Shulchan Arukh · Orach Chayim
In-depth pilpul
The sugya of Shabbat 19a, its sources, the chakira into the ground of the prohibition of amira,
the machloket of the Rishonim on קציצה and on אדעתא דנפשיה
Subject:
Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim, siman 247, seifim 1 to 6
with the nosei kelim: Beit Yosef, Taz, Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah
Talmudic basis:
Shabbat 19a · Rosh, Shabbat ch. 1 §37-38 · Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat 6:1 and 6:20
Edited and studied by:
Rav Yossef Haim Samama · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
- Introduction to the sugya — the source of the prohibition of telling a non-Jew, and the question of shelichut on Shabbat
- The chakira into the ground — three reasons given for this prohibition
- The sugya of Shabbat 19a — the beraitot and their commentaries
- The reason of the appearance of shelichut — "he looks like his agent"
- The Rambam and the Rif — with a fixed price and without one
- The Rosh and the Ran — the machloket about Wednesday and Thursday
- The geder of קציצה — how much agreement is enough
- Chakira on the fixedness of the בי דואר — which of the two conditions depends on the other
- The position of the Rama — the leniency through Thursday inclusive
- Carrying it for free — seif 4 — the Mechaber, the Rama, the Taz and the Magen Avraham
- The yearly hired man — seif 6 — a nafka mina for siman 244
- Practical nafka minot and the line of the halakhah
📜 The text of the Shulchan Arukh — seif 1
The whole siman is read out of this seif. It is reproduced here verbatim, in the order of the Shulchan Arukh, because everything that follows in the pilpul depends on the exact place of each of its clauses.
« שולח אדם אגרת ביד עכו״ם ואפי׳ בע״ש עם חשיכה והוא שקוצץ לו דמים ובלבד שלא יאמר לו שילך בשבת » (שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רמ״ז:א)
« ואם לא קצב אי לא קביע בי דואר… » (שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רמ״ז:א ; the ellipsis marks the explanatory gloss the Shulchan Arukh inserts here: "a known man to whom every letter is brought, and who sends it on to the one it was sent to")
« …במתא אסור לשלוח אפילו מיום ראשון ואי קביע בי דואר במתא משלחין אפי׳ בע״ש והוא שיהא שהות ביום כדי שיוכל להגיע לבית הסמוך לחומה » (שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רמ״ז:א, the continuation of the same seif)
הגה: « ויש מתירין אפי׳ לא קצץ ואפילו לא קבוע בי דואר במתא אם משלחו ביום ה׳ או קודם לכן » (טור) (רמ״א אורח חיים רמ״ז:א)
« ויש לסמוך עלייהו אם צריכין לכך » (רמ״א שם, the end of the gloss)
The frame of the seif, clause by clause. The Mechaber first states the permitted case, then the two cases in which it is not permitted:
- With a fixed price (קציצה): one sends, even on Friday at nightfall. One single reservation in the text itself: that he not be told to go on Shabbat.
- Without a fixed price, and with no fixed בי דואר in the town: forbidden, and even from Sunday on.
- Without a fixed price, but with a fixed בי דואר: one sends, even on Friday, provided enough daylight remains to reach the first house adjoining the wall.
The Rosh sums up the same distribution in one sentence: « שמעינן השתא דהיכא דקצץ לו דמים משלחין בין מגיע בין לא מגיע והיכא דלא קצץ לו דמים אי קביע דוור במתא משלחין בכדי שיגיע לבית הסמוך לחומה ואי לא קביע דוור במתא אין משלחין כלל אלא א״כ קצץ » (רא״ש שבת פ״א סי׳ ל״ח)
Two points of vocabulary, to be held firmly for what follows: קציצה dispenses with the condition of time, and the בי דואר does not dispense with the condition of time — it dispenses only with קציצה.
1. Introduction to the sugya — the source of the prohibition of telling a non-Jew, and the question of shelichut
The basic source
Asking a non-Jew to perform work forbidden on Shabbat is a rabbinic prohibition. The Gemara names it in a single word, and that word fixes its register: « אֲמִירָה לְגוֹי שְׁבוּת » (שבת ק״נ.) — a shevut, that is, a prohibition of speech instituted by the Sages.
Three main reasons are given for this prohibition among the Rishonim. They do not say the same thing, and the siman before us is precisely where their difference becomes visible.
- The Rambam — the lightening of Shabbat. « וְדָבָר זֶה אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה שַׁבָּת קַלָּה בְּעֵינֵיהֶן וְיָבוֹאוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּעַצְמָן » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת ו׳:א׳) An educational concern: if one may enjoy on Shabbat work done by another, Shabbat grows light in people's minds, and they will end up doing it themselves.
