Archive for the Business Ethics - QSA Category

סִימָן קצ – הִלְכוֹת [מַעֲקֶה] שְמִירַת הַגּוּף וּבַל תַּשְחִית

190: Laws of [Railings,] Personal Care, and Not Wasting

א:מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לַעֲשׂוֹת מַעֲקֶה לְגַגּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, “וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ מַעֲקֶ֖ה לְגַגֶּ֑ךָ”. גֹּבַהּ הַמַּעֲקֶה אֵינוֹ פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וִיהֵא חָזָק כְּדֵי שֶׁיִשָׁעֵן אָדָם עָלָיו וְלֹא יִפּוֹל. גַגּוֹת שֶׁלָּנו שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּמְשִׁין בָּהֶם, פְּטוּרִין. וְאָמְנָם לֹא הַגַּג בִּלְבַד חַיָב בַּמַּעֲקֶה, אֶלָּא כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה, שֶׁיִכָּשֵל בּוֹ אָדָם וְיָמוּת, חַיָב בְּמַעֲקֶה וְתִקּוּן. וְכָל הַמַּנִּיחוֹ בְּלִי מַעֲקֶה, בִּטֵל מִצְוַת-עֲשֵׂה וְעָבַר עַל לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, “וְלֹֽא־תָשִׂ֤ים דָּמִים֙ בְּבֵיתֶ֔ךָ”. כְּגוֹן מִי שֶׁיֶשׁ לוֹ בּוֹר בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרוֹ, חַיָב לַעֲשֹוֹת לוֹ חֻלְיָא גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ כִּסּוּי שֶׁלֹֹּא יִפּוֹל בּוֹ אָדָם

There is a positive obligation to make a railing for his roof, as it says “[When you build a new house], you will make a railing for your roof [and you will not place blood in your house if someone were to fall from it.]” (Devarim 22:8). The height of the railing can not be less than 10 tefachim [31.4"-37.7"] and must be strong enough that someone can rest against it and not fall.

Our roofs, which people do not use, are exempted.

However, not only the roof alone requires a railing, but also any thing which has a danger that someone can trip-up on and die, requires a railing and fixing. Anyone who leaves it wirhout a railing, ignored an obligation and violated a prohibition, as it says “and you will not place blood in your house.” (ibid) For example, someone who has a pit in his yeard, he is obligated to make a ring for it 10 tefachim high or to make a cover for it so that no one would fall into it.


The law of ma’aqeh, railings, is not actually about being safe. The word “gagekh — your roof” is taken to exclude shuls and batei medrash. Which would make little sense if the point were safety, as they equally need to be safe. As communal areas, we would actually need to be more careful.

Rather, “do not stand by your friend’s blood” would be sufficient to obligate such railings in cases where there is a real danger. Here the issue is to inculcate a culture of safety in the property owner, tooturn even cases where the danger is negligable into a mussar exercise in caring for others’ safety. This is why the obligation depends on the existence of a private owner (or owners — partnerships are also obligated).

The entire message of the mitzvah is encoded in a single letter of the verse “לְגַגֶּ֑ךָ — your roof”.

ה: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁאֵרַע לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁרַגְלֵי חֲמוֹרוֹ רָעוּעוֹת, אֵין בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה רַשָּׁאִים לִפָּרֵד עִם חֲמוֹרֵיהֶם וּלְהַנִּיחוֹ לְבַדּוֹ בַדָּרֶך. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל חֲמוֹרוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל עוֹד לֵילֵךְ כְּלָל, רַשָּׁאִים לִפָּרֵד מִמֶּנּוּ, וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לְהִתְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁבִילוֹ יוֹתֵר מִדָּי. וְכֵן בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁנּוֹסְעִין בַּעֲגָלוֹת, וְאֵרַע לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם אֵיזֶה קִלְקוּל, שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִשְׁהוֹת מְעַט לְתַקֵן, אֵין חֲבֵרָיו רַשָּׁאִים לִפָּרֵד מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן צָרִיךְ לְהִתְעַכֵּב הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מִדָּי

Members of a group [from context: a caravan] in which one of them happened to have his donkey split its hooves, the members of the group are not allowed to separate [from him] with their donkeys and leave him alone on the way. But, if his donkey fell, and is not able to walk anymore at all, then they are permitted to separate from him, and they do not have to be held up for him overly much. Similarly people in a group who are traveling with wagons, and one of them happen to have some problem that he must wait a little to fix it, his partners are no allowed to separate from him, but [they may] if he is held up for a lot.

