפי׳ בחדר לדור בו אסור כמ״ש סי׳ ש״ו ס״ד » (מגן אברהם רמ״ו ס״ק ג) — « but to take payment for Shabbos alone, even for a vessel with which no work is performed, even a room to dwell in, is forbidden, as is written in siman 306, seif 4 ». The two Acharonim thus hold both ends together: lenient on the loan, because there is no profit; firm on the reckoning of the price, because there the profit is the day itself.

Practical nafka minos

Three places where the distinction can be measured

Nafka mina 1 — where no one sees, and the walled city

If appearance is everything, a place without onlookers should permit everything. The Magen Avraham debates it on seif 2 — and he does not end on a permission: he starts from the Beis Yosef at the beginning of siman 325, comes from there to the walled city, and at once sets against it the Rambam's reason — the wall does not suffice, for it is the very going out of the doorway on Shabbos that makes the appearance — and he halts on צריך עיון. Here is his s.k. in full: « צוהו להוציאו. ואפי׳ לדידן דל״ל ר״ה גמור׳ אסו׳ כמ״ש בב״י רסי׳ שכ״ה וא״כ אם העיר מוקפת חומה דמותר לטלטל בכולה שרי אבל הרמב״ם פ״ו כת׳ כשיצא מפתח ביתו בשבת יראה כמי שלוה לעכו״ם או משכנו או פסק עמו או מכר לו בשבת עכ״ל, וא״כ צ״ע על הרב״י שהשמיט טעם הרמב״ם ויש להקל בעת הצורך: » (מגן אברהם רמ״ו ס״ק ו) — « “he told him to take it out” — and even for us, who have no full-fledged public domain, it is forbidden, as is written in the Beis Yosef at the beginning of siman 325; and therefore, if the city is surrounded by a wall, so that carrying is permitted throughout it, it is permitted. But the Rambam, in chapter 6, wrote: when he goes out of the doorway of his house on Shabbos, it looks as though he had lent to the non-Jew, or taken a pledge from him, or fixed a price with him, or sold to him on Shabbos — end of quotation. And therefore it requires examination as to the Beis Yosef, who omitted the Rambam's reason; and there is room to be lenient in a case of need ». This is therefore not a plain permission but a tsarich iyun whose outcome is only a leniency in case of need; we do not decide it. The Mishnah Berurah takes up the distinction of the walled city and cuts it finer:
« וא״כ אם העיר מוקפת חומה דמותר לטלטל בכולה והא״י ג״כ דר שם שרי להשאילו כלים שאין עושין מלאכה בהן ולמכור לו ולהשכירו אסור אף בזה שלא יאמרו שמכר והשכיר לו בשבת ואם הוא כלים שעושין בהן מלאכה אפילו להשאילו אסור אא״כ יוציאם מפתח ביתו קודם השבת שלא יאמרו בשליחותו של ישראל עושה מלאכה בשבת: » (משנה ברורה רמ״ו ס״ק ט) — in such a city, where the non-Jew also dwells, one may lend him the vessels with which no work is performed; selling and renting to him remain forbidden even there, lest it be said that he sold or rented on Shabbos; and if they are vessels with which work is performed, even lending is forbidden unless he takes them out of his doorway before Shabbos. These lines bear on seif 2, not on seif 1.

Nafka mina 2 — havla'ah, and what it does not save

The havla'ah of seif 1 (« by renting them to him by the month or by the week ») covers only the mode of calculation. Taking the price of Shabbos alone remains forbidden in everyone's view, and that even where neither work nor appearance comes into play — even a dwelling room (Magen Avraham s.k. 3; Mishnah Berurah s.k. 3, both referring to siman 306, seif 4).

Nafka mina 3 — from which day?

The braisa permits Wednesday and Thursday; the Shulchan Aruch writes « and on Thursday it is permitted to rent them to him ». But the date settles only half the question: the Mishnah Berurah, at s.k. 1, writes that renting for Shabbos alone is payment for Shabbos even if the contract is made at the beginning of the week. Moving the day of handing over back therefore removes the appearance of agency, and removes nothing from the reckoning of the price.

11–12

The Rema's chiddush · Yesod

The Rema's chiddush and the foundation that carries it

The Rema's chiddush is twofold, and it must be stated in the right direction: (a) he upholds the braisa against the lenient school of the Rambam and the Rif, and therefore forbids renting out a work-tool on the eve of Shabbos; (b) he keeps the free loan permitted, including where a loan in return is stipulated. It would be a mistake to think that he extends the prohibition to lending: the text of his gloss says exactly the opposite, and both the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah read it so.