- Rashi — speech itself. « ומה שאסור לישראל לומר לעובד כוכבים עשה לי כך זהו משום ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר » (רש״י עבודה זרה ט״ו. ד״ה כיון דזבנה קנייה) The prohibition rests on the verse in Isaiah 58:13, and speaking a word: speech about work is forbidden, even when addressed to a non-Jew.
- The Rosh — the appearance of agency. « דהיינו נמי משום דמיחזי כשלוחו של ישראל דדוקא בע״ש מיחזי כאומר לו שילך למחר בשליחותו ואמירה לנכרי שבות » (רא״ש שבת פ״א סי׳ ל״ז) It is this third reason that governs our siman: what is at stake is not that the non-Jew works, but that he appears to be working on the Jew's behalf.
A question of principle — Toraitic or rabbinic?
A derashah in the Mekhilta ties the prohibition to the verse לֹֽ֣א־תַעֲשֶׂ֣֨ה כׇל־מְלָאכָ֜֡ה (Shemot 20:10), which would give amira a Toraitic rank. The Rishonim did not follow that reading: they take the derashah as an asmakhta, and the prohibition as rabbinic. The Gemara's own formula says as much — a shevut is by definition of rabbinic institution. The question is discussed at length by the Tashbetz (תשב״ץ ח״א סי׳ רכ״ח).
Chakira. If the prohibition is rabbinic, and its reason is either the lightening of Shabbat, or speech, or the appearance of agency — what does that change for our siman? The answer is that no detail of the siman can be understood without a precise definition of when the non-Jew appears to be acting for the Jew and when he no longer does. The rabbinic status fixes the register; it does not spare us the criterion.
The yesod of this siman. The prohibition here depends on two distinct parameters, and it is their coming apart that produces everything else:
- an act performed on Shabbat by the non-Jew;
- the perception, by those who see it, that this act is performed on the Jew's behalf.
When the non-Jew has a fixed price, the second parameter falls away: he is visibly working for his wage, hence for himself, and no longer as an agent. That is the heart of the siman.
2. The chakira into the ground — three reasons given for the prohibition of amira
First reason — the appearance of agency
The Rosh writes, on the very beraita of our sugya: « דהיינו נמי משום דמיחזי כשלוחו של ישראל דדוקא בע״ש מיחזי כאומר לו שילך למחר בשליחותו ואמירה לנכרי שבות » (רא״ש שבת פ״א סי׳ ל״ז) — it is not actual agency that is at stake, but the fact that it is seen.
Rashi, on the same passage, gives the positive counterpart: when a price is fixed, « אלא אם כן קצץ לו דמים - דכיון דקוצץ לו דמים בדידיה טרח » (רש״י שבת י״ט. ד״ה אלא אם כן קצץ לו דמים) — he toils on his own account. The Taz restates this in one line: « דאז בדידיה קטרח ולא בשביל ישראל » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ז ס״ק א׳)
Kashya. There is no agency for a non-Jew: the Gemara's derashah excludes from agency anyone who is not in the covenant — « מָה אַתֶּם בְּנֵי בְּרִית, אַף שְׁלוּחֲכֶם בְּנֵי בְּרִית » (קידושין מ״א:). How, then, can one forbid on the ground of agency?
Terutz. Precisely because there is no actual agency, the prohibition can only be rabbinic. And the Rosh's word says exactly that: he does not write that he is his agent, he writes that he appears to be one — נראה כשלוחו. The Sages instituted the prohibition upon the appearance, not upon the status. That is why anything that changes the appearance — a price agreed, a delay that distances the sending from Shabbat — changes the din.
Second reason — the Rambam and the lightening of Shabbat
The Rambam opens his chapter with the prohibition and at once gives its reason: « וְדָבָר זֶה אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה שַׁבָּת קַלָּה בְּעֵינֵיהֶן וְיָבוֹאוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּעַצְמָן » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת ו׳:א׳) An educational and psychological reason, not a juridical one: what it targets is not the relation between the Jew and the non-Jew, but the Jew's relation to Shabbat.
Third reason — speech, ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר
Rashi, in Avodah Zarah, gives a third reason, which is neither the appearance nor the lightening but speech itself: « ומה שאסור לישראל לומר לעובד כוכבים עשה לי כך זהו משום ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר » (רש״י עבודה זרה ט״ו.) — the verse in Isaiah 58:13 forbids speaking of work on Shabbat, and this prohibition of speech reaches speech addressed to a non-Jew as well. This reading is also the one tradition ties to the Sheiltot.