ה: כְּתִיב, “כִּֽי־תִרְאֶ֞ה חֲמ֣וֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ֗ רֹבֵץ֙ תַּ֣חַת מַשָּׂא֔וֹ” וְגוֹ’, שׂוֹנֵא זֶה לֹא מֵהַגּוֹיִם הוּא, – שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָם בְּמִצְוַת טְעִינָה וּפְרִיקָה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִים, אֶלָּא מִיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהֵיאַךְ יִהְיֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל שׂוֹנֵא לְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר, “לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ”. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּא לְבַדּוֹ רָאָהוּ שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה, וְהִתְרָה בוֹ וְלֹא חָזַר, הֲרֵי מְצֻוֶּה לִשְׂנֹאתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַעֲשֶה תְשׁוּבָה וְיָשׁוּב מֵרִשְׁעָתוֹ. וְאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא עָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה, אִם מְצָאוֹ בְּצַעַר עַל מַשָּׂאוֹ, מִצְוָה לִפְרֹק וְלִטְעֹן עִמּוֹ וְלֹא יַנִּיחֶנּוּ כָּךְ, כִּי שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהֶה בִּשְׁבִיל מָמוֹנוֹ וְיָבוֹא לִידֵי סַכָּנָה, וְהַתּוֹרָה הִקְפִּידָה עַל נַפְשׁוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין רְשָׁעִים בֵּין צַדִּיקִים, מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵם נִלְוִים אֶל ה’ וּמַאֲמִינִים בְעִקַּר הַדָּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, “אֱמֹ֨ר אֲלֵיהֶ֜ם חַי־אָ֣נִי׀ נְאֻ֣ם׀ אֲ-דֹנָ֣י יְ-הוִ֗-ה אִם־אֶחְפֹּץ֙ בְּמ֣וֹת הָרָשָׁ֔ע כִּ֣י אִם־בְּשׁ֥וּב רָשָׁ֛ע מִדַּרְכּ֖וֹ וְחָיָ֑ה…”

When it says “When you see the donkey of one you hate struggling under its burden” etc… (Shemos 23:5), this “hated person” isn’t from the non-Jews, for they aren’t within the mitzvah of loading and unloading [animals] except because [of the prohibition against causing "pain to living things" -- only a Jew is.

How is it possible for a Jew to be hated by another Jew, since the verse says "Do not hate your brother in your heart[, you shall surely rebuke your compatriot, and not carry a sin for him]” (Vayiqra 19:17)? The sages said, for example, if he personally and alone saw the person commit [a heinous] sin, and he warned him of it and he did not repent, it is a mitzvah to hate him until he does teshuvah and returns from his evil.

Even though he didn’t yet do teshuvah, if you find in in pain because of his burden [on an animal] it is a mitzvah to unload and load [the animal] with him and not leave him thus. For maybe he will wait for the sake of his money and come to danger, and the Torah is careful about the lives of Jews, whether evil whether righteous, since they are consecrated to Hashem and believe in the essence of the faith, as it says “Tell them: As I ‘Live’, says the L-rd Hashem, if I had any desire for the death of the wicked, rather, that the wicked return from his way and live; [return, return from your evil ways; for why must you die, house of Israel?” (Yechezqeil 33:17)


The piece about hating another Jew has some interesting facets:

  1. The assumption is that since the Torah doesn’t allow a Jew to hate another (under normal circumstances), there is no way the verses pertaining to loading and unloading animals could possibly refuse to someone who hates another despite the prohibition. This is interesting as hatered is an emotion, and thus many people will inadvertantly violate the prohibition of “you shall not hate”.
  2. The need for the person to be a solitary witness is so that:
    1. he knows that the person is a sinner without relying on lashon hara or rumor and
    2. he has no recourse to testify in beis din as that requires two witnesses.
  3. Even while the person still embraces evil, we must love him as Hashem does, as we see our brother’s still untapped potential to return to the nation’s calling. “That the wicked turn from his way and live.”