Yesod — the foundation

The axis of the siman is the Jew's profit, and the appearance is its consequence. Where the Jew gains something from his vessel working on Shabbos, the vessel « appears » to be his agent — that is the distinction the Taz writes at s.k. 1, which the Biur Halachah (ד״ה ולא אמרינן) attributes to the Rosh. Where he gains nothing, the appearance falls away: aval bechinam lo michzei ki-shelucho (Magen Avraham s.k. 2), and the permission reaches as far as the single day of Shabbos and as far as work-tools (Mishnah Berurah s.k. 4). Alongside this axis, two things keep their independence: the reckoning of the price, where payment for Shabbos is forbidden regardless of appearance; and the concern of seif 2, which is not at all that of agency in the work but that of carrying — « אסור להשאיל שום כלי לעכו״ם בשבת ואפילו בערב שבת אם הוא סמוך לחשיכה כל שאין שהות להוציאו מפתח ביתו של המשאיל קודם חשיכה מפני שהרואה סבור שישראל צוהו להוציאו: » (שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רמ״ו:ב) — « because the one who sees thinks that the Jew told him to take it out ». Three concerns, three perimeters: it is from confusing them that the errors arise. And the place where the axis of profit becomes hard to measure — the loan returned for one day more — remains, by the Biur Halachah's own admission, in צריך עיון.

The shitos of the Rishonim — in depth

The four schools that seif 1 brings face to face

School ① — the Rif and the Rambam (the lenient school)

Their position: there is no shevisas keilim; the braisa is Beis Shammai's, and we do not follow it.

Sources: Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 6:16; as reported by the Taz s.k. 1 and the Mishnah Berurah s.k. 1.

What follows: to rent out, even on the eve of Shabbos, even a work-tool — permitted; but by havla'ah only, since payment for Shabbos alone remains forbidden for them too (Taz s.k. 1).

School ② — Rabbeinu Yonah, and with him Rashi, the Tur and the Rashba

His position: the braisa holds for everyone, and its reason is nir'eh ki-shelucho — the appearance of agency, born of the Jew's profit.

Sources: Taz s.k. 1 and Mishnah Berurah s.k. 1; and the Biur Halachah (ד״ה וכן עיקר) adds that Rashi and the Tur hold likewise, and that the Chiddushei haRashba call it the clearest shita.

Its scope: only vessels set for work — a shirt or a tallis may be rented even on the eve of Shabbos (Mishnah Berurah s.k. 2).

School ③ — the Semag, the Semak, the Sefer haTerumah and Tosafos

Their position: the braisa holds for everyone, as with Rabbeinu Yonah — but their prohibition is wider: on the eve of Shabbos, even vessels with which no work is performed (Biur Halachah, ד״ה וכן עיקר).

Sources: these are the Rishonim whom the Rema names in his own gloss — טור וסמ״ג וסמ״ק ותו׳ פ״ק דשבת — to whom the Darkei Moshe adds the Sefer haTerumah.

Their place: it is to them that « like the latter opinion » refers, while the scope retained is Rabbeinu Yonah's. And as for the free loan: these same Rishonim are the ones the Rema cites in permitting it on the eve of Shabbos.

School ④ — the Hagahos Maimoniyos, chap. 7 (the loan in return)

Their position: a loan against a loan to come is not a rental, and therefore remains permitted on the eve of Shabbos.

Sources: the Rema cites them by name (הגהת מיי׳ פ״ז); the Mishnah Berurah s.k. 5 gives the reason in the name of the Beis Yosef; the Biur Halachah (ד״ה ולא אמרינן) reports the Malbushei Yom Tov's objection through the Eliyah Rabbah and substitutes for it the Vilna Gaon's reason — the absence of profit.

What remains open: the case where the counterpart is worth one more day of use. The Biur Halachah sees a profit in it, and stops at צריך עיון.

