Siman 244

In the previous siman it was explained regarding the business affairs of an Israelite that stand for profit, such as fields, a bathhouse, an oven, or mills—how it is permitted to rent them to a non-Jew. In this, the permission is only through arisut, or if the non-Jew rents them completely and pays the Israelite a fixed amount per year. However, if the non-Jew is hired through kablanut, meaning that the profit belongs to the owner and the owner pays him a fixed amount per year—there is a dispute, and many forbid it, and such is the primary ruling, as was explained there in section 11. And even those who permit it only permitted it regarding a field, as was explained there in section 12, see there.

And in this siman it will be explained regarding matters that are not business for profit but rather ordinary human needs, such as garments and shoes and the building of houses and the like, where the non-Jew does this for the sake of the Israelite—that he hired him to sew his garment and to make him shoes, whether he worked with the Israelite's materials or whether he worked with his own materials, this is the law: That if he hired him by the day, meaning that he pays him for every day that he performs the labor such and such—it is forbidden in all matters, even if he performs it in his own house. However, when he performs it as a kablanut, meaning that he gives him such and such so that he will sew him the garment, that he will make him the shoes, that he will build him the house, in this regarding matters of movables—such as a garment and shoes and the like—it is permitted. And it is not similar to the previous siman, for there the Israelite profits from the Shabbat labor, since it is a business of livelihood. This is not the case here—he does not profit at all from this, for what is it to the Israelite if he performs it on Shabbat or on a weekday? Behold, he must complete this labor. And even if it is the Israelite's preference that he complete it on Shabbat so that immediately after Shabbat he may wear it, nevertheless, since he does not explicitly tell him to perform it on Shabbat—behold, the non-Jew performs it for his own sake, to hasten the completion of his labor in order to receive his payment, and why should we care if through this a benefit reaches the Israelite? For behold, incidental benefit is permitted even regarding profit, as has been explained in the previous siman, section 8, see there (and so wrote the Graz). And specifically in his own house, but in the house of the Israelite—it is forbidden. And it is also forbidden to tell him to perform it on Shabbat, and he must also fix the price with him before Shabbat, and more will be explained regarding this in siman 252. But with a day-laborer—it is entirely forbidden, for the labor does not belong to the laborer, and his intention is not to complete the labor, but rather his intention is to perform the day's work for the sake of the Israelite, and it turns out that his entire intention is to perform for the sake of the Israelite—and this is forbidden.

And all this refers to work on detached items, which the non-Jew performs in his own home, and the matter is not public, and not everyone recognizes that this work belongs to a specific Israelite. And even if a few know—we have no concern with it, since he performs it in private within his home (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). However, regarding work on attached items, such as building him a house—the Rambam in chapter 6 and most of our teachers agreed that it is forbidden even through kablanut. And it is not similar to a field, which we permitted through arisut and the like in the previous siman, for an ordinary field is designated for arisut, whereas with buildings—most of them are worked by day laborers and there is a concern of suspicion. And even though it occurred to one of the great ones among our teachers to permit building through kablanut as well—he did not do so in practice, and most of our teachers agreed to the prohibition, and such is the halacha.

