Shulchan Arukh · Orach Chayim
In-depth pilpul
The sugya of Avodah Zarah 21b,
Moed Katan 12a,
the חקירה on the contractor's agency,
the frameworks of modern mar'is ayin
Subject: Shulchan Arukh HaRav, Orach Chayim, siman 244 · twenty-two se'ifim. The Mechaber's siman 244, by contrast, has six: its heading announces ובו ו סעיפים.
Talmudic basis: Avodah Zarah 21b · Moed Katan 12a · Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat ch. 6
Edited by: Rav Yossef Haim Samama · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
- Opening the sugya — Avodah Zarah 21b
- חקירה into the root of amira le-akum — agency or decree?
- The root of the day-labourer / contractor divide
- Detached against attached to the ground — substance or sign?
- חקירה into mar'is ayin — a prohibition of its own, or an extension?
- The shitos of the Rishonim — Rashi, Tosafos and the Rosh, the Rambam
- The contractor on the Jew's own ground — se'if ב
- Inside the techum and beyond it — se'if ג
- The explicit instruction — what contract work does not lift
- Modern practical nafka minos — what the criteria put up for examination
The language of the Shulchan Arukh — extracts from the twenty-two se'ifim
One clarification before reading: the twenty-two se'ifim are those of the Shulchan Arukh HaRav, which announces the number at the head of the siman itself. The Mechaber's siman 244 has six. Both counts are real and must not be merged; this Level 2 follows the Alter Rebbe's division and names the Mechaber's se'if whenever it quotes him.
The whole siman rests on a single opposition, set down in its first sentence: the labourer paid by the day (שְׂכִיר יוֹם) against the contractor paid for the job (הַקַּבְּלָן).
« אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָסוּר לְהַנִּיחַ לְנָכְרִי שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשַׁבָּת » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:א)
« אֲבָל אִם הוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּתוֹרַת קַבְּלָנוּת, שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ בְּעַד שָׂכָר כָּךְ וְכָךְ » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:א)
« מֻתָּר לְהַנִּיחוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה כָּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:א)
And then, immediately, the restriction: the leniency of contract work holds only for what is detached from the ground.
« בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהַנִּיחַ לְקַבְּלָן נָכְרִי לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת? כְּשֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּדָבָר הַתָּלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע, שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ בְּבֵיתוֹ אוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רְשׁוּת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין הַדָּבָר נִכָּר שֶׁהִיא מְלֶאכֶת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין כַּאן חֲשַׁשׁ מַרְאִית הָעַיִן » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ב)
« אֲבָל כְּשֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע, כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹ לִקְצוֹר שָׂדֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ב)
1. Opening the sugya — Avodah Zarah 21b
The gemara in Avodah Zarah, at the end of the first chapter, puts the question in its barest form: may a Jew rent out his bathhouse to a non-Jew, knowing the latter will run it on Shabbos? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it, and the reason he gives is not that the labour would be the Jew's — it is that the establishment bears his name.
The gemara at once sets this against another case, and that confrontation is what makes the sugya: a field, by contrast, may be rented out.
Root of the sugya. The difference between the two does not lie in the nature of the work but in what the passer-by concludes. For a field, the custom is sharecropping: one who sees a non-Jew at work says אֲרִיסָא אֲרִיסוּתֵיהּ קָעָבֵיד — he is working for his own share. For a bathhouse no such custom exists, and the neighbour will conclude that the owner had someone work for him on Shabbos. The sugya therefore does not judge the act: it judges the interpretation available to the one who is watching.
That is precisely where the contractor's leniency is born. The Beis Yosef reports that Rabbeinu Tam originally permitted having a house built by contract, and that he derived it from the sharecropping of a field: if the sharecropper is tolerated although he improves the Jew's own share, all the more so the contractor, who gains the Jew nothing at all by hurrying.
« ישראל ששכר עכו״ם לבנות לו בית בקבלנות היה מתיר ר״ת » (ב״י או״ח רמ״ד)
But the same Beis Yosef reports what followed, and it matters: Tosafos and the Rosh rejected those proofs, and they did so precisely on the ground of what a passer-by may be expected to assume.
