Siman 247

The Rambam wrote in chapter 6, law 2: "One who gives a letter to a non-Jew to take it to another city, if he fixed with him a fee for the delivery—it is permitted, even if he gave it to him on Friday at nightfall, provided that he exited the door of his house with it before the Shabbat. And if he did not fix a fee, if there is a permanent person in the province who collects the letters and sends them to each and every province with his messengers—it is permitted to give the letter to the non-Jew, provided there is enough time in the day for him to reach the house adjacent to the wall before the Shabbat, for perhaps the one who receives the letters and sends them—his house is adjacent to the wall. And if there is no permanent person for this, but rather the non-Jew to whom they give the letter is the one who delivers it to the other city—it is forbidden to send the letter by his hand ever, unless he fixed a price for him." Thus far his words. (That which he wrote: "for perhaps... adjacent to the wall," see Magen Avraham subsection 3 and Bach, not like the Beit Yosef).

And behold, regarding all labors that one hands over to a non-Jew to perform—we require a fixed fee, as is written in siman 244 and siman 252; however, because regarding a letter there is a permission even without a fixed fee if there is a permanent person established in the province who collects the letters—therefore, they explained this law on its own in the Gemara and the poskim. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 1). Furthermore, according to the Rambam, who holds that without a fixed fee it is forbidden to send by his hand even not on Erev Shabbat, as I have written—it is forbidden to send the letter by his hand ever, even though by estimation he could arrive there before Shabbat, whereas regarding other labors it is permitted even without a fixed fee when it is in his power to finish the labor before Shabbat. And even if he performs it afterward on Shabbat, we have no concern regarding it, as is written in siman 252; but regarding a letter it is not so, for if he does not do it during the weekday and does it on Shabbat, and everyone sees that he has the letter of the Israelite in his hand—they will say that on Shabbat he gave it to him to carry, (ibid. subsection 2 in the name of Sefer HaTerumah) and according to this, if the writing is not that of an Israelite, it is permitted. (ibid.).

And one should not ask that if so, according to this concern, what benefit is there in fixing a price, for they will still say that he gave it to him on Shabbat. For it can be said that when he fixes a price, since he acts for his own benefit—he will not tell any person nor show them the letter, which is not the case when he does not fix a price, for then he acts for the benefit of the Israelite. Therefore, if he does not want to carry it on a weekday and carries it on Shabbat—he will tell everyone that he goes on the mission of the Israelite and show them the letter, and they will say that he gave it to him on Shabbat. And for this reason, some say there is a further distinction between letters and other items, for with other items we do not require that he fix the wages at such and such, but only that it not be daily wages, and the permission is if he works by contract, that he says to him: 'Perform this labor for me and I will pay you for the labor.' And there is no need to fix how much he will pay him, such as where the non-Jew relies on him to pay him appropriately. But with a letter—we specifically require a fixed price, that he fix for him such and such for the delivery of the letter to such and such a city. And this is also for the reason that has been explained, that when he has not fixed it entirely—he still acts somewhat for the benefit of the Israelite, and he will tell in every place he comes that he carries a letter of the Israelite, and they will see the writing and suspect that he gave it to him on Shabbat. (Mordechai, first chapter, and in the explanation of the Shelah in Bigdei Yesha, see there). And some disagree on this, as will be explained in section 8.

And I say further, that the law of a letter is a greater novelty even when he fixed a price than all other labors. For in truth one must wonder: granted that from the perspective of the labor of the non-Jew there is no reason to prohibit, because since he fixed a price—he acts for his own benefit; nevertheless, the letter of the Israelite goes outside the techum on Shabbat, and the objects of a person have only the techum of their owners, as we learned in Beitza (37b): "The animal and the vessels are like the feet of the owners." And how is it permitted to deliver the letter to a non-Jew on Erev Shabbat at nightfall when he fixed a price, for he will carry it outside the techum? And granted that he does not explicitly tell him to carry it on Shabbat, nevertheless he knows that he will carry it, and how is it permitted for the Israelite to allow his objects to go outside the techum? And granted that regarding a letter one could say that after it has left his hand—he no longer has need of it, and it is not like his objects; nevertheless, this is certainly also the law when one sends money or objects to his home, which is permitted with the fixing of a price, and it is a daily occurrence throughout the world that people send objects and money to their homes via the post office, and how have we found our hands and feet in this, that our objects should go outside the techum?