And the primary distinction is not between detached and attached, for the primary distinction is between privacy and publicity. And because for the most part, that which is detached is done in privacy, and that which is attached is necessarily done in publicity, we therefore distinguished between detached and attached. And in truth, detached work done in publicity, such as the building of a ship when it is known that it belongs to an Israelite—its law is like the work of that which is attached and it is forbidden. But regarding that which is attached—everything is forbidden. And the building of a ship—the prohibition is when one does it in a public place, where there are many onlookers. But in a place that is not public—it is permitted, as will be explained in siman 252. And behold, even that which is attached in a place where people do not see, such as outside the techum—it is permitted, as will be explained, and all the more so regarding that which is detached.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1: "A person may contract with a non-Jew for work and fix a price, and the non-Jew works for himself, and even though he works on Shabbat—it is permitted. In what case is this said? In private, where everyone does not recognize that this work being done on Shabbat is for an Israelite. But if it was known and public—it is forbidden, for the observer sees the non-Jew occupied and does not know that he contracted, and says that so-and-so hired the non-Jew to do work for him on Shabbat. Therefore, one who contracts with a non-Jew to build his courtyard or his wall or to harvest his field, if the work was in the city or within the techum—it is forbidden for him to allow them to do work for him on Shabbat, because of the observers who do not know that he contracted," thus far his words, and this is from the words of the Rambam in chapter 6. And he was stringent regarding the harvesting of a field, even though they permit a field under a sharecropping arrangement in the previous siman—that is when he actually takes a portion of the produce. But here, when they see that the Israelite takes all the produce and they see that he is not a sharecropper—they will suspect him of being a day laborer (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And the Rambam follows his own reasoning that he forbids a contract even in a field, as has been explained there in section 11. And it appears to me that even according to those who permit there—that is regarding a contract for the entire business of the field, plowing and sowing and harvesting. But harvesting alone—it is common to do it by means of day laborers, and it is like the building of a house.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even if he dwells among the gentiles, one must be concerned for guests who arrive there or for the members of his household who might suspect him. Thus far his words. And even though regarding a bathhouse in the previous siman we are not concerned for the suspicion of the members of his household—this is because they know the truth, that the non-Jew rented it. But regarding building, they think that the homeowner hired them by the day and not by contract (ibid. subsection 7). Furthermore, regarding labor on land they were very stringent on Shabbat, and therefore we are concerned even for guests, even though they are not so common, as is understood. And the Yerushalmi in chapter 3 of Shevi'it says that the concern of mar'it ha-ayin is only for the people of the city and not for others; nevertheless, regarding Shabbat they were stringent (see there subsection 6). Therefore, regarding building, they prohibited it in every case, even if he dwells alone in the city and there is no other Israelite there. And even if it has not yet become public knowledge that the house is his, nevertheless one must be concerned for neighbors who know that it is his (subsection 4 ibid.). And perhaps for one who is alone in his city, there is room to be lenient in such a case.

And if the building was outside the techum of the city, and there is also no other city within the techum of the place where they are performing the work—it is permitted, for there is no suspicion here. And even if there is only a single Israelite dwelling within the techum of the work—it is forbidden, just as they were stringent regarding within the techum even though it is far from the city, and it is not common for many people to go there. And regarding the matter of vows, the techum is not included in the city, as has been explained in Yoreh Deah siman 217; nevertheless, regarding Shabbat they were stringent, due to the concern of an individual who might go there and see. And so too when a single Israelite dwells within the techum of the work—it is forbidden for this reason. But outside the techum, even by one step—it is permitted, and even though those standing within the techum are able to see—they were not stringent in this, and the rabbis did not differentiate. And later in siman 537 it will be explained regarding a non-Jew who brings manure into the field of an Israelite, and does so of his own accord and he does not give him payment for this—he does not need to protest his action, since this is not a complete work. But regarding a complete work—even in such a case he is obligated to protest his action.

And know, that there is one who wished to seek a permit regarding the construction of synagogues and study halls in a time of pressing need to build through a contract on Shabbat, based on the reasoning that regarding the public there is no suspicion. And Heaven forbid to say so, for do the public themselves hire the craftsmen?! Is it not the appointee himself who hires them! Furthermore, we only state this reasoning in Yoreh Deah siman 141 regarding protruding forms that stand revealed before the public, where there is a concern of idol worship. But in a matter where the prohibition is not known to all and is not revealed—perhaps we do not state this reasoning. Furthermore, you have no greater desecration of the Name of Heaven than this before the nations, that we should allow buildings to be constructed on the holy Shabbat. (See Magen Avraham subsection 8 regarding the matter of clearing refuse from the streets, see there. And certainly, if the Jews hire them to clean the street on Shabbat—it is certainly forbidden. However, if the city official hires them even at the expense of the Jews—it is permitted, for the work is according to the decree of the city official and his name is associated with it).

