English translation — משפטים ב

Sicha on <pg>119</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote<sup>1</sup>

: "Just as a person is commanded regarding the rest of his animal on Shabbat, so too is he commanded regarding the rest of his slave and maidservant..

as it is said<sup>2</sup>

in order that your ox and your donkey rest, and the son of your maidservant and the stranger be refreshed.

The slave and maidservant regarding whose rest we are commanded are slaves who were circumcised and immersed for the sake of slavery and accepted the commandments that slaves are obligated in,

but slaves who were not circumcised and did not immerse, but only accepted upon themselves the seven commandments that the children of Noah were commanded, behold they are like a resident alien and it is permitted for them to do work on Shabbat for themselves in public like a Jew on a weekday."

And it requires explanation — what is the reason for the addition of the Rambam in the law that "slaves who did not circumcise nor immerse..

are permitted to do work on Shabbat for themselves",

that the manner of doing the work permitted to them is "in public like an Israelite on a weekday"?

And behold, even if he had only written "are permitted to do work on Shabbat for themselves" and nothing more,

the meaning of the words would be that there is no restriction in this permission.

Simply, it seems that the source and reason for this addition is according to the language of the baraita<sup>3</sup>

(which is the source of the halacha<sup>4</sup>)

"A ger toshav is permitted to do work on Shabbat for himself like an Israelite on Chol HaMoed

(for a lost matter<sup>5</sup>),

Rabbi Akiva says like an Israelite on Yom Tov

(for food preparation<sup>5</sup>),

Rabbi Yosi says a ger toshav does on Shabbat for himself like an Israelite on a weekday,

Rabbi Shimon says: both a ger toshav and

[an idolater]

a slave and a maidservant who reside do work on Shabbat for themselves like an Israelite on a weekday",

and on this<sup>6</sup>

"Rav Ada bar Ahava said: the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon" — and in this language of the words of Rabbi Shimon

(that the halacha is like him)

the Rambam adopted: "like an Israelite on a weekday",

for with this he rejects the other opinions in the matter.

But seemingly this reason is not sufficient to explain this addition in the Rambam: since the Rambam did not bring the dissenting opinions,

then even if he had written concisely "and they are permitted to do work on Shabbat for themselves" it would be simple that his intention is for all types of work,

and there is no place to interpret that the intention is that it is permitted only in work of food preparation

(like on Yom Tov)

or in a matter of loss

(like on Chol HaMoed),

and in other work it is forbidden,

because the simplicity of the language "they are permitted to do work on Shabbat for themselves" implies all work⁷

(and at most he could have written "to do all work etc.")⁸.

[And especially according to the words of the Rambam in his introduction to Sefer HaYad,

that he wrote his book "in clear language..

until all the laws are revealed to the small and the great",

and in a manner that "a person reads the Written Torah first and then reads this and knows from it the entire Oral Torah and does not need to read any other book in between" — from this it is understood,

that a person who learns this law in the Rambam — between<pg>120</pg>

that he knows that in the Gemara there is a dispute between one who does not know about this — he has to explain it simply as it sounds,

and that is that "they are permitted to do work on Shabbos for themselves" — all work is implied].

2.

But when you delve well,

from the words of the Rambam himself it is proven that his intention in the word "like Israel on a weekday" is not the language of R' Shimon in the Baraisa — for he adds the word "in public",

which is not in the words of R' Shimon⁹.

And this addition is a change in content: the entire content of the words of R. Shimon in the baraita

("They do..

like a Jew on a weekday")

is to determine which type of labor is permitted — for according to the Tanna Kamma, labor of a lost object is permitted

(like a Jew on Chol HaMoed),

and according to R. Akiva, only labor of food preparation is permitted

(like a Jew on Yom Tov),

and according to

(R. Yishmael and)

R. Shimon, all labors are permitted "like a Jew on a weekday"; but in the Rambam it is explicit that the words "like a Jew on a weekday" are a reason to permit the manner of doing the labor — even "in public".