« והם ז״ל דחו ראיותיו והעלו דלא דמי לאריסות דשדה דלעולם הוא רגילות לקבל שדה באריסות למחצה לשליש ולרביע אבל בבנין בית רגילות לשכור מדי יום יום והרואה אינו אומר קבלנותא עביד אלא שכירי יום נינהו » (ב״י או״ח רמ״ד)
And the Beis Yosef adds this detail, which is worth a whole discussion of its own: Rabbeinu Tam himself did not rely on his own ruling when he built his house.
« שר״ת לא סמך על הוראתו כשבנה ביתו » (ב״י או״ח רמ״ד)
The second Talmudic pillar of the siman is in Moed Katan, where Shmuel gives the geographic boundary:
« אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְקַבְּלֵי קִיבּוֹלֶת, בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם — אָסוּר. חוּץ לַתְּחוּם — מוּתָּר » (מועד קטן י״ב ע״א)
« אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וַאֲפִילּוּ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, לֹא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵיכָּא מָתָא דִּמְקָרְבָא לְהָתָם, אֲבָל אִיכָּא מָתָא דִּמְקָרְבָא לְהָתָם — אָסוּר » (מועד קטן י״ב ע״א)
2. חקירה into the root of amira le-akum — agency or decree?
חקירה. What is the root of the prohibition of telling a non-Jew to do work for us on Shabbos?
- First approach — agency: the non-Jew acting for the Jew is his agent, and the Jew acts through him. On this reading the prohibition may be de-oraisa.
- Second approach — a rabbinic decree: the Sages forbade the instruction so that Shabbos should not become light in the Jew's eyes and he come to do the work himself. On this reading the prohibition is de-rabbanan.
- Third approach — the demand of rest: the rest required of the Jew would extend to his property and affairs not being handled on Shabbos by others on his behalf. This third approach is a formulation of the study hall; the first two are written down, and here they are.
The Rambam — second approach. The prohibition is a decree of the Sages, and he gives its reason:
« אָסוּר לוֹמַר לְנָכְרִי לַעֲשׂוֹת לָנוּ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ו ה״א)
« וְדָבָר זֶה אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה שַׁבָּת קַלָּה בְּעֵינֵיהֶן וְיָבוֹאוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּעַצְמָן » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ו ה״א)
The Sefer Yereim — first approach, in its strongest form. From the Mekhilta on the verse כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם he derives that letting a non-Jew do our work is forbidden from the Torah:
« למדנו מכאן שאסור לישראל להניח העובד כוכבים לעשות מלאכתו בין ביום טוב בין בשבת מדאורייתא » (ספר יראים סימן ש״ד)
And it is the same Yereim who lays down, in the very next lines, the three conditions our siman will develop: in the non-Jew's own place, by contract, and on what is detached from the ground.
« וכי שרינן במסירה לעובד כוכבים מע״ש דוקא בביתו של עובד כוכבים ובקיבולת ובתלוש מן הקרקע » (ספר יראים סימן ש״ד)
The Alter Rebbe — his vocabulary in se'if א is the vocabulary of agency: the day-labourer is כְּעוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל, and of the contractor he writes וְאֵינוֹ כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. Whether that word denotes for him agency in the full sense or a comparison — כעושה, as though he were doing it — is exactly what the חקירה leaves open. The full passage is quoted in the next section.
3. The root of the day-labourer / contractor divide
The sentence runs against the intuition. One would think the question is: who pays? — and in both cases it is the Jew. Or: who benefits? — and in both cases it is again the Jew. The Alter Rebbe takes neither. He takes the object of the intention during the work: the day-labourer has no interest in the job being finished, his whole aim is to serve the Jew all day; the contractor aims at completion, because completion is what earns him his wage.
« מִכָּל מָקוֹם הַנָּכְרִי אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁבִיל טוֹבַת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמוֹ, לְמַהֵר לְהַשְׁלִים מְלַאכְתּוֹ כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל שְׂכָרוֹ » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:א)
יסוד. The divide does not run between two modes of payment but between two answers to the question: whose act is this? With the day-labourer it belongs to the Jew — שֶׁהַשְּׂכִיר יוֹם אֵין הַמְּלָאכָה שֶׁלּוֹ כְּלָל. With the contractor it belongs to the non-Jew: אֲבָל הַקַּבְּלָן הַמְּלָאכָה הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. The Mishnah Berurah says the same in a single line, on the Mechaber's word מותר:
« דכיון שקצץ אדעתיה דנפשיה קעביד למהר להשלים מלאכתו » (משנה ברורה רמ״ד ס״ק ב)
4. Detached against attached to the ground — substance or sign?
חקירה. Does the prohibition on what is attached to the ground rest on the thing itself, or only on mar'is ayin?
