Siman 266

The sages taught in the Mishnah (153a): "One for whom it became dark on the way—he gives his purse to a non-Jew." And even though he is his agent to carry the money, they were compelled to permit it for the reason stated in the Gemara: "The rabbis know for certain that a person does not restrain himself regarding his property, and if you do not permit it to him—he will come to carry it four cubits in the public domain." Rashi explained: He gives his purse while it is still day. However, the Rambam in chapter 6, law 22, wrote that it is even after it has become dark, and so wrote the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, for this is obvious: that even though after it has become dark there is also the prohibition of muktzeh—they permitted it to him so that he would not come to a Torah prohibition. And the intention of Rashi is also thus: that he should certainly strive to give it while it is still day in order to be saved from the prohibition of muktzeh. But if he did not give it to him while it was still day—Rashi also admits that he may give it to him after it has become dark. And from the precision of the wording of the Rambam it also appears so, as he wrote: "He gives his purse... and even though he gave it to him after it became dark—it is permitted, see there." And this is its explanation: He gives it while it is still day, and even if he gave it after it became dark—it is permitted.

This is the wording of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch: "One who was traveling on the way and the day became sanctified upon him and he had money with him, he gives his purse to a non-Jew to carry it for him, and at the conclusion of Shabbat he takes it from him, and even though he did not give him payment for this. And even though he gave it to him after it became dark—it is permitted, because a person is anxious over his property... and if you do not permit him this matter, the prohibition of which is only from the words of the scribes, he will come to bring it in his hand, and violate a Torah labor." Thus far their words. And behold, that which he wrote: "And at the conclusion of Shabbat he takes it from him"—this is when he is far from his home outside the techum. But if he was within the techum and will come to his home—the non-Jew may also bring the purse to his home and place it there. Only if he is forced to rest on the way, the Rambam warns him that it is forbidden for him to take it from the non-Jew all through Shabbat, for it is muktzeh.

However, regarding that which he wrote, "even though he did not give him payment for this," it requires investigation. For if he were to give him payment, there would be a permit in the matter, as he is occupied with his own affairs, as is written in siman 243. If so, why did the sages not decree upon him that he should give him some payment, so that he would not explicitly be like the agent of the Israelite? And it appears to me that certainly this is so: that if he hands him the purse while it is still day, he must promise him some payment. But the Rambam is dealing with after it has become dark, for there is a prohibition to hire on Shabbat, and we would gain nothing by this; what difference is there to me between the prohibition of sending an agent or the prohibition of hiring on Shabbat? And this is why he concludes: "and even though they gave it to him after it had become dark, it is permitted," meaning to say: when did we permit without payment? When they gave it to him after it had become dark.

There is one who says that since the primary reason is so as not to come to a Torah prohibition by carrying four amot in a reshut harabim, or by bringing from a reshut harabim to a reshut hayachid, if so, in this time when we do not have a reshut harabim—we should not permit for him a rabbinic shevut, since even if he were to carry them himself it would only be a shevut (Magen Avraham, subsection 3), and as the Tur wrote later in siman 334, that they did not permit the moving of muktzeh because of a loss for this reason. But in truth it is not comparable, for there, in either case, the shevut prohibitions are equal; see there. But here, whichever way you look at it: if there is no reshut harabim, and when he carries them himself it is a shevut, if so, in handing them over to a non-Jew it is a shevut d'shevut, and it is much lighter than a shevut. And in several matters they permitted a shevut d'shevut in a case of a mitzvah or a loss, even without a concern that he might come to a greater prohibition than this. (And the Magen Avraham himself there in subsection 3 brought in the name of the Bach to permit; see there, and see Machatzit HaShekel, and examine this well.)