Nafka minot between the three reasons:
- If the non-Jew acts of his own accord and the Jew benefits: on the reason of appearance, nothing is imputed to the Jew; on the reason of the lightening of Shabbat, the question returns, since the Jew does benefit from work done on Shabbat.
- If no speech was uttered — the Jew merely handed over the object: the reason of speech no longer bites; those of appearance and of lightening still do.
- If no one can see that the sending comes from a Jew — this is exactly the case of the letter written in a non-Jewish hand, which we shall meet in §8: the reason of appearance lapses, and this is indeed what the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah conclude.
None of these three reasons is set aside by the poskim; they accumulate, and the Acharonim discuss their respective weight. What follows depends on the first alone.
3. The sugya of Shabbat 19a — the beraitot and their commentaries
The text of the beraitot
The page carries two beraitot on our subject, and confusing them is the easiest mistake to make: the first gives a leniency tied to the day, the second a leniency tied to the price.
The words to hold on to are בִּרְבִיעִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי: the fourth and the fifth day of the week, that is, Wednesday and Thursday. The whole discussion that follows about "בד׳ וה׳" is about those two days.
Rashi's commentary on the beraita
A few glosses of Rashi are enough to hold the sugya:
« אלא אם כן קצץ לו דמים - דכיון דקוצץ לו דמים בדידיה טרח » (רש״י שבת י״ט.) — the fixed price makes his toil his own.
« דואר - שלטון העיר ולו רגילין לשלוח איגרות » (רש״י שבת י״ט. ד״ה דואר) — the בי דואר is the authority of the town, to whom letters are customarily addressed.
« לבית הסמוך - לחומת העיר שנשתלח שם » (רש״י שבת י״ט. ד״ה לבית הסמוך) — the house adjoining the wall of the town of destination.
And the reason for the stringency where there is no קביעות: « ורישא דאין משלחין בלא קוצץ כלל דלא קביע במתא ואם לא ימצאנו יהא צריך לילך אחריו בשבת » (רש״י שבת י״ט. ד״ה שכיחא במתא) — if he does not find him, he will have to search for him during Shabbat.
The Taz takes up Rashi's gloss on the בי דואר — « פי׳ שלטון העיר ולו רגילין לשלוח איגרת » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ז ס״ק ב׳) — and identifies it with the institution of his own day: « ונראה שזהו שקורין עכשיו פאס״ט מייסט״ר שרגיל להיות במקומות גדולות » (ט״ז שם), the postmaster.
The opening kashya of the sugya
An apparent contradiction in the beraita. The reisha states that one does not send, without qualification. The seifa discusses the time needed where there is no fixed price — which presupposes that in some cases one does send without a fixed price. Which of the two states the din?
The Gemara's terutz: « וְהָאָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין? לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּקְבִיעַ בֵּי דַוָּאר בְּמָתָא, וְהָא דְּלָא קְבִיעַ בֵּי דַוָּאר בְּמָתָא » (שבת י״ט.) The reisha speaks of a town with no fixed בי דואר; the seifa, of a town that has one. Hence the three cases:
- fixed בי דואר, no fixed price → one sends, provided enough daylight remains to reach the house adjoining the wall;
- no fixed בי דואר, with a fixed price → one sends, even on Friday;
- no fixed בי דואר, no fixed price → forbidden.
This is exactly the Rosh's summary: « שמעינן השתא דהיכא דקצץ לו דמים משלחין בין מגיע בין לא מגיע והיכא דלא קצץ לו דמים אי קביע דוור במתא משלחין בכדי שיגיע לבית הסמוך לחומה ואי לא קביע דוור במתא אין משלחין כלל אלא א״כ קצץ » (רא״ש שבת פ״א סי׳ ל״ח) — and note the four words בין מגיע בין לא מגיע: where there is a fixed price, the question of time does not even arise.
4. The reason of appearance — "he looks like his agent"
In Rashi
Rashi locates the concern in the search: if the office is not fixed, we are afraid the non-Jew will not find the addressee and will set out after him during Shabbat — « ורישא דאין משלחין בלא קוצץ כלל דלא קביע במתא ואם לא ימצאנו יהא צריך לילך אחריו בשבת » (רש״י שבת י״ט.) And קציצה, for its part, removes the imputation: « אלא אם כן קצץ לו דמים - דכיון דקוצץ לו דמים בדידיה טרח » (רש״י שם)
The next step of the reasoning
The reasoning then takes one further step, and it is the decisive one: even without the concern of the search, the mere fact that the non-Jew appears to be toiling now on the Jew's behalf, on Shabbat, is the defect. The fixed price removes that appearance, since he is henceforth toiling for his wage.