[The Radbaz&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

wrote that the Rambam added the word "in public" — "to explain the baraita".

And ostensibly his intent is,

that according to the Rambam, the dispute of the Tannaim

(whether a resident alien does labor like a Jew on Chol HaMoed,

or like a Jew on Yom Tov or like a Jew on a weekday)

is whether it is forbidden to do labor in public and permitted only in private like a Jew on Chol HaMoed,

or he does also in public,

like a Jew on a weekday.

But this explanation requires examination&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

for superficially the simple meaning of their words "like Israel on Chol HaMoed",

"like Israel on Yom Tov",

"like Israel on a weekday",

indicates

(as Rashi explains&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;)

that their dispute is about which type of work is permitted and not in what manner; and it is also explained in the Jerusalem Talmud&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

that the one who says a resident alien on Shabbat is like Israel on Yom Tov means: "Just as Israel on Yom Tov bakes and cooks and is forbidden all work, so too a resident alien on Shabbat"; and the one who says a resident alien on Shabbat is like Israel on Chol HaMoed — "Just as Israel on Chol HaMoed gathers from the field and is forbidden all field work, so too a resident alien on Shabbat"; and the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: a resident alien on Shabbat is like Israel on the rest of the days of the year&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

its explanation: "Just as Israel on the rest of the days of the year plows and sows and reaps, so too a resident alien on Shabbat"].

And explanation is needed: why did the Rambam need to add that the permission to do work is also "in public"&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

(and because of this — to also add a reason and rationale "like Israel on a weekday")?

3.

Simply, one can say the reason that the Rambam added "in public":

This state "slaves who were not circumcised and did not immerse" is not a desirable state for a slave,

for a slave in the domain of Israel or taken from the nations must enter "into the category of the slaves of Israel" through circumcision and immersion,

and only when the slave did not want, we go around with him all&lt;pg&gt;121&lt;/pg&gt;

Twelve months until he circumcises and immerses, and it is forbidden to keep him beyond that when he is uncircumcised¹⁶

; and it is found that this state of a slave

(who has not circumcised and immersed)¹⁷

is only like a preparation that he should come to be among the fit slaves of Israel — a slave in completeness;

And therefore it is possible to say that his doing work as long as he has not circumcised and immersed must be in a manner that does not contradict and confuse the state of preparation for its purpose — that he should enter among the fit slaves of Israel,

And consequently it is logical that also in work that he does for himself he should do specifically¹⁸

in private and not in public.

In a slightly different style: one might think to say that after he circumcises and immerses and becomes obligated in the commandments,

including the full observance of Shabbos,

one must be concerned that he might say "last year" even though he did not do work for his master on Shabbos,

he did for himself in public "now too I will do etc.'",

as we find several decrees of the Sages of this sort&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

[And also regarding a convert — according to the opinion of Beis Hillel&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "a convert who converted on the eve of Pesach" does not perform his Passover [offering] "a decree lest he become impure next year and say: last year did I not immerse and eat? Now too I will immerse and eat, and he does not know that last year he was a gentile and does not receive impurity, now he is a Jew and receives impurity"].

And for this reason the Rambam adds that "it is permitted to do work in public",

and we are not concerned&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

about the situation that will come in the future&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

by means of his circumcising and immersing&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;.

4.

But in a deeper sense, one could say,

that the words of the Rambam are in accordance with his approach regarding the definition of the rest of "your maidservant's son and the stranger."

And this will be understood with the prior explanation in the continuation of the words of the Rambam in this halacha

(in explaining the verse "and the son of your maidservant and the stranger shall rest"),

and this is his language: "Since a resident alien does work for himself on Shabbat, and a righteous convert is like a Jew in all matters,

about whom is it said 'and the son of your maidservant and the stranger shall rest,'

this is a resident alien who is a hired hand and employee of a Jew, like the son of his maidservant,

that he should not do work for his Jewish master on Shabbat, but for himself he does,

and even if this stranger was his slave, he does for himself."