This which we have permitted to hand over the purse to a non-Jew, this is even when he has a donkey or a horse upon which he could place the purse—nevertheless, it is better to give it to the non-Jew, because regarding your animal you are commanded concerning its resting. Therefore, this is specifically when the animal is his, but if the animal belongs to the non-Jew, where he hired him with the animal—it is better to place it upon the animal. And even if he hired the animal from him and leads it himself—he should also do so, for it has already been explained in siman 246 that hiring does not effect acquisition. However, there is one who says that for stringency it does effect acquisition, and if so, he is commanded concerning its resting; but it has already been explained there that the primary ruling is that hiring does not effect acquisition at all. However, one must be careful not to walk behind it while it carries the burden, for that constitutes mechamer, and regarding mechamer there is no distinction between his animal and the animal of a non-Jew, as I have written there, and more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

And if there is no non-Jew with him—he places it upon the animal, but how shall he act so as not to violate the prohibition of mechamer? For it is well and good regarding the resting of his animal when it is not his—he does not violate it, but regarding mechamer there is no distinction as I have written, and how shall he act? The Tur wrote: "He should place it upon the donkey while it is walking, and be careful to remove it from it every time it stands still, and when it resumes walking he should place it upon it." Thus far his words, and so it is in the Gemara there. And they explained the matter in the Gemara, for behold, all liabilities of hotza'ah on Shabbat are only through an akirah and a hanachah, and that he himself performs this. But if his fellow loads the burden upon him while he is walking—even if he stood still, he is exempt according to the Torah, because his fellow performed the akirah and he performed the hanachah, and two who performed a labor are exempt. Therefore, even when the Torah prohibited the labor of hotza'ah with his animal—the liability is also only when the animal performed the akirah and the hanachah, but when he placed it upon it, even though it stood still—behold, it performed the hanachah without an akirah, for it is impossible to obligate regarding his animal more than regarding his own body. Therefore, even though with two people in such a case they are exempt according to the Torah but it is forbidden rabbinically—nevertheless, with his animal it is permitted ab initio in such a case. (Gemara ibid.) And the plain meaning of the Gemara and the wording of the Tur are explicitly clear, that he places it upon it after it has uprooted its entire body. And according to this, one must say that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote in section 2: "He places it after it has uprooted a foreleg and a hindleg"—his intention is not one foreleg and one hindleg, but rather it is merely a common expression, and his intention is that it has completely uprooted both forelegs and both hindlegs, and so wrote the Levush. (And the Bartenura and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 6, not like the Maarav Yom Tov, see there. And also Rashi who wrote the term 'leg' also intended this, as it is written: "Who let loose the feet of the ox and the donkey.")

And this enactment is only when there is no non-Jew with him or if he does not trust him, but otherwise—one should not do so; even though it is completely permitted, nevertheless, perhaps he will not be careful in this and the animal will perform the lifting and the placing. (Ran and Magen Avraham, subsection 6) And behold, from the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it is explained that when he performs this repair with the animal to place upon it while it is walking—it is sufficient, and so wrote the Rashba. But the Rambam in chapter 20, law 6, added a condition to this.

This is the wording of the Rambam: "He places his purse upon it while it is walking, and when it wishes to stand he removes it from upon it, so that it does not stand while it is upon it, and so that there will be neither an akirah nor a hanachah. And it is forbidden for him to lead it even with his voice as long as the purse is upon it, so that he will not be a mechamer on Shabbat." Thus far his words. And he added two things: the first, that prior to the standing he must remove the purse from it; and besides this, it is forbidden for him to lead it even with his voice, even when it performs neither an akirah nor a hanachah. And the Rashba disagrees with him, and he holds that since there is no akirah and hanachah here—there is no prohibition of mechamer at all, even if he leads it. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not mention at all this point that he should remove it prior to the standing, and this point that he should not lead it with his voice he wrote in the name of "there are those who say," because his opinion regarding the primary law is like the Rashba; and in truth, the words of the Rambam are perplexing, for from where did he have reason to say so?

And behold, regarding this matter that he required removing it from it before it stands, it appears to me that this is proven from the sugya of the Shas, which says there: when it is walking, he places it upon it; when it is standing, he removes it from it. And it asks: if so, even a fellow person as well, see there. And it is difficult: if it should enter your mind that it means when it is literally standing—if so, how can it ask "if so, even a fellow person as well"? For the first mishnah of Shabbat states: "The poor man reached in... and the homeowner took from within it—both are exempt," and the Gemara explains there that they are exempt but it is forbidden, because an uprooting without a placement or a placement without an uprooting is forbidden by rabbinic law. And if it is literally standing, such that it has performed the placement—how could it be permitted with a fellow person ab initio? Rather, it must be that the intention is before it stands. And should you say, from where does he know that it desires to stand? It can be said that any animal carrying a burden does not stand suddenly, but rather prepares itself to stand, such that it walks not with the same speed as before until it stands. Therefore, when he sees that its desire is to stand—he shall remove the purse from it.