- First approach — in itself: what is attached to the ground would create a tighter bond with its owner, so that contract work there does not detach the act from the Jew.
- Second approach — by mar'is ayin: what is attached is a public, visible thing; the prohibition rests only on what the passer-by will say. Without that gaze, the attached would follow the law of the detached.
The source of the divide is a baraisa of the Yerushalmi, brought by Tosafos and the Rosh, which the Beis Yosef reproduces:
« אומנים עכו״ם שהיו עושין עם ישראל בתוך ביתו אסור בתוך בתיהם מותר אמר ר״ש בן אלעזר בד״א בתלוש אבל במחובר אסור » (ב״י או״ח רמ״ד)
Which way the Alter Rebbe leans, se'if ב leaves little doubt: he states the reason, and the reason is the gaze.
« נִכָּר הַדָּבָר לְכָל רוֹאֶה שֶׁגַּם הַמְּלָאכָה הִיא שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ב)
« מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן, שֶׁהָרוֹאֶה יֹאמַר שֶׁהוּא שְׂכִיר יוֹם אֵצֶל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ב)
And he himself supplies the criterion that makes the divide a sign rather than an essence: work on what is detached makes no noise, work on what is attached does.
« שֶׁמְּלֶאכֶת תָּלוּשׁ אֵין לָהּ קוֹל כְּלָל » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ב)
« שֶׁמְּלֶאכֶת מְחֻבָּר יֵשׁ לָהּ קוֹל » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ב)
What keeps the question alive. If the divide were only a sign of visibility, then detached work that has become visible should be forbidden — and it is: that is se'if ד, on building a ship. And attached work that has become invisible should be permitted — yet se'if ו still forbids dressing the stones in the non-Jew's own house, because they will end up in the building. The two se'ifim pull in opposite directions, and that is where the חקירה remains open.
« אֲפִלּוּ מְלֶאכֶת תָּלוּשׁ, אִם הִיא מְפֻרְסֶמֶת וִידוּעָה לָרַבִּים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית בְּמָקוֹם גָּלוּי וּמְפֻרְסָם, כְּגוֹן בִּנְיַן הַסְּפִינָה, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ לִבְנוֹתָהּ עַל שְׂפַת הַנָּהָר שֶׁהוּא מְקוֹם פַּרְהֶסְיָא — אָסוּר לְהַנִּיחוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ד)
« אֲפִלּוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּתָלוּשׁ, אִם הוּא לְצֹרֶךְ מְחֻבָּר, כְּגוֹן לִפְסוֹל הָאֲבָנִים וּלְתַקֵּן הַקּוֹרוֹת כְּדֵי לְשַׁקְּעָם בְּבִנְיָן — צָרִיךְ לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ אִם הוּא בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם, אֲפִלּוּ עוֹשֶׂה רָחוֹק מֵהַבִּנְיָן, וַאֲפִלּוּ עוֹשֶׂה בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר נִכָּר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁבִיל בִּנְיָן זֶה שֶׁל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁסּוֹפָן לְשַׁקְּעָם בְּהַבִּנְיָן — הֲרֵי דִינָם כְּהַבִּנְיָן עַצְמוֹ » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ו)
5. חקירה into mar'is ayin — a prohibition of its own, or an extension?
חקירה. Is mar'is ayin a halakhic prohibition in its own right, or only the extension of a prohibition already in place?
- First approach — in its own right: the Sages decreed on appearance as on a thing in itself. It then applies even where there is no instruction at all — hence even within contract work.
- Second approach — an extension: mar'is ayin merely extends the underlying prohibition (amira le-akum); the fear is that the public will take the contractor for a day-labourer.
Two observations, each anchored in a text, and they do not point the same way.
What pulls toward the second approach. The Mishnah Berurah, explaining why a house built in prohibition is so described, writes that in contract work inside the techum the prohibition is only mar'is ayin, since at bottom the non-Jew is acting for himself:
« דהוא אסור רק משום מראית עין דבאמת אדעתיה דנפשיה עביד » (משנה ברורה רמ״ד ס״ק י״ט)
And the Alter Rebbe names the very misreading that is feared: that the passer-by will say of the contractor that he is a day-labourer — that is, that he will picture precisely the underlying prohibition.