It appears to my humble opinion that the reason for the matter is that since he delivered the letter to the non-Jew on Friday before twilight, which is close to the time of the acquisition of resting—he removed the letter from his place of resting, and it does not acquire the resting of the owner. For even one who sleeps on the road and darkness fell upon him, the sages maintain in Eruvin (45b) that he does not acquire resting, because he did not intend to acquire resting. And even though we hold like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri who disagrees, and maintains that he acquires resting, as I wrote below in siman 401, this is for the reason that since if he were awake he would acquire it, while asleep he also acquires it, as is explained there, for so they explained the reason in the Gemara there. But if not for this reason, he would not acquire resting, and if so, all the more so when he intentionally delivered it to the non-Jew while it was still day—that it is not included among his objects that acquire his resting. And it is not similar to what was written in siman 305, that one who delivers his animal to a shepherd is forbidden from taking it outside the techum, for there it is in his domain, and he does not intend to remove it from his resting. This is not the case with a letter and similar to this with other objects, when he delivers to a non-Jew to carry them to another city and delivered while it was still day—that he intentionally removed them from his resting. However, in any event, it is a great novelty regarding the sending of a letter, which is not the case in all other labors, and therefore the Shas and the poskim explained this law on its own.

It is a simple matter that even in a case of a fixed fee, it is forbidden to tell him to go on Shabbat, for this is exactly like sending a messenger on Shabbat. And even if he does not say so explicitly, but rather sends him on Erev Shabbat to a distant place and says to him: "See that you are there on Sunday or on Monday or on Tuesday," and it is known that it is impossible to be there unless he travels on Shabbat—this is also like saying to him "go on Shabbat." (Magen Avraham, subsection 2) Rather, he delivers it to him without specification that he should go there, and whenever he wishes he may go. And even though a benefit will reach the Israelite by his hurrying to go on Shabbat—nevertheless, the non-Jew acts for his own sake, and the benefit comes of its own, as in the profit of these types which is permitted, as I wrote in siman 244, see there. Therefore, one must be very careful in this, not to say explicitly that he should go on Shabbat, and likewise any language whose meaning is that he should go specifically on Shabbat.

And regarding this, that the Rambam forbids without a fixed price always—several poskim disagree with him, and this is the wording of the Rosh (first chapter, end of siman 36): "We do not send letters by way of a non-Jew on Erev Shabbat, but on Wednesday and Thursday—it is permitted, for specifically on Erev Shabbat it appears as if he is telling him to go quickly on his mission, and telling a non-Jew is a shevut, even if he told him on Erev Shabbat 'do this on Shabbat.' But distant before Shabbat—it does not appear as if he is telling him: 'do my work on Shabbat,' and similarly skins for tanning and vessels to a launderer—it is permitted on Wednesday and Thursday even though he did not fix a price" Thus far his words. And the reason is, that granted that he did not fix a price—nevertheless he does not compel him to go on Shabbat, and when he goes he does this of his own accord. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1, that one may rely on this opinion if there is a need for it Thus far his words, and even if it is known that he will not be able to arrive there before Shabbat, (Magen Avraham subsection 4) for behold he can go on Sunday and who will prevent him. And even according to the opinion of the Rambam, if he sends him on Monday or Tuesday and it is known that the place is not far and he can arrive there before Shabbat with ample time—it is permitted. (See Magen Avraham ibid. and examine carefully).