A note on reading. This step is the one the Rosh formulates in his own words — « דהיינו נמי משום דמיחזי כשלוחו של ישראל דדוקא בע״ש מיחזי כאומר לו שילך למחר בשליחותו ואמירה לנכרי שבות » (רא״ש שבת פ״א סי׳ ל״ז). We were not able to confront a text of the Rivan on Shabbat 19a, and we therefore attribute nothing to him here.
The ruling of the Shulchan Arukh HaRav
The Admur HaZaken writes both yesodot in a single sentence, and in this order: first that he acts for himself, then that he does not appear to be the Jew's agent —
« שֶׁאָז אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁבִיל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמוֹ לְקַבֵּל הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁקָּצַץ לוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה כִּשְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:א)
The reservation in the Mechaber's text — not to tell him to go on Shabbat — he spells out at once and ties to the shevut of amira:
« וּבִלְבָד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר לוֹ שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ גַּם בְּשַׁבָּת, שֶׁאֲמִירָה לְנָכְרִי שְׁבוּת אַף שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת » (שו״ע הרב שם)
And he settles the scope of קציצה without ambiguity:
« וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁלֹּא קָצַץ, אֲבָל אִם קָצַץ מֻתָּר לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֲפִלּוּ לְעִיר שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בֵּי דֹאַר, וַאֲפִלּוּ הִיא דֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה מְאֹד, וַאֲפִלּוּ יוֹצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:ד)
Conversely, with no price fixed — and the language of the seif itself hangs the issur on a condition:
« וְאִם לֹא קָצַץ לוֹ שְׂכַר הַהֲלִיכָה — הֲרֵי הַנָּכְרִי טוֹרֵחַ בִּשְׁבִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִיכָךְ אָסוּר לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ שָׁהוּת שֶׁיּוּכַל לְהַגִּיעַ קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת לַבַּיִת הָרִאשׁוֹן הַסָּמוּךְ לַחוֹמָה שֶׁבָּעִיר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלַּח לְשָׁם, שֶׁאָז אַף אִם אֵחַר דַּרְכּוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ גַּם בְּשַׁבָּת — אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם… » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:ב)
It is therefore not an absolute issur. The Alter Rebbe hangs it on שהות: if there is
enough daylight left for the non-Jew to reach, before Shabbos, the first house adjoining
the wall of the destination city, then even if he is delayed on the road and walks on
Shabbos as well, it is of no consequence — and the reason is given on the spot:
« שֶׁהֲלִיכָה זוֹ אֵינָהּ מֵחֲמַת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:ב)
And for the remainder of the road, from that house to the addressee's, he is lenient
further still:
« מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין כַּאן אִסּוּר אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים — תּוֹלִין לְהָקֵל לוֹמַר שֶׁאוֹתוֹ אָדָם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִתֵּן הָאִגֶּרֶת לְיָדוֹ הוּא דָר בַּבַּיִת הַסָּמוּךְ לַחוֹמָה » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:ב, continuation of the same seif)
This heter does not hold of every city. Seif 3 sets it as a במה דברים אמורים — where the letter is sent to an established בי דואר in that city; failing an established בי דואר the issur returns, and from Sunday onward:
« אֲבָל אִם אֵין בֵּי דֹאַר קָבוּעַ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר שֶׁשּׁוֹלֵחַ לְשָׁם, וְצָרִיךְ הַנָּכְרִי בְּעַצְמוֹ לְהַגִּיעַ הָאִגֶּרֶת לְיַד מִי שֶׁנִּכְתְּבָה אֵלָיו — אָסוּר לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן… » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:ג)
summary: seif 3 itself is lenient again, where there is no established בי דואר, when the road is short — a single day's travel, say — and he sends him on Monday or Tuesday, since he then has ample time to walk before Shabbos.
5. The Rambam and the Rif — with a fixed price and without one
The text of the Rambam
Two things are worth noting. First, the Rambam adds a condition that the Mechaber does not repeat in his seif 1: that the non-Jew leave the doorway of the house before Shabbat. The Mishnah Berurah reinstates it and expressly ascribes it to him: « וגם צריך שיצא הא״י מפתח ביתו של ישראל קודם השבת » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק ב׳) Second, the word לְעוֹלָם — "ever": with no fixed price and no appointed man, there is no day of the week on which the sending is permitted.
Chakira on the Rambam. The Rambam omitted the leniency of Wednesday and Thursday that the beraita states. Is this an oversight, a rejection, or a reading? In other words: what does "erev Shabbat" mean for him?