And behold, the Rashba&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

objected to the Rambam who wrote that it speaks of "his gatherer and his hired hand of an Israelite,"

and he holds that every ger toshav

("even when he is not a hired hand by an Israelite")

is forbidden in the work of an Israelite,

and likewise regarding an uncircumcised slave that "not only in the work of his master did the verse forbid them, but to all Israel,"

for "an uncircumcised slave&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

is like a ger toshav&lt;pg&gt;122&lt;/pg&gt;

Just as a ger toshav is forbidden in our work even though he is not subjugated under our hand, so too when the Torah forbade an uncircumcised slave, it forbade him to all Israel."

And in the Maggid Mishneh he explained that also the Rambam holds like the Rashba,

that "even if he is not his hired worker it is forbidden from the Torah to tell him to do work for the sake of a Jew..

And we do not find permission except when he does his own work..

And our Rabbi who wrote 'his hired worker and his tenant' spoke of the common occurrence&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;..

A resident slave and a resident alien do not do work by Torah law for the sake of any Jew, whether his master or not his master".

However, our Rabbi the Elder in his Shulchan&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

proved at length that what the Rambam wrote "And your maidservant's son and the stranger shall rest — this is a resident alien who is his tenant and hired worker of a Jew like his maidservant's son" — his intention is "that specifically he mentioned his hired worker and his tenant..

the essence of the prohibition is because he is his hired worker"; and the reason that only "a resident alien who is his tenant and hired worker of a Jew" is forbidden to do work for a Jew — and not every non-Jew who is his hired worker and tenant — is

(as he explained there at length)

because it must be "his hired worker and his tenant similar to his maidservant's son",

and this is only in "a resident alien",

for "the verse speaks when Jews dwell on their land..

and then they do not maintain among them a non-Jew until he accepts the seven commandments, therefore he is called a resident alien who is permitted to settle him among us",

and a resident alien "who settled to dwell on the land of Israel to be his hired worker and tenant..

since his intention is to settle in order to work for a Jew forever and he is subdued under his hand and compelled in his work, behold he is like a permanent slave regarding Shabbat..

And according to&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

that he rules over his body to enslave him like in his maidservant's son literally..

the Torah was particular about him..

that he not do work for his master on Shabbat"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;.

And we find that the Rambam and the Rashba disagree whether a ger toshav who is not an employee or day-laborer of a Jew is commanded in resting on Shabbat.

And on the other hand we find a distinction

(similar to)

the opposite between the Rambam and the Rashba in this halacha:

The Rashba³⁰

wrote "that if the slave or maidservant were doing their master's work without our knowledge and it is apparent that they are not doing it with his knowledge, it is permitted and one is not commanded to separate him"³¹.

But from the plain language of the Rambam it implies that it is forbidden to do work for the needs of his Jewish master,

whether with his knowledge or without his knowledge

(as explained in Ḳiryat Sefer here),

and only his own work was permitted.

5.

And one must say,

that they dispute regarding the definition of the commandment of "and rest the son of your maidservant and the stranger" — which can be explained in two ways:

a)

that it is a detail in the rest of the Israelite³²,

<pg>123</pg>

that does not belong to the son of the maidservant and the resident alien themselves.

That is,

that the rest of his slave and resident alien is included in the rest of their master,

for when they do work for an Israelite,

it is lacking in the rest of the Israelite³³.

b)

The rest belongs

(also)

to the son of the maidservant and the resident alien themselves³²,

that the slave of an Israelite and the resident alien belonging to him,

an obligation applies to their bodies to be in a state of rest³³

("and he rested")

on the Sabbath day³⁴.