It is stated in the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Shabbat: "It was taught: Gentile craftsmen who were working with an Israelite (for an Israelite) inside the house of the Israelite—it is forbidden; and inside their own houses—it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: In what case are these matters stated? Regarding a kibulut, but regarding a day-wage—it is forbidden. In what case are these matters stated? Regarding detached items, but regarding attached items—it is forbidden. And in another city, both this way and that way it is permitted. What is 'both this way and that way'? Whether regarding detached items or attached items, provided it is a kibulut. And the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar," thus far the wording of the Yerushalmi. And we learned from this that in the house of the Israelite it is forbidden in any case, and likewise regarding day-laborers it is forbidden in any case, and we have already explained this. And we further learned that regarding an enterprise of attached items—even work on detached items is forbidden, for he forbids attached items even inside their own houses; and how is this applicable? Rather, it is certainly such as when he prepares the beams or the doors and the windows, and the non-Jew prepares them to make them in the house of the Israelite. And this is what the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 2, that to hew the stones and to prepare the beams—even in the house of the non-Jew it is forbidden, since it is for the purpose of an attached item. And if they did so—he shall not sink them into the building, thus far their wording. And the reason they were very stringent in this is that if not so—they would be very lenient in this, and they would allow the building of the structure itself, for among people there is no distinction between this and that. And specifically when the beams and the stones are designated only for this building. But if the contractor prepares beams and stones and the like, and it is still in his power to put them into another building, even though he put them into this building—it is permitted, for the name of the Israelite is not yet explicitly upon it (Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 6 in the name of the Dagul Mervava). And regarding that which they ruled that even post facto it is forbidden, the commentators of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Bach and Taz and Magen Avraham subsection 10) agreed that regarding a kibulut one may rely post facto on the opinion of our teacher Tam, and one should not forbid post facto. And it seems to me that if the halachic authorities informed him that it is forbidden to do so and he did not listen to them—then even post facto it is forbidden.

And that which the Yerushalmi says, that in another city—even in a structure attached to the ground it is permitted, there is one who explained that this refers to the preparation of beams and stones, and he shall bring them to this city (Korban HaEdah). And it appears that this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote regarding this law: "And there are those who say that if it is not publicly known that it belongs to an Israelite—it is permitted," thus far his words, and this is when they are made in another city and the like. But to build a structure actually attached to the ground—it is forbidden even if it is not publicly known that it belongs to a certain person when the building is in the city, such as in another city. Therefore, he only wrote this law in section 2, regarding the fixing of beams, and not in section 1 regarding the building itself. However, there is one who explained that the intent of the Yerushalmi is also regarding the building itself in another city, that it is permitted, since there it is not publicly known that it belongs to that Israelite (Pnei Moshe), and I do not know why the earlier authorities omitted this. And perhaps they hold, since they wrote regarding a structure attached to the ground that the reason is because of public knowledge, it follows automatically that when one builds in another city, and there it is not publicly known—it is permitted, and for the practical law it requires further study.

And it has already been explained that even with detached items, when the publicity is great, such as a ship—it is also forbidden. However, if the publicity is not as great as a ship, if the name of the Jew has already been associated with it as belonging to so-and-so—it is forbidden. But if the name of the Jew has not yet fully been associated with it, such as a Jew who hired a non-Jew as a contractor to make him new vessels and he made them in public, even though it became known that he is making them for so-and-so—nevertheless, his name is not yet explicitly called upon them to be called the vessels of so-and-so, since they have never yet come into his possession (the HaGra"z section 5), since it is not similar to the publicity of a ship. And nevertheless, even though the essential law is so, nonetheless it is proper for a sensitive soul to be stringent in this, and one who is stringent, a blessing shall come upon him. And when he does not do so in public but rather inside his house and the like—there is no stringency in this at all, and it is permitted ab initio even for a sensitive soul.