What pulls toward the first approach. Se'if ד, on the ship, forbids detached work — the very case in which contract work is otherwise fully permitted — for the sole reason that the thing is done in public. The Mechaber makes it a general rule in se'if ד of his own division:
« מלאכת פרהסיא אפילו במטלטלין כגון ספינה הידועה לישראל דינה כמו מלאכת מחובר » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ד:ד)
An appearance that forbids where the substance permits behaves like a measure that stands on its own feet. Each reading therefore has its support within the siman, and this Level 2 does not decide between them.
6. The shitos of the Rishonim — Rashi, Tosafos and the Rosh, the Rambam
The criterion each of them keeps is not the same, and that is what makes the table readable: Rashi reasons in terms of suspicion (חשדא) and of what is noticeable (מינכר); Tosafos and the Rosh in terms of what a passer-by is accustomed to assume; the Rambam in terms of place, inside the techum or beyond it.
Rashi, on Shmuel's statement in Moed Katan, writes it out — and the counter-example he chooses, laundry given to a non-Jewish launderer, shows that the criterion is not the material but the visibility:
« מקבלי קיבולת בתוך התחום אסור - ליתן מלאכה לנכרי בקיבולת כי עבדי ליה בשבתא דידעי כולי עלמא ואמרי היום בשבת יהב ליה …» (רש״י מועד קטן י״ב ע״א ד״ה מקבלי קיבולת)
« …ליתן כלים לכובס בע״ש עם חשיכה ואפי׳ בתוך התחום משום דכביסה בנכרי מידי דלא מינכר וליכא חשדא אבל מידי דמינכר בתוך התחום אסור משום חשדא » (רש״י מועד קטן י״ב ע״א ד״ה מקבלי קיבולת)
The Rambam, as the Beis Yosef quotes him at length, gives the rule of place:
« אם היתה המלאכה במדינה או בתוך התחום אסור לו להניחם לעשות לו בשבת מפני הרואים שאינם יודעים שפסק ואם היתה המלאכה חוץ לתחום מותר שאין שם ישראל שיראה את הפועלים שהן עושין בשבת » (ב״י או״ח רמ״ד)
And the Rashba, brought in the same place, adds the boundary all three share: in the Jew's own house nothing passes, not even movable goods by contract.
« ודוקא בביתו של עכו״ם אבל בביתו של ישראל אפי׳ בקבולת מטלטלין אסור » (ב״י או״ח רמ״ד)
| Shitah | Contract work on the attached | Contract work on the detached | Beyond the techum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rashi (Moed Katan 12a) | Forbidden within the techum: it is מידי דמינכר, and there is חשדא | Permitted even within the techum where the thing is not noticeable — his example is laundry given to the launderer | Permitted, following Shmuel |
| Tosafos and the Rosh (as brought by the Beis Yosef) | Forbidden: they reject the proof from sharecropping, since for a house the custom is to hire by the day | Permitted; but they extend the stringency to what is destined for the attached, stones and beams, even in the non-Jew's own house | Permitted: the Yerushalmi they cite concludes בעיר אחרת בין כך ובין כך מותר — provided it is by contract |
| Rambam (Hilkhot Shabbat ch. 6, quoted by the Beis Yosef) | Forbidden in the town or within the techum | Permitted, outside the Jew's house | Permitted: on his account no Jew is there to see the workmen |
| Alter Rebbe (se'ifim א–ג) | Forbidden in the town or its techum, and he extends the concern to neighbours, guests and members of the household | Permitted, outside the Jew's house and with no instruction given | Permitted, provided no other town inhabited by Jews lies within the techum of the place |
A machlokes easy to get backwards. It is tempting to cast Tosafos as the stringent party in this sugya, since it was they who refuted Rabbeinu Tam's proofs. But their refutation is aimed at a house built within the techum; beyond the techum they are themselves the source of the leniency, for it is from them that the Beis Yosef draws the Yerushalmi's conclusion:
« בעיר אחרת בין כך ובין כך מותר ומהו ב״כ וב״כ א״ר אילא בין בתלוש בין במחובר ובלבד בקבולת » (ב״י או״ח רמ״ד)
That is: in another town both the attached and the detached are permitted, provided the work is by contract and not by the day.