But the warning of this matter is not upon the slave and the resident alien themselves,

but upon the Israelite³⁵,

that he is warned that the son of his maidservant and the alien shall not do work for him.

That is: as a master, the responsibility and obligation is placed upon him to see that his slave and resident alien belonging to him rest.

[And although they are forbidden only in the work of their master, but for themselves they are permitted in work — this is because the obligation of "vayinafesh"

(And the prohibition of work)

is not because of themselves

[for they are not from Israel that the obligation of rest should apply to them]

but only because of their connection to Israel,

being the slave of Israel and a ger toshav who belongs to Israel; therefore they are forbidden only in work for their master,

that is, in their part that belongs to Israel; but when they do for themselves — in this there is no connection to Israel and this does not enter into the category of their slavery,

the obligation of rest does not apply].

And this is the root of the distinction between the opinion of the Rashba and the Rambam:

According to the Rashba, the Torah warned

(in his language³⁶)

"not to do our work by our servants nor by a ger toshav",

that is, that the rest of a servant and a ger toshav is a detail in "our work",

in the rest of a Jewish man

(and "similar to ox and donkey that come out from one verse, as it is written, 'let your ox and your donkey rest, and the son of your maidservant shall be refreshed'; and just as we are commanded about ox and donkey, so too we are commanded about our servant"³⁷).

Therefore,

with a servant who is subjugated under our hand,

when he does work for his master, he thereby nullifies his master's rest on Shabbat³⁸.

And for this reason it is forbidden for an uncircumcised servant

(and likewise a ger toshav who is not subjugated under our hand)

to do work even for a <pg>124</pg>

other Jew who is not his master, when the Jew commanded him to do work for him³⁹,

for then it is as if the Jew does work through the servant and the ger toshav⁴⁰

; and only when no Jew commanded him about the work,

it is permitted for him

(from the Torah)

to do work even for a Jew⁴¹.

But not according to the Rambam, the rest of the slave and the ger toshav belong to the slave and the ger toshav themselves.

And therefore the prohibition is only regarding a ger toshav who is a hired hand and day laborer of a Jew,

who is subjugated under our hand and he is "like an eternal slave"

(as above from the Alter Rebbe),

since the Jew "rules over his body to enslave him like [one enslaves] the son of his maidservant literally",

therefore there applies to him&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

the law of Sabbath rest regarding doing work for his master&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore the Rambam holds that even if the ger toshav does work for his Jewish master without the master's knowledge, this is forbidden — because the prohibition is not from the perspective of the rest of the Jew,

but from the perspective of the rest of the ger toshav himself.

And on the other hand,

an ordinary resident alien

(who is not a hired hand or employee of an Israelite)

who performs work for an Israelite,

even at the command of the Israelite — there is no prohibition from the Torah in this,

because regarding such a resident alien, the law of Shabbat does not apply to him

(since he is not "an eternal slave" of the Israelite).

6.

And in this, there is room to add explanation regarding an additional difference between the language of the Rambam and the language of the Gemara:

In the baraita there, in the words of the first Tanna, the language is "A ger toshav is permitted to do⁴⁴

work on Shabbat for himself like a Jew on Chol HaMoed,

Rabbi Akiva says like a Jew on Yom Tov",

And this is that "permitted" in the words of the first Tanna also applies to the words of Rabbi Akiva; whereas Rabbi Yishmael does not say concisely in the manner of Rabbi Akiva's language "like a Jew on a weekday",

but rather elaborates "A ger toshav does work on Shabbat for himself like a Jew on a weekday",

And similarly in the words of Rabbi Shimon "Both a ger toshav and a Canaanite slave and a maidservant who are residents do work on Shabbat for themselves like a Jew on a weekday".

And it requires explanation: Why did the Rambam change from the language of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon

(whom he ruled like)

"They do work on Shabbat for themselves",

and wrote "And they are permitted to do work on Shabbat for themselves"

(like the language of the baraita according to the first Tanna and Rabbi Akiva)?