The Beit Yosef answers on both sides at once. On the scope of the omission: « דאפילו בד׳ ובה׳ אסור לשלח בלא קצץ אי לא קביע בי דואר שהרי לא חילק בין ערב שבת לד׳ וה׳ וזה בעצמו דעת הרי״ף שגם הוא השמיט ברייתא דשרי בד׳ ובה׳ » (בית יוסף אורח חיים רמ״ז) — so it is not an oversight, and the Rif is in the same case. And on the sense of the word: « כל שאין המלאכה נעשית קודם השבת קרי ליה ע״ש ואפילו מיום ראשון » (בית יוסף שם)
Everything therefore turns on the definition of "erev Shabbat". For the Rambam and the Rif, the expression does not designate Friday but any day on which the work will not be finished before Shabbat — and on that reckoning Sunday is an erev Shabbat just as Friday is. For the Rosh, whom we shall see in the next paragraph, it designates Friday and nothing else.
6. The Rosh and the Ran — the machloket about Wednesday and Thursday
The Rosh
The Rosh reads the leniency of Wednesday and Thursday as bearing on the case without a fixed price, and he gives the reason: « אבל מופלג לפני השבת לא מיחזי כאומר לו עשה מלאכתי בשבת » (רא״ש שבת פ״א סי׳ ל״ז) — distant from Shabbat, the sending no longer looks like an order for Shabbat. He extends the same rule to hides for the tanner and clothes for the launderer: « וכן עורות לעבדן וכלים לכובס בד׳ ובה׳ מותר אע״פ שלא קצץ » (רא״ש שם)
A note on the reference: this reasoning is at siman 37 of the first chapter of the Rosh. Siman 38, quoted above, is the one that sums up the three cases of the second beraita; it does not contain the motive of distance.
The Ran
The Ran, on the Rif, restricts the leniency of Wednesday and Thursday to the case where he was hired by the day — a sum fixed per day, without requiring him to set out on one day rather than another. On Friday that case remains forbidden; on Wednesday and Thursday it is permitted.
This is exactly the case of seif 3 of the Shulchan Arukh: « אם שכרו לימים דבר קצוב בכל יום בהליכתו ובחזרתו אלא שאינו מקפיד עמו מתי ילך אם הוא בע״ש אסור דכשיוצא בשבת נראה כאלו התנה עמו כך » (שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רמ״ז:ג) And the Mishnah Berurah notes, in brackets, that this case is better than the plain absence of a fixed price: « ולפיכך עדיף מלא קצץ כלל ומותר בד׳ וה׳ אף לדעת המחבר » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק י״ג) — permitted on Wednesday and Thursday even according to the Mechaber. The Magen Avraham writes the same: « אבל בד׳ וה׳ מותר כיון די״א דזה מיקרי קצץ כמ״ש סי׳ רמ״ד » (מגן אברהם רמ״ז ס״ק ט׳)
Kashya on the Ran. If we are speaking of a man hired by the day, what at bottom is the difference between Friday and Wednesday? In both he is paid by the day and is under no pressure. Why should Friday look like a condition laid down between them, and not Wednesday?
Terutz. Seif 3 itself gives the reason, and it is temporal, not contractual: since he goes out on Shabbat, it looks as though the condition had been so laid down. On Friday, the nearness makes the departure fall on Shabbat and the link legible; on Wednesday it is not legible, because nothing obliges his road to fall on Shabbat. The Shulchan Arukh HaRav writes this same division in so many words: « אֲבָל כְּשֶׁמְּשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּד׳ וְה׳, אוֹ קֹדֶם לָכֵן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא מֻפְלָג לִפְנֵי הַשַּׁבָּת — אֵין נִרְאֶה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ לֵילֵךְ בְּשַׁבָּת, וּלְפִיכָךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָצַץ מֻתָּר לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֲפִלּוּ לְדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה מְאֹד, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בֵּי דֹאַר קָבוּעַ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:ה)
7. The geder of קציצה — how much agreement is enough
The degrees of agreement
| Degree | Description | Din |
|---|---|---|
| A stated sum | A known amount settled in advance | Permitted even on Friday at nightfall |
| Wages promised without a figure (seif 2) | One undertook to pay him, without saying how much | « ואם התנה עמו שיתן לו שכרו אף על פי שלא פירש כמה יתן לו דינו כקוצץ דסמכיה דעתיה דעכו״ם ובדידיה קא טרח… » (שו״ע רמ״ז:ב) |
| An unexpressed intention | The Jew means to pay him, but has not told him so | « אבל בסתם אע״פ שיש בדעתו שיתן לו שכר אסור דלא סמכיה דעתיה ובישראל קא טרח » (שו״ע שם) |
| For free (seif 4) | The non-Jew offers of his own accord | A machloket of the Mechaber and the Rama — see §10 |
The dividing line therefore runs between סמכיה דעתיה and its absence: what counts is not that the non-Jew be paid, but that his mind can already rely on the payment at the moment he sets out.