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: If gentiles built a house for an Israelite on Shabbat through a prohibition—it is proper to be stringent that they should not enter it. However, if the Israelite stipulated with him not to perform work for him on Shabbat, and he did so against the will of the Israelite in order to hasten the completion of his work—there is no concern. Thus far his words. And we have already explained in section 9, that the great later authorities agreed, that when he performed the work through a kablanut contract—one should not forbid the building after the fact.

It is simple that a day laborer who performed work—the work is forbidden even after the fact. And there is one who says that regarding a day laborer, it is of no avail even if he stipulated with him not to work, and the Akum worked on his own for the benefit of the Israelite. For anything performed for the benefit of the Israelite, even if he performed it on his own and the Israelite protests against him—it is forbidden even after the fact (Magen Avraham, subsection 12). And this is an excessive stringency, for since he protested against him, what was there for him to do? And if it is because he should have appeased him with money so that he would not work—we have not found that one is obligated to scatter his money for this. Therefore, it appears that one should not forbid it after the fact when he protested against him. (And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 9).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 6, law 12: "A person may contract with a non-Jew for work and fix the payment... and similarly, one who hires a non-Jew for many days—it is permitted, even though he works on Shabbat. How so? For example, if he hired the non-Jew for a year or for two to write for him or to weave for him—behold, this one writes and weaves on Shabbat as if he had contracted with him to write a book or to weave a garment, for he does it at any time he wishes, provided that he does not calculate the account with him day by day." Thus far his words. That is to say, just as it is permitted to contract with him for a specific task when he performs it as a contractor, meaning that he fixes for him a price of such-and-such for this work, so too even when he does not hire him for a specific task, but rather for the purpose of a specific task, meaning that he hires him for a year, such that whenever he needs this specific task he will perform it for him—it is also permitted, since he does this as a contractor, for he takes for this year's work such-and-such, since he can do it whenever he wishes. And specifically when he hired him for a specific task, such as to write or to weave, for certainly he will have many free times when he sits idle, and if so, the Israelite derives no benefit from the fact that he writes or weaves for him on Shabbat, for if he does not do it on Shabbat—he will do it on a weekday. But when he hired him for all tasks that he might need—it is forbidden for him to work on Shabbat, for in this case he certainly receives a benefit, for when he works on Shabbat—he will have time remaining on a weekday for another task. And the Ra'avad disagrees with him, and holds that even in a private task—it is also forbidden for this reason, for if he works on Shabbat and tomorrow he also needs this task and he performs it, behold he has a benefit from what he did on Shabbat (see Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch agreed with the Rambam, and his reasoning appears correct, for it is remote that he would constantly need one specific task. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought the opinion of the Ra'avad only in the name of "there are those who say," see there. And that which he wrote, that he should not calculate the account with him day by day, the reason is simple, so that it should not appear as if he is paying him Shabbat wages. And it is a simple matter, if he hired him to weave for him always or to write for him always—that it is forbidden to work on Shabbat.