And based on the above, it must be said: the reason that R. Yosi and R. Shimon changed from the language of the baraisa before this,

it seems to me,

is because the difference between their opinion and the opinion of the Tanna Kamma and R. Akiva is not merely a difference in quantity — how many labors were permitted to them

(for according to the Tanna Kamma,

and R. Akiva,

various labors are forbidden and only these labors

(according to the Tanna Kamma, a lost object, and according to R. Akiva, labor of food preparation)

were permitted to them,

but according to R. Yosi and R. Shimon, all labors were permitted to them)

— but rather this is a different manner of permission,

dependent on the person

(as per the plainness of their language),

for according to the Tanna Kamma and R. Akiva, a ger toshav and a slave are themselves forbidden in labor&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;,

even in their own labor,

except that it was permitted&lt;pg&gt;125&lt;/pg&gt;

to them to do for themselves certain labors,

but according to R. Yosi and R. Shimon, from the outset there is no prohibition of labor upon them,

and the prohibition is only not to do labor for his master.

And it follows,

that this that "they do labor..

for themselves" is not merely a permission,

that they are permitted to do labor for themselves,

but rather that "they do labor" for themselves&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;,

that from the outset they are not in the category of the Sabbath rest.

And with this is resolved the reasoning of the Rambam who was precise in his language and wrote "and they are permitted to do work on Shabbat for themselves" — because according to the opinion of the Rambam,

that which "and the son of your maidservant and the stranger shall rest" applies to the son of the maidservant and the stranger themselves as above

(and not

(only)

from the aspect of nullification of the rest of the Israelite,

the householder),

and doing work for themselves is in the category of permission&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

— "they are permitted to do work on Shabbat for themselves"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

According to all the above, one must explain the precise language of the Rambam who found it necessary to add

(to the language of the Talmud)

"and they are permitted to do work on Shabbat for themselves in public" — because according to what we have learned,

behold, according to the method of the Rambam this slave

(whose law is like a resident alien)

is not exempt from the essential obligation of resting,

and on the contrary,

this one who does work on Shabbat is in the nature of a category of "permission" — "and they are permitted to do work etc." — and therefore it might enter my mind to say,

that even when it is permitted to him to do work,

it is only in private but not in public&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;,

so that it should not appear that there is no matter of Shabbat with him; and therefore the Rambam found it necessary to add that it is not so,

but rather that it is permitted to do work even in public.

And in order to explain the reason that in truth they do not forbid him to do work in public, the Rambam wrote "like a Jew on a weekday,"

for one can say that his intention is according to the plain meaning of his language,

that he did not come to negate

(as in the Talmud)

"like a Jew on Chol HaMoed..

on Yom Tov"

(which is not mentioned in the Rambam here at all),

but⁵⁰

— "like a Jew on a weekday" and not "like a gentile",

and that is,

that you should not say that this that it was permitted to him to do work for himself is because he is a gentile who is not at all within the law of Shabbos

(and only that it is forbidden to do<pg>126</pg>

work for a Jewish master — because of the rest of his master)

— but rather that the reason for the permission for his own work is in the manner of "a Jew on a weekday",

that just as the doing of work by a Jew on a weekday is not because the person is not within the law of Shabbos,

but because the time is "weekday"

[for even then there is upon him the prohibition of work on Shabbos,

only that now it is the time of "weekday"],

so similarly is it also regarding this slave whose law is like a resident alien,

that the person is within the law of Shabbos,

only that the matter of Shabbos regarding him is only in relation to the work of his master,

but regarding work for himself, he is "like a Jew on a weekday".

And since regarding work for himself he is like "a Jew on a weekday" — it is understood,

that there is no place to forbid him to do work in public

[And on the other hand,

this does not detract at all from the fact that also by him there is the law of Shabbos

(regarding the work of his master)].

8.