7. The contractor on the Jew's own ground — se'if ב
קושיא. If the contractor works on the Jew's ground, in town, he looks like a day-labourer. Beyond the techum he no longer does. But where exactly does the line fall — and what of the case where nobody even knows that the ground belongs to a Jew?
תירוץ. Se'if ב knows not two states but three circles of onlookers, and it walks through them from the widest to the narrowest:
- The public of the town. The ground is known to belong to the Jew; any passer-by draws the conclusion. Forbidden.
- The neighbours. Even if the matter is not public, the neighbours do know the ground is his, and do not know the non-Jew is working by contract. Forbidden.
- Guests and the household. Even in a village, among non-Jews, with no Jewish neighbour: guests may turn up, and there are his own household. Forbidden still.
« מִכָּל מָקוֹם יֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן שֶׁל שְׁכֵנָיו, שֶׁהֵם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁקַּרְקַע זוֹ הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵינָן יוֹדְעִים שֶׁהַנָּכְרִִי הָעוֹסֵק בִּמְלָאכָה הוּא קַבְּלָן, אֶלָּא יֹאמְרוּ שֶׁהוּא שְׂכִיר יוֹם » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ב)
The Mechaber and the Rama state the same progression in two lines — and the third step is a gloss of the Rama, not of the Mechaber:
« לפיכך הפוסק עם העכו״ם לבנות לו חצירו או כותלו או לקצור לו שדהו אם היתה המלאכ׳ במדינה או בתוך התחום אסו׳ לו להניח לעשו׳ לו מלאכ׳ בשבת מפני הרואי׳ שאינם יודעים שפסק » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ד:א, מחבר)
« ואפי׳ אם דר בין העכו״ם יש לחוש לאורחי׳ הבאים שם או לבני ביתו שיחשדו אותו » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ד:א, הגהת הרמ״א)
8. Inside the techum and beyond it — se'if ג
The criterion is not distance as such: it is the Shabbos techum, because the techum is what decides whether the townspeople can reach the place. Se'if ג of the Alter Rebbe says it in that order, and adds the second condition: that no other town inhabited by Jews lie within the techum of the work site.
« וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁעוֹשֶׂה הַמְּלָאכָה בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ תְּחוּם הָעִיר, שֶׁיְּכוֹלִין אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר לֵילֵךְ לְשָׁם בְּשַׁבָּת, אֲבָל כְּשֶׁעוֹשֶׂה הַמְּלָאכָה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, וְגַם אֵין עִיר אַחֶרֶת שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל דָּרִים בָּהּ תּוֹךְ תְּחוּמָיו שֶׁל מְקוֹם הַמְּלָאכָה — מֻתָּר לְהַנִּיחוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ד:ג)
That second condition is not a caution added by the poskim: it is Rav Papa's statement in Moed Katan, quoted above — אֲבָל אִיכָּא מָתָא דִּמְקָרְבָא לְהָתָם — אָסוּר. The Mechaber sets it down as halachah, in his own Hebrew:
« ואם היתה המלאכה חוץ לתחום וגם אין עיר אחרת בתוך תחומו של מקום שעושין בו מלאכ׳ מותר » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ד:א)
The Mishnah Berurah, on the Mechaber's word התחום, gives the definition in six words, and it is actual frequentation that makes the criterion:
« שרגילין אנשי העיר לפעמים לילך לשם » (משנה ברורה רמ״ד ס״ק ט)
And where the condition is met, he concludes that no mar'is ayin remains at all:
« דתו ליכא משום מראית העין ואינו יהודי כי קטרח בדידיה קטרח » (משנה ברורה רמ״ד ס״ק י״ג)
9. The explicit instruction — what contract work does not lift
יסוד. The leniency of contract work bears on the characterisation of the act, not on the Jew's speech. Even in fully permitted contract work, the same sentence of se'if א lays down, under one and the same caution, reservations that contract work does not lift: that the work not be done in the Jew's house, that he not tell him to do it on Shabbos, that the price be fixed before Shabbos, and that the job not be handed over unless the non-Jew could do the whole of it on a weekday, before Shabbos or after — this last being referred on by the Alter Rebbe to siman רנ״ב. What permits is that the non-Jew decides on his own to spend his Shabbos finishing sooner; an instruction puts the Jew back at the origin of the act, and brings the debate of section 2 — agency or decree — down on his head.