And according to this, an Israelite who has a workshop, and has non-Jewish workers whom he hires for a year to perform a specific craft there, such as weaving or spinning or hewing and the like—it is forbidden for him to allow them to work on Shabbat. For even though he hired him for a specific craft, nevertheless, since in a workshop the activity is all day—it turns out that the Israelite reaches a benefit from what he does on Shabbat, and it is like one who hired him for all crafts, for even the Rambam admits it is forbidden, as we have written. And there is no remedy for this except through a sale, as will be explained in section 24. And so too the maidservants in an Israelite's house—they are forbidden to do any work on Shabbat for the need of the Israelite, even if they do not do it in the Israelite's house, for this is like one who hired for all crafts, as is understood. But for themselves—they are permitted to work even in the Israelite's house. And there is one who forbids in the Israelite's house, because of suspicion that they will say it is for the Israelite (Taz subsection 1), and it is not the primary view. And it is explicitly written in the Hagahot Mordechai at the end of the first chapter of Shabbat that it is permitted, see there, and why would they assume it is for the Israelite? For behold, everyone knows that she needs to work for herself as well (and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 11. And that which the Taz wrote from the Hagahot Mordechai that it is forbidden—that is for the Israelite, for if not so, the Hagahot Mordechai would contradict itself, and so is the primary law, and delve into it).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: "A Jew who purchases the tax-farming rights, and hires a non-Jew for himself to receive the tax on Shabbat—it is permitted if it is through a kibbolet arrangement, meaning that he says to him: 'When you collect one hundred dinars, I will give you such and such,'" thus far his words, for he acts on his own behalf, as the more he collects—the more he will profit, and detached labor is permitted through kibbolet. And even though he designates the labor for him for Shabbat, and in such a case it is forbidden even with a fixed fee, as is written in siman 252, and furthermore, for there is no greater publicity than this, which is forbidden in all manners, as has been explained in section 4 regarding a ship—nevertheless, in this case where the loss is very great, it is permitted (Beit Yosef in the name of the Maharam). And the proof for this is from that which we learned in a Mishnah (Shabbat 153a): One for whom it grew dark on the way—he gives his purse to a non-Jew. And they explained in the Gemara, because a person cannot restrain himself regarding his money, and if you do not permit it to him—he will come to carry it four cubits in the public domain (ibid.). And even though it is not entirely comparable, for here the money is not yet his, this is not so, for he pays for the tax-farming rights even for Shabbat, and it is a loss from his own pocket. And should you say: he should not have accepted the tax-farming at all? This is not so, for at the time of accepting the business he accepts it permissibly, and when Shabbat arrives—he has a great loss (Beit Yosef). And furthermore, for if so—all businesses would be locked before us, and it is impossible to endure this. And there is no difference in this whether the non-Jew will need to perform only a rabbinic labor in this, such as the receipt of the tax alone, for there is only a prohibition of shevut in this, or whether he will need to perform a Torah labor, such as if he needs to write the tax; so the poskim agreed. And in truth, there is almost no business in the world that will not require matters of writing for the business, as is known.

And there is a question regarding this: since we have said that because of a substantial loss we are not concerned, neither for the one who designates the labor for Shabbat nor for the public nature of it, if so, why do we not permit a furnace and a bathhouse in the previous siman when there is a substantial loss? For there, it is nothing more than a mere concern of suspicion, and it is obvious that we should have permitted it. And granted, regarding land and a ship in this siman, one could say that the reason we did not permit it in any manner is because there the publicity is very great, for everyone sees that the laborers are performing complete labors all day, and it is not comparable to the collection of customs tax, as is understood. But a furnace and a bathhouse which are operated in a house, their publicity is no greater than customs tax, so why did we not permit them in a case of substantial loss? And the answer to this is that it is not comparable at all, for the furnace and the bathhouse are his, and it is not relevant to call it a loss when he is unable to profit on Shabbat, for it is forbidden for an Israelite to conduct business on Shabbat. This is not the case with customs tax, which is not his, and he leases the customs tax and pays for each and every day, and it turns out that he loses from his own pocket literally, and it is similar to one for whom it became dark as has been explained (and all the more so regarding one who builds a house or makes a ship, which is forbidden to do on Shabbat, and the Magen Avraham and the Taz exerted themselves in this, see there).