And also regarding that which we wrote in section 3, that regarding a letter some say that we require a complete fixed fee, see there, the Rashba, of blessed memory, disagrees on this, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2 ruled like him, and this is his wording: "If he stipulated with him that he would give him his wage, even though he did not specify how much he would give him—his status is like one who fixes a fee, for the non-Jew relies on the fact (that he will pay him appropriately), and he toils for his own sake. But in an ordinary case, even though it is in his mind to give him a wage—it is forbidden, for he does not rely on it, and he toils for the sake of the Israelite." Thus far his words. That is to say, it is not only required when he expects nothing for payment of a wage that it is forbidden, but even if he expects a wage—it is forbidden since he did not promise him. (Ibid. subsection 5) And it is not similar to what will be explained, that in one who carries for him for free—it is permitted, for that is different, as he consented to do it for free because of some favor that the Israelite did for him, and it is like he fixed a fee. But here his desire is not for free but for a wage, and since he did not promise him—he acts for the sake of the Israelite. And furthermore, there too some disagree, as will be explained.

Even according to the opinion of the Rambam, that without a fixed sum it is forbidden even on Wednesday and Thursday—this is only when he did not fix a sum at all. However, if he fixed a sum with him for each and every day, meaning that his wage is such that for every day he travels on his going and on his returning he will receive such and such per day, and he says to him explicitly that he does not care on which day he travels—it is permitted on Wednesday and Thursday, and only on Erev Shabbat is it forbidden, for when he sets out on Shabbat it appears as if he stipulated with him thus, and that which he said to him that he does not care—this refers to the other days, but a day that is immediately after his dispatching appears like his agent. And it is not similar to fixing a complete sum, which is permitted even on Erev Shabbat, for since he fixed for him for his labor such and such—certainly he acts on his own behalf, and it is not recognizable at all that his travel on Shabbat is for the sake of the Israelite. But with hiring by the day where the first day is on Shabbat—it appears like his agent.

And if the non-Jew carries a letter for free, even if he gave it to him on Erev Shabbat—it is permitted, for he does this of his own accord, and certainly it is only to show gratitude to the Jew for a favor he did for him, and it is as if he set a fee. And even if the Jew initiated this by saying to him: "Go with this letter to such-and-such a place" and he agreed, for were it not for the favor—the Jew would not have said it to him, and he also would not have agreed, and it is like setting a fee. But there are those who disagree, and they hold that whenever he does it for free—it is forbidden if the Jew initiated the words, for it is close to saying that he acts for the sake of the Jew. But in a case where the non-Jew initiates with the Jew that he will go for him for free—certainly his intent is for the favor he received from him and it is permitted, for he acts for his own sake, as this is like setting a fee as has been explained.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: "If the non-Jew goes on his own to a certain place, and a Israelite gives him a letter—it is permitted in all manners." Thus far his words. For he is not going for his sake, but rather for his own sake. And they raised a difficulty against him, for in any event he performs melakhah on his behalf, as he carries the writing from domain to domain, and moves it four amot in a reshut ha-rabim or in a karmelit (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). That is to say, it is understandable that when he takes payment, he acts for his own benefit, but in such cases, even granted that the walking is not for the sake of the Israelite—nevertheless, the carrying of this letter is for the sake of the Israelite. And I wonder about this, for if so, let him raise a greater difficulty: how is it permitted to allow his vessels to go outside the techum, and this is like doing it with his own hands since he hands him the letter to go outside the techum? Rather, it is certainly as I wrote in section 5, that since he brought it out while it was still day—he removed it from its resting; see there. And according to this, it is like ownerless objects which do not acquire a place of resting, and automatically he has removed it from his domain entirely, and this is not like an object of an Israelite at all. (And the Magen Avraham answered that the intent of "in all manners" is even if there is no established post office in the town, see there; and who will not see that the language does not bear this at all. And the Tosefot Shabbat, subsection 9, answered because he will certainly pay him something, and he acts for his own benefit, see there; and this is nothing but words of prophecy, and the intent is even for free as the Magen Avraham wrote previously, and the matter is clarified as I wrote. And nevertheless, in practice one should be stringent as the Rav Zal wrote in the Kuntres Acharon, because from the Responsa of Maharam of Rothenburg, siman 202, it implies that even if he is going anyway—it is forbidden; but the Gra agreed with the Shulchan Aruch, see there. And also in the Maharam it can be said that his intent is that there are times when they do it for free because they have a path there, but the Baraita can be said not to deal with such cases. And nevertheless, for the halakhah in practice—it is better that he fix a small amount of money for the non-Jew, and delve into this.)