And regarding this matter of mechamer, he also had another approach, as we shall see when we examine closely. For behold, regarding an animal we find two prohibitions on Shabbat: the resting of one's animal, which we derive from "so that your ox and your donkey may rest" (Exodus 23:12), and this is when it carries a load even without the owner, and the entire chapter "Bameh Behemah" is based on this. And the second: mechamer, meaning that he drives after his animal, which we derive from "you shall not do any labor, you... and your animal" (Exodus 20:9); and what is the labor that is performed by both of them? This is mechamer, where it is loaded and he drives it (Rashi ibid.). And it is not understood why I need both. Granted, for the resting of one's animal one needs mechamer, because the resting of one's animal applies only to his own animal, but mechamer applies even to the animal of a gentile, as the Ran wrote there, see there; but why do I need the resting of one's animal? Is mechamer alone not sufficient? Rather, it is certain that the resting of one's animal applies only to akirah and hanachah as I have written, but mechamer applies whenever he leads it while the load is upon it; even if it does not perform akirah and hanachah, he is liable because of mechamer. And so it is explained from his words at the beginning of chapter 20, see there, and therefore he was forced to say "and it is forbidden for him to lead it etc." And according to the opinion of the Rashba and the Tur, we will need to say that this is the explanation: that the Torah prohibited both when the animal alone is loaded with a burden if it is his, and when he drives after it even if it is not his. And if only mechamer were written, I would say that only through both of them did the Torah prohibit. (And it is further possible to say that the Rambam holds that mechamer also applies only to his own animal, and if so, mechamer is entirely redundant; rather, it is certain that mechamer does not require akirah and hanachah.)

And for us who travel by wagon: if the wagon driver is a non-Jew and he is not far from the city, and he sees that the sun is close to setting—he should descend from the wagon and place his money and his belongings in the wagon and go on foot, and the wagon driver will travel to his home and he will go on foot, provided that when it becomes dark he is within the city's techum, so that he does not walk outside the techum after dark. But if the horse is his or the wagon driver is a Jew, and how can the horse go with the saddle and tied to the wagon after dark, for he would violate the resting of his animal—he is certainly obligated to look ahead and rest in some place before sunset. However, if he did not do so, and to remain on the road is impossible—it appears that he should declare the horse ownerless, and place his money and his belongings on the wagon, and let it go on its own and he will go on foot until he enters the city, and he should ask a non-Jew to take the money and the belongings from the wagon and bring them into the house, and also release the horse from its harness. And perhaps he can do this himself, as there is no melakhah here. And those who travel by railway, when they arrive near dark and need to enter the city adjacent to the station from which they descended—he should ask or hire a non-Jew to carry his belongings and his money into the city to his house or to an inn, and he will go on foot. And he shall not carry anything with him, neither in his hands nor in his pockets, and if he carries a watch—he should also hand it over to the non-Jew in a place where it is forbidden to carry. And the general rule is "the wise man has his eyes in his head," and he should be careful not to come to such a situation.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: "And he should not ride upon the donkey but rather walk on his feet; but if he needs to go outside the techum because he fears bandits or other danger, even if he is within the techum—he may sit upon the donkey and ride." Thus far his words. The explanation of these matters: Behold, one who is on the road and the day became sanctified upon him, and he is forced to go outside the techum because he has no place to rest for Shabbat and he has a donkey or a horse with him, there is one who says that it is better to ride than to walk on his feet outside the techum. For when he rides and his feet are higher than ten tefachim—there is no techumin above ten, which is not the case when walking on his feet. And if because of the resting of his animal—behold, "a living being carries itself." And if because of the saddle—behold, the saddle is nullified relative to the rider. But when he walks on his feet he will perform two prohibitions: that he walks outside the techum and he violates the resting of his animal, because it is carrying the saddle. (See Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 7)