And behold it was brought above

(section 4)

that according to the opinion of the Maggid Mishneh also the Rambam holds like the Rashba,

that even if he is not his employee it is forbidden from the Torah to do work for the sake of a Jew,

and we do not find permission except when doing his own work.

And yet another division: the method of the Maggid Mishneh from the view of the Alter Rebbe — that according to his method, he holds that the Rambam [holds] that a non-Jew who did not accept upon himself the seven Noachide commandments is not included in the prohibition⁵¹,

that only one who accepted upon himself the seven Noachide commandments — the Torah warned about his rest on Shabbat for the sake of Israel — unlike the method of the Rashba who holds⁵²

that also a slave who did not accept upon himself the seven Noachide commandments

(and even an idolater)

is commanded about it

[but the Alter Rebbe wrote⁵³

that he holds that the Rambam [holds] that "the fulfillment of the seven commandments is not relevant to the prohibition of work on Shabbat"⁵⁴,

and he holds that also according to the Rambam, that his hired hand and his day-laborer is forbidden in the work of his master, it is also when he did not accept upon himself the seven commandments].

And one must explain the reasoning of the dispute between the method of the Alter Rebbe and the method of the Hameiri — that it depends on the cause and reason for the applicability of the law of Shabbat rest upon the slave and resident alien themselves

(as above at length,

that this is the method of the Rambam),

that one must explain this in two ways:

a)

From the aspect of their connection to the Jewish people,

since the slave is acquired by his master, and likewise the resident alien is subjugated under our hand

(as above in the Alter Rebbe)

— therefore the law of the Sabbath rest applies to him

(regarding the work of his master).

b)

From the aspect of their connection to the laws of Israel and the Torah of Israel — because even the acceptance of the Seven Noahide Commandments by a resident alien belongs to the Torah of Israel,

as the Rambam says⁵⁵

"Moses our Teacher commanded from the mouth of the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments that were commanded to the children of Noah, and whoever does not accept shall be killed; and the one who accepts them is called a resident alien everywhere, and he must accept upon himself before three associates..

And he must accept them and perform them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and made them known to us through Moses our Teacher..

But if he performed them because of rational deduction, this is not a resident alien" — meaning that he must accept upon himself the seven commandments

(a)

before three associates

(from the children of Israel),

(b)

and "because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and made them known to us through Moses our Teacher."

Since he has a relation and connection to the Torah of Isr<pg>127</pg>

to

(since "he accepted upon himself" the instructions of the Torah of Israel that pertain to him)⁵⁶,

there is room to say that the Shabbos day for him is not an ordinary day on which there is then a commandment,

but rather it has a status and name of "Shabbos" of Israel⁵⁷.

And this is the opinion of the Maggid Mishneh,

that according to the Rambam,

the rest of the slave and the ger toshav is not

(only)

because of their connection to the property,

the money of Israel,

but also because of their connection to the laws and Torah of Israel

(and as the Rambam himself writes regarding the definition of acceptance of the Seven Commandments of a ger toshav).

Therefore,

in matters that pertain to Israel⁵⁸

(i.e., when he does work for an Israelite)

the matter of Shabbos rest is also drawn upon him.

And therefore the Meiri explains that according to the Rambam, his hired hand and his day laborer are not specifically [the case],

but rather any [non-Jew] who does work for a Jew is forbidden — because the reason for the prohibition is due to the essence of the name "ger toshav"

(or "avdím..

(that)

accepted upon themselves the seven commandments that were commanded to the children of Noah..

(that)

they are like a ger toshav").

And on the other hand,

an idolater who did not accept upon himself the seven Noachide commandments is not forbidden [to do] his work for a Jew,

because it is impossible for the law of rest to apply to him

(however, according to the Rashba, there is no need for this law to apply to him,

because according to his approach, the entire prohibition is because of the rest of the Jew,

as explained above at length)&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Metzora and Shabbos Parshas Acharei 5746)