If he has a non-Jewish employee hired to him for a year or for two years—it is forbidden to send him on Erev Shabbat with a letter, as is written in siman 244, section 14, for such an employee is forbidden to be allowed to work on Shabbat, and consequently it is forbidden on Erev Shabbat, as it is like one who did not fix a price. However, on Wednesday and Thursday—it is permitted even according to the opinion of the Rambam who forbids without a fixed price even on Wednesday and Thursday, because there is a line of reasoning to say that even such an employee is permitted to be allowed to work on Shabbat (see Beit Yosef there). And even though we do not hold accordingly, and we likewise concluded there to forbid in such cases—nevertheless, one may combine their words with the opinion of those who hold in this siman that on Wednesday and Thursday it is permitted even without a fixed price (the Gra"z). But if he is not hired to him for all tasks but only for the carrying of a letter—it is certainly permitted even on Erev Shabbat, for this is exactly like fixing a price, as is written there in siman 244, see there.

And this is all on Erev Shabbat, but on Shabbat—it is forbidden in any manner to deliver, even a letter prepared from yesterday, to the post office, and even if he appointed the non-Jew before sunset to place it on Shabbat at the post office and fixed his wage—it is a complete prohibition, for it has already been explained that telling a non-Jew is a shevut, even if he told him on Erev Shabbat to perform it on Shabbat. And I saw one who permits in a case of great loss through a non-Jew who will place it at the post office, for it is a shevut d'shevut in a case of a mitzvah, and loss is judged like a mitzvah. (Mishnah Berurah, subsection 18). And it is not so, for there is another prohibition here, as the letter has acquired a place of rest with him, and how can he place it at the post office and they will carry it outside the techum, unless the post office departs on Motzaei Shabbat, or he delivers the letter on Erev Shabbat to the non-Jew or the objects he wishes to send or the money, and gives it to him as a gift, and it belongs to the non-Jew from Erev Shabbat and the like, and even in this, it is only in a case of great necessity.

And that which the Rambam distinguished between whether there is a person permanently in the province who collects the letters and sends them to the places they were sent to—this is according to his interpretation of the Gemara (19a), which says that when there is a permanent post office in the city, it is permitted to send on Erev Shabbat even without a fixed fee, and when it is not permanent, it is forbidden. Rashi explained: a post office is the governor of the city to whom the letters are sent. And if he is always in the city, it is permitted when it can arrive while it is still day to the house adjacent to the wall. But if he is not permanent in the city, we fear perhaps he will not find him in the city, and he will need to go after him on Shabbat; see there. And the Rambam explained according to his interpretation which we wrote in section 1. And it is clear from the interpretation of Rashi that without a fixed fee, it is forbidden to send letters to an individual on Erev Shabbat, even when it can arrive there before the Shabbat, for perhaps he will not find him in his house. And also according to the interpretation of the Rambam this is proven, for behold, when it is not permanent, he forbids even on Wednesday and Thursday, even though it can arrive, perhaps he will not find him; and specifically when it can arrive with ample time did we permit according to the opinion of the Rambam, as I wrote in section 7 (as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 4). And behold, regarding the permanent post offices of the government in every single province—the matter is simple that it is permitted to place letters and objects and money on Erev Shabbat before dark, for all the permissions are found in them. But on Shabbat itself, it is forbidden in any case as I wrote, and such is the simple custom in all provinces and there is no need to elaborate on this. And a telegraph is forbidden on Shabbat, for behold, one must command to write.