But our teacher, the Rema, disagrees in this, and he holds that on the contrary, he should go on foot and not ride. For behold, even in riding there is a shevut, as he makes use of animals, and what would he gain by this? And even if he goes beyond twelve mil, which according to the opinion of the Rambam is a Torah prohibition—nevertheless, even in riding there is a prohibition of techumin, for one who rides is considered like one who walks. And like one who travels in a wagon, which is ten tefachim high from the ground—nevertheless, it is subject to the prohibition of techumin, as it is like the solid ground, as is written in siman 404, and the same law applies to riding. Rather, he should go on foot, and if there is a saddle on the animal he should cast it off from upon it, for we do not permit him, because of the loss of the saddle, to violate the resting of his animal (see Magen Avraham there). And besides this, it is not a settled matter that there is no techumin above ten, as is written there. However, this is all when there is no danger in his walking, but rather that he is unable to remain there for the entire Shabbat. But when there is danger in his walking, that bandits or another danger might encounter him, and he must hasten his travel—it is simple that he should ride on the animal to hasten his travel even if he is within the techum, where on foot there is no prohibition at all, because nothing stands before pikuach nefesh. (So it appears in my humble opinion in its explanation.)

And behold, we have already explained in section 11 regarding one who travels in a wagon how he should act, and now we shall add words to this: Know, that if the wagon itself without the wheels is ten high and four wide—it is a reshuyot hayachid, and it is forbidden to move objects from within it to the reshuyot harabim. Therefore, if he is sitting in the wagon and it becomes dark for him—he should not descend from the wagon with his money and his objects that are within his clothes, but rather he should take out his objects into the wagon while he is still sitting in it, and afterward he descends from the wagon. But if it itself is not ten high—one does not join the wheels to it, because it is a partition that kids can break through, if there are three tefachim from the wheels to the ground, and the wagon is a makom patur even though its width is four, because there is no karmelit in vessels, and he may descend from the wagon with his objects. And even if it is judged as a pillar, which is a karmelit—nevertheless for us, since we do not have a reshuyot harabim but only a karmelit, it is permitted to move from a karmelit to a karmelit. (Magen Avraham, subsection 7) And if the wagon and the horse are his or belong to another Israelite—there is no remedy except through hefker, as I have written there. (And the Magen Avraham wrote that there is no issue of the resting of his animal in this and it requires further study, and furthermore, behold the saddle and the harness are also upon it, and it is simple that there is an issue of the resting of his animal in this, and delve into it.)

If there were with him a donkey and a cheresh, a shoteh, or a katan—he should place it on the donkey and not give it to one of these. And the reason: for they are of the human species and one might come to substitute them for a competent adult. (Rashi ibid.) And if there were with him only a cheresh and a shoteh—he should give it to the shoteh, because he has no intellect at all, whereas a cheresh has a weak intellect. (Yevamot 113a) A shoteh and a katan—he should give it to the shoteh, for a katan will arrive at a state of intellect when he grows up. A cheresh and a katan—he should give it to whichever he desires. For they are equal, as a cheresh has a weak intellect but will never arrive at full intellect, and the katan has no intellect at all but will arrive at full intellect.

Even though it is forbidden to feed them a forbidden item directly, and how can we give them items to carry on Shabbat? However, in truth, the Geonim said that one must act with them as we explained regarding a donkey: to place the items upon them while they are walking, and when they stand, to remove the items from them, and afterward when they walk, he should place the items upon them. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6: specifically when he gives it to them after it has become dark. But when he gives it to them while it is still day—it is permitted in any manner. Thus far his words. And the reason is that at the time he places it upon them it is still day, and afterward when the minor walks at night with the burden—he is acting on his own, and a minor who eats carcasses, the beit din is not commanded to separate him, as is written in siman 343. But there are those who disagree, and they hold that even while it is still day, when he gives it to them, he must do so, for in any event he is giving it to them directly, and this is the opinion of the Rashba. And the first opinion is the opinion of the Rambam. (See Magen Avraham subsection 8, and Tosefet Shabbat, and Machatzit HaShekel)