Chakira: what exactly does קציצה accomplish?
a) First possibility: it takes the non-Jew out of agency. He becomes an independent contractor; he is no longer the Jew's agent.
b) Second possibility: it changes what the public sees. He is regarded as working for his own wage, not as the Jew's agent.
c) Third possibility: it lifts the Jew's claim upon him. Once the price is fixed, the Jew has no standing to demand that he finish by a given hour; the non-Jew is master of his own pace.
Nafka minot between the three:
- If (a) — the exit from agency — then even if the public knows nothing of the agreement, it is permitted.
- If (b) — the change of perception — the agreement must in some way be visible.
- If (c) — the lifting of the claim — it is permitted only if the agreement really lifts that claim: a determinate sum, and no imposed deadline.
The Mechaber's wording in seif 2 — ובדידיה קא טרח against ובישראל קא טרח — leans towards (a) and (c): what changes is the structure of the toil, and not in the first place the gaze of others.
8. Chakira on the fixedness of the בי דואר — which of the two conditions depends on the other
The Magen Avraham on fixedness
The Magen Avraham first gives the concern: « אסור דשמא לא ימצא האיש בביתו וגם הבי דואר ויצטרך לילך אחריו בשבת » (מגן אברהם רמ״ז ס״ק ב׳) — he might find neither the man at home nor the office, and would have to run after him during Shabbat.
He then asks why we are stricter here than with other objects entrusted to a non-Jew, and he answers from the handwriting: « כיון שכת׳ ידו של ישראל נושא וניכר מעשה ישראל יאמרו בשבת נתן לו להוליך » (מגן אברהם שם) — it is a Jewish hand that is recognised on the letter, and people will say it was handed to him on Shabbat. Whence the consequence he draws at once: « וא״כ בכתב של עכו״ם שרי » (מגן אברהם שם)
The Mishnah Berurah takes up the same consequence and develops it: « וא״כ אם נכתב האגרת בכתב א״י שרי להוליך אפילו בע״ש ובלא קצץ » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק ה׳)
The chakira into the ground of fixedness
Question: what is the relation between קציצה and קביעות?
First way — two separate protections, answering two different concerns: קציצה removes the appearance of agency, קביעות removes the fear of a search on Shabbat.
Second way — a dependence: קציצה resolves the question of appearance, but without קביעות there remains the risk of a journey of search on Shabbat, which is itself a rabbinic prohibition.
The yesod. These are indeed two distinct levers, and that is why they are not interchangeable: קציצה removes the appearance of agency, קביעות removes the fear of the search. The Magen Avraham shows this by showing that a third thing — a letter in a non-Jewish hand — suffices to remove the first without touching the second.
But one cannot conclude from this that both are always required: seif 1 permits with קציצה alone, and the Rosh writes בין מגיע בין לא מגיע. And on the second opinion of seif 1, the one the Rama adopts, distance from Shabbat suffices by itself — « דכיון שהוא מופלג מן השבת לא מחזי כשלוחו » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק י״א)
9. The position of the Rama — the leniency through Thursday inclusive
The text of the Rama
The term of the leniency is Thursday, not Wednesday. The Rama writes ביום ה׳ או קודם לכן — "on the fifth day, or before" — that is, Thursday and everything before it, Sunday included. The Mishnah Berurah says so explicitly: « אבל ביום ה׳ מותר ולדעת הרמ״א לעיל בהג״ה אפילו לא קצץ כלל מותר ביום ה׳ » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק י״ד)
And the Rama does not put this leniency forward as his first-choice position. He attaches a reservation to it, in the very same words of the text:
The source — the Rosh
The Mishnah Berurah gives the reasoning of this opinion, draws the term from it, and names its author in brackets: « אבל מופלג מן השבת קצת לא מחזי כאומר לו עשה מלאכה בשבת ולפיכך אין לאסור כ״א ביום ע״ש » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק י׳, which closes the ס״ק with [הרא״ש]) — there is ground to forbid only on the day of the eve of Shabbat.