Nafka minos — the first three ways put to the test, and the Rama's ruling

Comparison table — what each school permits and forbids

The case	Rambam / Rif ①	Rabbeinu Yonah ②	Semag, Semak, Tosafos ③	Rema (Ashkenazi ruling)
Renting out a work-tool on the eve of Shabbos	permitted	forbidden	forbidden	forbidden
Renting out a vessel not used for work, on the eve of Shabbos	permitted	permitted	forbidden	permitted — the Rema here takes ②'s scope (Biur Halachah)
Renting out on Thursday, the price reckoned by havla'ah	permitted	permitted	permitted	permitted
Taking the price of the single day of Shabbos	forbidden	forbidden	forbidden	forbidden — in everyone's view (M.A. s.k. 3, M.B. s.k. 3)
Lending for nothing on the eve of Shabbos	permitted	permitted	permitted	permitted — and it is they whom the Rema cites for it
The ruling of the Shulchan Aruch	The Mechaber writes ① as the anonymous view and ②–③ as yesh omrim; the Rema rules « like the latter opinion » for the principle, and retains ②'s scope

On the limits of this table: it sets against one another the ways ①, ② and ③ and the Rama's ruling, and those alone. Way ④ (Hagahos Maimoniyos, chap. 7) is not measured here, because it is not another reading of the braisa but a rule about a loan against a loan; it is treated above, in its place, and its conclusion remains within the Biur Halachah's צריך עיון.

Sources and notes

What this page actually consulted

Talmud and Rishonim

Bavli: Shabbos 19a (the braisa « לא ישכיר אדם כליו לגוי בערב שבת »)
Rishonim: Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 6:16 and 6:19 · Rif · Rabbeinu Yonah · Rashi · Tur · Semag · Semak · Sefer haTerumah · Tosafos, first chapter of Shabbos · Rosh · Chiddushei haRashba · Hagahos Maimoniyos chap. 7 · Maggid Mishneh

The Shulchan Aruch's commentators, on this siman

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 246, seifim 1–5 · gloss of the Rema · Taz, s.k. 1–6 · Magen Avraham, s.k. 1–16 · Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 1–34 · Biur Halachah (ד״ה כגון מחרישה, ד״ה וכן עיקר, ד״ה ומותר להשאיל לו בע״ש, ד״ה ולא אמרינן, ד״ה אסור להשכיר, ד״ה בהמתו לא״י)

Acharonim cited inside those commentaries

חידושי רע״א · פרי מגדים · ביאור הגר״א · אליה רבה · מלבושי יום טוב · ב״ח · מהרש״ל (יש״ש פ״ה דביצה) · עולת שבת · לבוש · הגהות מיימוניות · הגהות מרדכי · ריב״ש סי׳ כ״ד · רשב״א · ר״ן · ר׳ לוי אבן חביב · דרכי משה · תוספת שבת · חיי אדם כלל נ״ח · שבות יעקב · שערי תשובה · יד אהרן · תוספות ירושלים · רוקח סי׳ ש׳ · ספר התרומה

A note on method, and an honest one

This list names only the works this page opened, or that the commentators on the siman themselves name inside their entries. A posek whose position was not read on this siman does not appear here: a short and true bibliography is worth more than a long one no one can answer for.

Halachah lema'aseh

What comes out of this seif — and what stays open

The case	Sephardim (the Shulchan Aruch)	Ashkenazim (the Rema)	Sources
Renting out a work-tool on the eve of Shabbos	permitted — it is the anonymous view	forbidden — « like the latter opinion »	Shulchan Aruch 246:1 and the Rema's gloss
Renting out on Thursday, by havla'ah	permitted	permitted	Shulchan Aruch 246:1
Taking the price of the single day of Shabbos — even a dwelling room	forbidden	forbidden	M.A. s.k. 3 · M.B. s.k. 3 (referring to siman 306:4)
Lending for nothing on the eve of Shabbos, even a work-tool	permitted	permitted — the Rema writes it explicitly	Shulchan Aruch 246:1 · Rema · M.A. s.k. 4 · M.B. s.k. 4
Lending while stipulating that the non-Jew will lend back in return	permitted; but if the counterpart is worth one more day of use, the Biur Halachah sees a profit in it and stops at צריך עיון		Rema · M.B. s.k. 5 · Biur Halachah ד״ה ולא אמרינן
Lending as night falls, without time to take it out of the house	forbidden — but this is seif 2, and its concern is another one: not agency in the work, but carrying		Shulchan Aruch 246:2 · M.B. s.k. 9

← Level 1 — Base Level 3 — Synthesis →

⚠️ This content is for study only. For any practical question (לְמַעֲשֶׂה), one must turn to a competent rav.