The Mishnah Berurah says as much of the first of them:
« דבזה אפילו קבלנות גמורה אסור » (משנה ברורה רמ״ד ס״ק כ״ז)
10. Modern practical nafka minos
A word on the level. What follows is not a psak, and this Level 2 renders none. These are the cases in which the four criteria under which this page has arranged the siman — by contract, on the detached, outside the Jew's house, with no instruction — come apart instead of holding together; it is that coming apart which makes the question. That division in four is our exposition's, not an enumeration of the Shulchan Aruch. The decision belongs to a posek, and Level 4 of this siman sets out the Alter Rebbe's shitah.
1. A non-Jewish printer printing a Jewish book. Here the four criteria all point the same way: a defined job, detached material, the non-Jew's own workshop, no instruction bearing on Shabbos. This is the case of ספר לכתוב in the Mechaber's se'if ה. What remains to be weighed is what the Rama adds there at once:
« ודוקא ששכרו למלאכה מיוחדת כגון בגד לארוג או ספר לכתוב אבל כששכרו לכל המלאכות שיצטרך תוך זמן השכירות לכ״ע אסור » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ד:ה, הגהת הרמ״א)
2. A building site for a Jew. Attached to the ground, visible, within the techum: this is the central case of se'if ב, and contract work does not suffice there. The practical question then shifts to the contract, and to the Mechaber's se'if ג, which deals with what was built regardless:
« אם בנו עכו״ם לישראל בית בשבת באיסור נכון להחמיר שלא יכנסו בו » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ד:ג, מחבר)
« מיהו אם התנה ישראל עם עכו״ם שלא לעשות לו מלאכה בשבת והעכו״ם עשאה בעל כרחו למהר להשלים מלאכתו אין לחוש » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ד:ג, הגהת הרמ״א)
3. A worldwide delivery service. A carrier is by nature working by the job and on detached goods, and not inside the Jew's house: the first three criteria are met. It is the fourth that arises — an order placed so as to set the delivery on Shabbos is no longer an absence of instruction. And the Rama of se'if ה, quoted at point 1, distinguishes exactly between a provider engaged for one defined job and one engaged for whatever may come.
4. A non-Jewish house cleaner. Here the criteria come apart sharply: even when paid by the job, she works inside the Jew's house, which se'if א rules out expressly and which the Mishnah Berurah repeats without qualification (ס״ק כ״ז, quoted in section 9). The Mishnah Berurah in fact takes up the case head-on, and he is not gentle about it:
« ומטעם זה יש למחות ביד השפחות כשעושין מלאכת אדוניהן בשבת אפילו כשעושין שלא בבית ישראל ושלא בצווי בעליהן דהא הם שכורין לכל המלאכות » (משנה ברורה רמ״ד ס״ק ל)
5. A non-Jewish driver hailed on Shabbos. The ride is indeed a defined job; but ordering it on Shabbos is an explicit instruction, which is exactly what se'if א reserves: וְשֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר לוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת. The criterion of contract work does not stand in for the criterion of speech.
6. A website or software service that updates itself on Shabbos. The case appears to meet all four criteria, but it raises a fifth that the siman does not treat: that of work not performed by a person. What the siman does supply is the question of visibility — se'if ד, on the ship, shows that detached work notoriously attributed to the Jew becomes a problem again. What notoriety looks like for an online service is exactly what must be put to a posek, not what a study page decides.
7. A non-Jewish caterer serving an event. A defined job, detached, outside the Jew's house: the criteria of se'if א are met so long as nothing in the order fixes the work to Shabbos. If the service itself takes place in the Jew's home, one falls back on the reservation of point 4.
8. A household employee paid by the hour or by the month. Paid by time, he is a שְׂכִיר יוֹם and not a contractor: the leniency of this siman does not reach him, and one returns to siman 243. Paid by the job but working inside the house, he falls back under point 4. The same ס״ק ל of the Mishnah Berurah governs both.
Going further
Level 3 — Synthesis: a structured recap, the mnemonic ק-ת-א (קבלן · תלוש · אמירה), a decision tree.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Alter Rebbe across the twenty-two se'ifim — the Chabad psak on industry, on the digital, and on the modern instruction.
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
סימן רמ״ד · Level 2 — Lamdan · איזו מלאכות יכול הנכרי לעשות בעד הישראל
daattorah.com
♥ Support DAAT