In the following ס״ק she pushes the consequence all the way: « דכיון שהוא מופלג מן השבת לא מחזי כשלוחו » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק י״א) — even where it is known that he will not be able to arrive before Shabbat. The Magen Avraham had already written it: « ואפי׳ ידוע שלא יכול להגיע לשם קודם שבת » (מגן אברהם רמ״ז ס״ק ד׳)
The machloket, on two points:
| Point | Rambam and Rif | Rosh (adopted by the Rama) |
|---|---|---|
| Wednesday and Thursday, no fixed price and no fixed office | Forbidden — nothing is permitted so long as the journey will not end before Shabbat | Permitted — the sending is distant from Shabbat |
| The sense of "erev Shabbat" | Any day on which the work will not end before Shabbat | Friday properly so called |
A practical nafka mina. A letter to be sent on a Monday to a distant town, with no fixed price and no fixed office, which is known to arrive only on Shabbat: according to the Mechaber this is forbidden — the Beit Yosef wrote it expressly for the Rambam and for the Rif. According to the Rama there is what to rely upon, and through Thursday inclusive; but the Rama himself makes of it a support for need, not a first-choice practice.
10. Carrying it for free — seif 4 — the Mechaber, the Rama, the Taz and the Magen Avraham
The text of the Shulchan Arukh
A note on reading. The Rama’s gloss opens here with the word הגה, and it is on that marker that the two blocks above were separated. Not every parenthesis set in small type inside a seif is the Rama’s: in seif א the Shulchan Arukh inserts a word-gloss on ״בי דואר״ that opens with ״פי׳״ and is given in no one’s name.
The Mechaber — gratitude as the counterpart
The Mechaber permits the free carrying, and gives the reason in the seif itself: the non-Jew acts of his own accord, and what he does he does להחזיק טובה לישראל, for the favour he has received — so that, the text concludes, והו״ל כאלו קצץ, it is as though he had a fixed price. The counterpart is not paid in coin, but it exists: it is a social form of אדעתא דנפשיה.
The Taz defends this reading forcefully, and the argument is worth reading: « ובעיני לע״ד יפלא מאד דלפי הנר׳ ודאי שייך בזה אדעת׳ דנפשיה טרח » (ט״ז אורח חיים רמ״ז ס״ק ג׳) He supports it on the general rule of gifts: « האי עכו״ם דמוליך בחנם ודאי זה לתשלומין על איזה טובה שעשה לו הישראל והוה כאלו קבל מעות מהישראל » (ט״ז שם) — a service rendered without charge is the payment of an earlier favour, and that counts as having received money.
The Rama — to be stringent
The Rama reports the contrary view and adopts it as a stringency: « ויש חולקים וסבירא להו דכל שעושה בחנם אסור וטוב להחמיר » (רמ״א אורח חיים רמ״ז:ד) But he himself sets the limit of that stringency: « אבל במקום שהעכו״ם מתחיל עם הישראל לומר שילך לו בחנם ודאי דעתו על הטובה שקיבל ממנו ושרי » (רמ״א שם) — when it is the non-Jew who makes the offer first, his mind is indeed turned towards the favour received, and it is permitted.
Kashya. How are we to hold together the Mechaber's permission and the fact that several Acharonim read this seif stringently? The Mishnah Berurah notes that the Levush and the Eliyah Rabbah, on this siman, go in the direction of the prohibition, and that the Darkhei Moshe at siman 252 goes the same way, whereas the Taz follows the first opinion.
The Magen Avraham adds a distinction that must not be lost, and that changes the whole practical case: « משמע דדוקא כשהעכו״ם אומ׳ מאליו לישראל להוליך לו הכתב אבל כשהישראל אמר לו לילך אסור אפילו בחנם » (מגן אברהם רמ״ז ס״ק ז׳) — the leniency holds only if it is the non-Jew who offered; if it is the Jew who asked him, it is forbidden even for free.
A practical terutz. The Mishnah Berurah concludes with the device that steps out of the machloket without deciding it: « וע״כ מהנכון שיקצוב לו עכ״פ איזה דבר מועט עבור זה והוי כקצץ כיון שקיבל עליו שיהיה זה שכרו » (מ״ב רמ״ז:ט״ז) — to settle on a sum, however small: that counts as קציצה, since he has accepted that this be his wage. She adds that the Chayei Adam writes the same.
11. The yearly hired man — seif 6 — a nafka mina for siman 244
The text of the seif
The distinction
The difference between the yearly hired man and קציצה lies in what the sum bears upon. The yearly hired man has no price for this sending: he has a price for his service as a whole. In the eyes of those who look on, he is therefore performing this journey on the Jew's behalf, since it is the Jew who is sending him on it.
In קציצה, the sum relates to the act. With the yearly hired man it relates to time. There is here no אדעתא דנפשיה with respect to that particular act.
The Mishnah Berurah puts the same thing in one line: « דמה שהוא שכירו לשנה לא נחשב כקציצה » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק י״ט) And she adds a qualification that lightens matters: the regime is that of seif 1 without a fixed price, except that the stringency here bears only on the eve of Shabbat.