If there is no other person with him, nor any species of animal, but he is alone, what shall he do: The sages stated there is one more permitted method, but they did not wish to reveal it because this permission is close to easily coming to a prohibition, and that is that he should carry it himself less than four amot at a time, and before completing four amot he should stand to rest in between, and so he shall do every less than four amot, for if not, even when he stands they join together. There is one who requires specifically sitting down, but it is not the primary view. (See Magen Avraham subsection 9) And it appears that the same law applies in this time, when there is no reshut harabim—he must also do so, to rest before completing every four amot. (And so it appears in the Taz subsection 4) And it is simple that to bring it from a reshut harabim to a reshut hayachid—standing to rest is of no use, for in this case four amot are not required. (ibid.) And just as in a reshut harabim this permission only exists when there is no person or animal with him, so too in this time when there is no reshut harabim, for in any event an animal or the types of people that were explained are more lenient than by himself.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (ibid.): All of these permissions are specifically regarding his purse or his objects that were already with him, and they were compelled to permit them for the reason that a person does not restrain himself regarding his property, as was written at the beginning of the siman. However, if he found a lost object—they did not permit it to him at all; rather, he must leave it and go, for here he can restrain himself and will not break the fence, since his inclination does not overpower him so much, given that it has not yet come into his hand. Therefore, if the lost object already came into his hand—it is like his property, and they permitted to him all the permissions that have been explained. And know, that seemingly since the reason is because a person does not restrain himself regarding his property—this should not apply except to a large amount of money or many objects, and not to a small amount of money or few objects. But we have not found this in the Gemara nor in the poskim, and since they permitted—they permitted even with a small amount of money, for the rabbis did not differentiate in their enactment.

And know that the Rambam wrote in chapter 6 and in chapter 20: That which they forbade regarding a found object is only the other permissions, but the permission of less than four amot at a time is permitted even for a found object; see there. And all the sages of the generations have already wondered at him, for on the contrary, this permission is more stringent than all of them, and they did not permit it when there is another permission, so how can we say regarding a found object the exact opposite of this? And the sages of Lunel asked him, and he replied that it appeared so to him from the perspective of logic, because this permission is not a publicized matter and is done in private when no man is with him, and even an animal is not with him and he is all alone, therefore it should be permitted even for a found object. (Kessef Mishneh) And it is understood that his words are not sufficient, and it is a wonder regarding the Ra'avad that he did not contest him on this. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not bring his opinion at all, for it is a perplexing matter. However, the great Acharonim found an explicit Gemara like his words (Avodah Zarah 70a): "Rabbi Yitzchak said: One who finds a purse on Shabbat carries it less than four amot at a time," see there. (And from this he derived this law, except that it was not mentioned at the time they asked him) (And one should not interpret it as one who takes out a purse from his house, for if so, what benefit is less than four amot, for bringing it into a house is forbidden. And if we interpret it as taking it out from his house, presumably the enactment is to bring it to his house, and this is impossible. But when we interpret "finds" as the language of a found object, we do not interpret it as bringing it to his house, but rather to a guarded place, and delve into this)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: "There are those who say that this applies specifically to one for whom it became dark on the way, who thought that there was still time in the day. But one who left his house close to darkness, and forgot and carried out into the reshut harabim—they did not permit him any of these methods." Thus far his words, for this is like being close to intentional. But if he left much earlier than close to darkness—it is permitted, as this is not close to intentional. And there is one who raised a difficulty from the Gemara that we brought: "One who finds a purse on Shabbat—he conveys it less than four amot at a time," for it is explained that even when he finds it on Shabbat it is permitted, and all the more so close to darkness. And he was forced to distinguish that there it deals with one who forgets, and here we are dealing with one who acts intentionally. (Magen Avraham, subsection 10) But in truth, regarding the term "one who finds"—it is the language of finding, and not the language of carrying out, and in all the books the version is "one who finds," which is a find, and not "one who carries out" with a yod, which is the language of carrying out, and from this the Rambam derived his ruling as he wrote. (What the Taz wrote in subsection 4 on the word "his place" in siman 331)

We learned in the Mishnah of "one for whom it grew dark" (Shabbat 153a): If he reached the outermost courtyard—he removes the vessels that may be handled on Shabbat, and those that may not be handled on Shabbat—he unties the ropes and the sacks fall on their own, see there; and they did not permit him to handle muktzeh once he reached a guarded place. And it seems simple that here we are dealing with one who is traveling on the road and has not yet arrived at his city, for if he arrived at his city, "outermost courtyard" would not be relevant, as he should go until his house and there do so. Or perhaps even if he arrived at his city, they only permitted him until the first courtyard of the city, for there is a guarded place, and so it is implied from the fact that the poskim did not make a distinction in this, and so it is also implied somewhat from the wording of the Rambam, chapter 21, law 10, see there.