Furthermore, regarding the essence of the matter, a thing that is inherently his own, such as a bathhouse or an oven, is not comparable to a thing that is not his own, such as a tax franchise, which he also leases from the minister or from the government; for this which is not his own, he sells it for the Sabbath day entirely to the non-Jew, meaning that he sells every right that he possesses in this business, and if so, it truly does not belong to the Israelite at all. To what is this comparable? To one who knows that merchandise will be brought to him on the Sabbath, and he sells the merchandise on the eve of the Sabbath to a non-Jew. This is not the case with a thing that is inherently his own—perforce even on the Sabbath it remains his. And even though it is not comparable to merchandise, for merchandise exists in the world and it is possible to sell it, whereas the tax franchise is like a thing that has not yet come into the world and is not subject to sale? This is not so, for if it were so, how did the Israelite lease it? And in any event, it does not belong to the Israelite on the Sabbath, for every right that the Israelite has in this business, he transfers to the non-Jew (this is the intention of the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 18, and the difficulty of the Tevuot Shor in subsection 17 is answered, see there and examine carefully).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And likewise, he may lease the customs tax to a non-Jew for all the Sabbaths, and he [the non-Jew] shall take the profit of the Sabbaths for himself. And we do not fear that they will say: he is doing it for the sake of the Israelite, for in a case of loss such as this, they did not fear," thus far his words. And it is not understood, for what did he add to the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef? On the contrary, the matter is a fortiori: for behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, permitted it even by way of kabbalat, meaning, when you collect one hundred dinars I will give you such and such, where the Israelite has a profit in what he collects, and certainly so if the non-Jew takes all the profit of the Sabbaths for himself. At the very least, he should have said: and certainly so he may lease the customs tax for all the Sabbaths. However, his words are correct, for behold, if we judge a matter that the Israelite holds from others as a matter that is essentially his own—the permission of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, would be much lighter than the permission of our teacher, the Rema, for in kabbalat it is permitted in anything that is entirely his, like a field or a mill, as is written in the previous siman, because the non-Jew acts for his own sake, as has been explained there. This is not the case if he leases it to him for a fixed amount, like the permission of our teacher, the Rema, for behold, the non-Jew perforce pays the minister the customs tax that arises for all the Sabbaths of the year as is understood, and if so, if we judge it as his own—it is certainly forbidden. However, if we judge that a matter which is not essentially his own is not like his own, for the reason that he sells every right he has in this business, according to the reasoning we wrote in the previous section—the permission of our teacher, the Rema, is lighter. Because regarding the permission of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who leases it to him in kabbalat, it is not so relevant to say that he sells him every right, for behold, he takes a portion of the profit and the business is his. This is not the case in one who leases it to him for all the Sabbaths of the year, and he [the non-Jew] will give the customs tax arising for the Sabbaths to the minister, and he will take all the profit for himself, and it turns out that the Israelite has no connection at all to the business on the Sabbaths of the year. And since the matter is balanced, he therefore wrote 'And likewise' (so it appears in my humble opinion clearly, and with this, everything that the Magen Avraham questioned in subsection 18 is settled well, see there and examine carefully).

He further wrote that an Israelite appointed over the king's mint has the same law as one appointed over the customs tax, even though they produce a sound on Shabbat through the striking of the coins. Thus far his words. That is to say, he may give the silver to a non-Jew on Friday as a kabbalat, such that if he produces such-and-such from the silver, he will give him such-and-such, according to the permission of our teacher, the Beit Yosef; or, he may rent to him all the profit of all the Shabbatot of the year, according to the permission of our teacher, the Rema. And there is a greater novelty in this than in customs tax, because it produces a sound and the publicity is great, and it is known to all that this Israelite rented it from the king and his name is associated with it. Nevertheless, because there is a great loss involved, they were not concerned for marait ha-ayin. Therefore, where there is no great loss, such as another person who gave him silver to make vessels, it is not permitted even as a kabbalanut unless the non-Jew performs this work in his own home and in private, as has been explained in siman 243. And he himself is also permitted to give silver to a non-Jewish craftsman to make vessels for him in the home of the non-Jew; and even though there is the production of a sound, nevertheless the matter is not publicized that this belongs to the Israelite and that he is performing it as a kabbalat (Magen Avraham, subsection 19).