The link with siman 244
Nafka mina. If the non-Jew was engaged specifically to carry letters, and not for whatever work might be needed, there are those who permit — and the Rama refers for this to siman 244, seif 5, in the very text of his gloss. The Mishnah Berurah specifies which of the opinions there is meant: « היינו דעה הראשונה שם דס״ל דזהו נחשב כקצץ » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק כ׳) — the first opinion, which holds such a specific engagement to be the equivalent of a fixed price. The same ס״ק adds that it remains forbidden, in every case, to tell him to go on Shabbat.
The Shulchan Arukh HaRav writes the same distinction and likewise refers to siman 244:
« אֲבָל אִם אֵין הַנָּכְרִי שָׂכוּר לוֹ לְכָל הַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ, אֶלָּא לִשְׁלוֹחַ בְּיָדוֹ אִגְּרוֹת בִּלְבָד בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ לִשְׁלוֹחַ בְּתוֹךְ מֶשֶׁךְ הַזְּמַן שְׂכִירותוֹ — מֻתָּר לִשְׁלוֹחַ בְּיָדוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן רמ״ד, עַיֵּן שָׁם הַטַּעַם » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:י״א)
12. Practical nafka minot and the line of the halakhah
A summary of the positions of the Rishonim
| Position | Fixed price, no fixed office | No fixed price, fixed office | No fixed price, no fixed office (Wednesday and Thursday) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rashi | Permitted, with no condition of time | Permitted if enough daylight remains | Forbidden |
| Rambam and Rif | Permitted, with no condition of time | Permitted if enough daylight remains | Forbidden — no leniency for Wednesday and Thursday |
| Rosh | Permitted, with no condition of time | Permitted if enough daylight remains | Permitted — distant from Shabbat |
| Ran | Permitted, with no condition of time | Permitted if enough daylight remains | Permitted only where he is hired by the day |
The first column calls for a remark, because it is often read crooked: where there is a fixed price, time conditions nothing. The Rosh writes בין מגיע בין לא מגיע, and the Shulchan Arukh HaRav says it again — « וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁלֹּא קָצַץ, אֲבָל אִם קָצַץ מֻתָּר לְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֲפִלּוּ לְעִיר שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בֵּי דֹאַר » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ז:ד). What is still required in that case lies elsewhere: that he leave the house before Shabbat, and that he not be told to go on Shabbat.
The line of the halakhah
What emerges from the texts cited:
- According to the Mechaber — as the Rambam and the Rif: with no fixed price and no fixed office it is forbidden even on Wednesday and Thursday, and even from Sunday on.
- According to the Rama — as the Rosh: through Thursday inclusive it is permitted even without a fixed office and even without a fixed price; but the Rama adds his own reservation, ויש לסמוך עלייהו אם צריכין לכך, one relies on it when one has need of it.
- On Friday — a fixed price is needed, or else a fixed office with enough daylight to reach the house adjoining the wall.
- With a fixed price — permitted even on Friday at nightfall, provided he leaves the house before Shabbat and is not told to go on Shabbat.
- A yearly hired man — forbidden to send him on Friday. Engaged specifically to carry letters, there are those who permit.
- For free — the Mechaber permits, the Rama inclines to stringency, and the Mishnah Berurah advises settling on a sum however small.
Nafka minot of today
What follows is not a ruling: it is the application of the siman's two criteria — a fixed price and the fixedness of the recipient — to situations that the poskim treat each on its own terms. A practical decision is taken with a Rav.
1. A national postal service. A permanent office is the very figure of the בי דואר — that is the identification the Taz already makes with the postmaster of his day. The fear of the search falls away. There remains the question of the price, which here is tariffed in advance.
2. An independent courier. No קביעות: delivery is from person to person. It is therefore the two other parameters that carry all the weight — the price agreed, and the time available.
3. A carrier with fixed branches. Both parameters are present, the fixedness of the point of delivery and the tariff settled in advance.
4. The Jew's own employee. This is the case of seif 6: the yearly hired man has no price for that particular journey, unless he was engaged specifically for it.
A reservation the Mishnah Berurah states explicitly on this ground: « ודע דליתן לו בשבת אסור לכו״ע אפילו בהולך מעצמו ואפילו קצץ לו שכר מבעוד יום עבור זה » (משנה ברורה רמ״ז ס״ק י״ח) — handing over the letter during Shabbat is forbidden in the view of all, even if the non-Jew was going of his own accord and even if the price had been fixed the day before. The same ס״ק is stringent, short of a large loss, even about a handing over on Friday when one knows it will be posted on Shabbat.
Going further
Level 3 — Synthesis: a structured recap, memory markers, decision trees and rules of thumb.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Admur HaZaken (Shulchan Arukh HaRav).