And know that I have seen one who raised a difficulty regarding this law, for when it stands a bit before the entrance—he brings it from the public domain into the private domain. And he answered that regarding his animal they were not so stringent. (Magen Avraham, subsection 11) And there is one who answered that he throws it in an unusual manner, and other forced answers. (See Pri Megadim and Maharsha and Tosafot Yom Tov there) And were it not for their words, it would appear to me that in truth the intention is not to bring it into the courtyard, but rather the matter is thus: as long as he is on the road—the sages were compelled to institute for him a permission so that he should not stand on the road, for he could come to harm from bandits and wild animals. But when he has arrived at the city, where there is no fear of all these—he should stand near the courtyard and leave his purse and his objects there, and guard there until the conclusion of Shabbat or appoint a guard, but the intention is not to bring it into the courtyard. And it is not similar to the law that will be explained regarding his bundle resting on his shoulder, where he runs beneath it until he reaches his house and throws it in an unusual manner as will be explained—for that is in one walking in his city and the load is on his shoulder, they permitted it to him in such a manner, and not in one for whom it grew dark on the road. And behold, according to the opinion of several poskim they only permitted this with a bundle and not with a purse, as will be explained, and with one for whom it grew dark we are dealing with a purse. Furthermore, the person himself can do so, but not his animal, and therefore it appears in my humble opinion as I have written. (And in the Commentary on the Mishnayot of the Rambam there are things in this that are not understood, for he wrote: 'until he reaches the entrance of his house and he takes it from upon it while he is walking, and throws it into his house in an unusual manner' see there. And it is difficult, for we learned 'to the outermost courtyard,' and not to his house, and also the Bartenura wrote that 'reached the outermost courtyard' does not refer to one for whom it grew dark see there. And perhaps he holds that in his city they permitted to his house, like the first reasoning that we wrote in the previous section, and this all requires further study and look closely into it)

It is simple that they only permitted untying the ropes so that the sacks fall when they are placed upon the animal, for then, due to the suffering of living creatures, it is necessary to do so. And even if it was loaded with much more burden than fifteen se'in, which is forbidden to clear on Shabbat, as I wrote in siman 333—they permitted it due to the suffering of living creatures. But when the burden is placed in a wagon, as is our custom—it is obvious that it is forbidden to untie the ropes and remove the burden, even if it is not muktzeh; rather, it shall remain so until the conclusion of Shabbat. (Magen Avraham, subsection 12)

That which has been explained, that when the load is upon the animal he unties the ropes and the sacks fall—this is regarding merchandise that will not break by falling to the ground. But merchandise that breaks, such as glass vessels and earthenware vessels—he unloads them with his hands, since they are not muktzeh, as it is permitted to move them on Shabbat, for behold they are fit to be used on Shabbat. And if they are glass of muktzeh which is forbidden to move, such as bloodletting cups, or glass for windows or for lamps and the like, how shall he act: he places many pillows and cushions on the ground so that they fall upon them and do not break. And specifically with small loads, which he can pull out from under them gently and they do not become a base for a forbidden object, for behold he did not place them during twilight, and furthermore he placed them with the intent to pull them out. (ibid. subsection 14) But if they are large and heavy such that it is impossible to pull the pillow out from under them—it is forbidden to place them under them, because he nullifies a vessel from its prepared use. And there is no remedy for this except that he should unload gently from upon the animal in a manner that they do not break, and he should not leave them to remain upon the animal because of the suffering of living creatures. And it is simple that if he can unload the merchandise by means of a non-Jew—that he should do so, for it is a rabbinic prohibition upon a rabbinic prohibition in a case of suffering of living creatures, and it is simple that it is permitted. But from a wagon—it is forbidden, unless he fears that they will be stolen, for then it is permitted by means of a non-Jew. And even though he can guard it himself until the conclusion of Shabbat—nevertheless even this is a suffering for him, and it is permitted through a rabbinic prohibition upon a rabbinic prohibition. (And the Ran wrote that even for a short time it is forbidden to nullify a vessel from its prepared use except in a case of great loss, and in the Gemara there it says that window glass is a small loss in its breaking, and the poskim omitted this. And it seems to me that the truth is so, for in their time when the windows were small—there was no great loss in this, but not now, and we see with our senses that in the breaking of a crate of window glass it is almost entirely a loss, see Magen Avraham ibid.)