He further wrote to be careful that the Israelite should not sit next to the non-Jew on Shabbat when he is engaged in his work with currency or in the collection of the customs tax. Thus far his words. And there is one who says that even if he rented it to him for all the Shabbats and he has no involvement in it—nevertheless, it is forbidden to sit there, so that they should not say he is doing it for his needs (Magen Avraham, subsection 20). And there is one who says that the prohibition is only when he sits to know the dealings, and it is like one who is looking into the business. But when he sits and does not look into the work, but rather so that there will not be theft—it is permitted (Taz, subsection 7). And in a time of pressing need, one may rely on this, for they permitted every prohibition of marit ayin in a place of great loss, as has been explained, and the fear of theft is considered a great loss. And know, that it is a simple matter that the Israelite himself is forbidden to receive any customs tax, even a food item that is not muktzeh and was not brought from outside the techum, for whenever he receives it for the purpose of customs tax it is like business dealings on Shabbat, and the verse says (Isaiah 58:13) "from pursuing your business" (Magen Avraham, ibid.).

An Israelite who leased the salt-cooking from the government—it is permitted to hire laborers for him by contract, such that if he produces for him such and such amount of salt, he will give him such and such (Rashal in Responsum siman 100). And they are permitted to work on Shabbat even with the vessels of the Israelite, for we are not commanded regarding the resting of vessels. And the wood may also belong to the Israelite, for the vessels and the wood are not called by the name of the Israelite (ibid.), and it is not similar to an oven, which is called by the name of the Israelite (ibid.). However, he should prepare the vessels and the wood for him before Shabbat, for on Shabbat itself it is certainly forbidden for the laborer to take the vessels or the wood from the house of the Israelite. Nevertheless, some say that it is not similar to the customs tax, which we permitted to lease for the Shabbats alone, for there it is a substantial loss (Tosefet Shabbat and Chayei Adam, and so it appears from the Gr''z). But some say that it is exactly similar to the customs tax, and all the permissions that apply to the customs tax are permitted here as well (Magen Avraham subsection 17 and Pri Megadim there). And so appears to be the primary view, according to the reasons that were explained in section 18, that a thing which is not essentially his—he may sell it for the Shabbats and we do not fear the appearance of the eye, because of substantial loss, and I do not know how to distinguish between this and that. (And the words of the Gr''z in section 21 were not clarified to me, for who told them that in the customs tax it is a substantial loss, and in salt it is a minor loss? And this is nothing but a wonder. Therefore it appears in my humble opinion like the words of the Pri Megadim who understood the Magen Avraham so, and therefore he juxtaposed this to the law of the customs tax, and the Rashal would also agree to this, except that there the permission of contract was sufficient for him, so why should we permit more? And delve into this.)

From what has been explained, we have learned regarding all types of businesses in the world that Jews receive from the government or from the lords, if it is possible for such a business that the workers perform through a kabbelanut arrangement—for example, in the business of digging earth where one receives for each excavation such and such or for each measure such and such, and similarly he can hire workers through kabbelanut in such a manner, and so too in similar cases—the permission is simple, that the workers shall also perform through kabbelanut. And for businesses where kabbelanut is impossible, if there is a great loss, he can rent out the business for the days of the Shabbatot entirely, according to the permission of our teacher, the Rema, in section 19.

However, in businesses that are only possible through day laborers, such as in the business of manufacturing spirits and beer, and similarly those who hold government post offices and keep horses, and in this there is no remedy, for we are commanded regarding the resting of our animals on Shabbat. And all the more so those people who have factories for the manufacture of merchandise, where it is a necessity to operate through day laborers—there is no remedy except by selling the entire business to a non-Jew with a legal acquisition that is effective according to the law. And even though they work publicly, and everyone knows that it belongs to an Israelite—nevertheless it is permitted, for it has already been explained that in a case of great loss we are not concerned with marit ayin, provided that they do not work in the house where the Israelite lives. And such is the simple custom now in all countries, to make bills of sale for all businesses involving the leasing of lands, where it is understood that this cannot be done through a kibulat arrangement, and one must sell the horses and the animals with which they perform labor. The manner of the sale cannot be explained here, for there are many laws regarding this, and they are explained in Choshen Mishpat. Every person must make the bill of sale with the rabbi of the community, and the rabbi will inform him how to act. And specifically, it is necessary to inform them that the sale of the horses and animals is only effective for the horses and animals found with him now, but what he buys afterwards—it is not effective, and then another sale is required, and many of the common people do not know this.