If it became dark for him on the road while tefillin were on his head, or if he was sitting in a beit midrash in a field and it became dark for him—he places his hand over them until he reaches his house, for tefillin worn as a garment do not involve a Torah prohibition. And although it is initially forbidden, nevertheless, so that they do not remain in disgrace lying in the field, they permitted him to bring them in while they are on his head and on his arm, and they only required him to cover them by placing his hand over them because of those who see him. (Rashi, Beitzah 15.)

Our sages, of blessed memory, said at the beginning of "Mi She-Hechshikh": If his bundle of cargo was placed on his shoulder—he runs with it until his house, so that he will remember that it is forbidden for him to stand, so that he does not perform an akirah and a hanachah on Shabbat, for the akirah of his body is like the akirah of an object, but now his akirah was while it was still day. Therefore, he should not walk slowly, for since he has no reminder—he will come to stand to rest, and will be liable for a chatat. However, regarding standing to adjust his cargo—he is exempt, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 13, but by running he has a reminder and will not stand. And when he reaches his house and there will be an hachnasah from a reshut harabim to a reshut hayachid, even though he did not perform an akirah after it grew dark, nevertheless at his house it is impossible that he will not linger a bit, and therefore his remedy is that he should throw the cargo in an unusual manner, and from his shoulder to his back he should throw it, which is to say, not in the manner of throwing. And some say that specifically with a bundle of cargo did they permit him to do so, for in this there is a reminder when he runs, because it is not the way to run with a heavy cargo. But with his purse in such a case when he carried it—they did not permit it, for in this there is no reminder in his running. And some say that the same law applies to his purse, and if he wishes he may carry it less than four amot at a time. (See Magen Avraham subsection 18, and according to what I wrote in section 22, this has no connection to the law of one for whom it grew dark on the way, and delve into this.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 12: "And one who forgot his purse on himself on Shabbat: if he is in his house—he may go with it to a room to untie his belt and let it fall there and hide it. And if he is in the marketplace—it is forbidden to bring it to his house; rather, he unties his belt in the marketplace and it falls, and he tells a non-Jew to guard it, and if he brought it—one need not be concerned." Thus far his words. And this that he permitted when he is in his house to go to a room to let it fall there, and they did not require him to let it fall here so that he would not move the muktzeh to the room, is because since the muktzeh is in his hand—he may place it in any location he desires, as will be explained in siman 308, see there. And they questioned him, for how did he write simply that in the marketplace it is forbidden, for it has already been explained that there is a dispute whether they permitted it also regarding a purse as they did regarding a bundle or not, and according to the words of the one who permits, he should be able to do as with a bundle, (Taz subsection 6) and in rabbinic matters we follow the lenient view. (ibid.) And it appears to me that our teacher, the Rema, holds that even the one who permitted regarding his purse, it is only where he was walking while it was yet day and the day became holy upon him during his walking, and not when he went out on Shabbat. (And see Magen Avraham subsection 20 where it implies that he distinguishes between when he is afraid to leave it in the marketplace, see there) And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 13: "One who found a wallet on Shabbat—it is forbidden to take it even though he is afraid lest another precede him." Thus far his words. And it is also forbidden to tell a non-Jew to take it. (Magen Avraham subsection 21) And we have already brought in section 19 the opinion of the Rambam, that for less than four amot even regarding a found object it is permitted, see there.

One must know how to conduct oneself now in a place where it is forbidden to carry, when one finds money or objects in his pocket, for nowadays the loosening of a belt is not applicable, and of necessity one must take with his hands from the pocket according to our garments, and how shall he carry the muktzeh with his hands. And it is simple that if a non-Jew is before him—he should tell him to put his hand into his pocket and take the money from there, and he will automatically bring them to his house. And if there is no non-Jew before him: if in a reshut harabim—he is obligated to strip off his garment in the marketplace and shake them out from his pocket. And if in a karmelit, such as with us in most towns that do not have sixty ribo and are not called a reshut harabim—human dignity is great and he may go to his house, and there strip off his garments and shake them out. And it appears that it is also permitted by means of a child, and it is good to tell the child to take them from his pocket and bring them to his house, even in a reshut harabim when it is impossible for him to leave them here, because a person does not restrain himself over his property. And also in a karmelit it is better by means of a child than that he should do it by himself. (So it appears in my humble opinion). And if the pocket is sewn into his garment with the money—it will be explained in siman 310.