ד: בֶּהֱמַת גוֹי, אִם הָיָה הַגּוֹי מְחַמֵּר אַחַר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, בֵּין ֹשֶהַמַּשָׂא הוּא שֶׁל ישְׂרָאֵל בֵּין שֶׁהוּא ֹשֶל גּוֹי, אֵינוֹ חַיָב, רַק לִפְרֹק, מִשּׁוּם צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי-חַיִים, וְיָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל זֶה. אֲבָל לִטְעֹן, אֵינוֹ חַיָב כְּלָל, רַק אִי אִיכָּא מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם גּוֹי, אֶלָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל מְחַמֵּר אַחַר הַבְּהֵמָה, חַיָב גַּם כֵּן לִטְעֹן מִשּׁוּם צַעַר הַיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵן בֶּהֶמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַמַּשָּׂא ֹשֶל גּוֹי, חַיָב לִפְרֹק וְלִטְעֹן מִשּׁוּם צַעַר הַיִשְׂרָאֵל

The animal of a non-Jew, if the non-Jew is driving one of his animals, whether the burden is a Jews or whether it’s a non-Jews, he is not obligate [in the above two prohibitions]. He only has to remove the load, because of [the prohibition against causing] “pain to living things”, and he is permitted to accept pay for it. However, to load [the animal], he is not obligated at all — except if there is a possibility of enmity [by not helping].

But if there is no non-Jew there, rather a Jew who is driving the animal, he is also obligated to load [the animal] because of the pain of the Jew. Similar if it’s a Jew’s animal and a non-Jew’s burden [being carried by it], he must both unload and load [the animal] because of the pain of the Jew.

ב: פָּרַק וְטָעַן וְחָזַר וְנָפַל, חַיָב לִפְרֹק וְלִטְעֹן פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת, וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה פְעָמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב, הָקֵם תָּקִים עִמּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ לֵילֵךְ עִמּוֹ עַד פַּרְסָה, שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ לוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אוֹמֵר לוֹ בַּעַל הַמַּשָּׂא, אֵינִי צָרִיךְ לָךְ

If he unburdened and loaded [the animal] and it fell again, he is obligated to unburden and load it another time, even 100 times, as it says “you shall surely release it”, “you shall surely put it up with him”. [Literally, "release you shall release", and "set up, you shall set up with him"; this lesson is being derived from the doubling of the language used to denote "surely".]

Therefore, you must go with him up to a parsah [2.4-2.88 miles], because maybe he will need him, unless the person with the package to be carried says to him “I do not need you.”

ג: מִצְוַת פְּרִיקָה, צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּחִנָּם. אֲבָל לִטְעֹן, אֵינוֹ מְחֻיָב אֶלָּא בְּשָׂכָר, וְכֵן בְּעַד מַה שֶּׁהוֹלֵך עִמּוֹ, מְחֻיָב לְֹשַלֵּם לוֹ

The mitzvah of unloading [an animal] must be done [even] for free. However, to load [an animal], he is not obligated unless he is paid, and similarly for his traveling with him [see above], he must pay him. [Presumably because unloading the animal is an exercise in compassion for the animal, but reloading it is more a service for its owner.]


I am wondering how generalizable the obligation of “loading an animal” is. Does it mean there is a general duty to accept a job that would aid another?

סִימָן קפט – הִלְכוֹת פְּרִיקָה וּטְעִינָה

189: Laws of Loading and Unloading Animals

א: מִי שֶׁפָּגַע בַּחֲבֵרוֹ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּבְהֶמְתּוֹ רוֹבֶצֶת תַּחַת מַשָּׂאָהּ, בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ מַשָּׂא הָרָאוּי לָהּ, בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶׁרָאוּי לָהּ, הֲרֵי זֶה מְצֻוֶה לְסַיְעוֹ לִפְרֹק מֵעָלֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, “עָזֹ֥ב תַּעֲזֹ֖ב עִמּֽוֹ”. וּלְאַחַר שֶׁפָּרַק, לֹא יַנִּיחַ אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּצַעַר וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ, אֶלָּא יַעֲזוֹר לוֹ לַחֲזוֹר וְלִטְעוֹן עָלֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר,”הָקֵ֥ם תָּקִ֖ים”. וְאִם הִנִּיחַ אֶת חַבֵרוֹ וְלֹא פָרַק וְלֹא טָעַן, בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת-עֲשֵׂה וְעָבַר עַל מִצְוַת-לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, “לֹֽא־תִרְאֶה֩ אֶת־חֲמ֨וֹר אָחִ֜יךָ” וְגוֹ

Someone who encounters his friend on the way, and his animal is struggling under its burden, whether it was a burden that is appropriate for it, whether it was a burden that was more than appropriate for it, there is a mitzvah to help him remove it from her, as it says, “[When you see the donkey of someone who hates you struggling under its burden and you pause from helping it,] you shall surely help it with him.” (Shemos 23:5)

After you remove [the burden] do not leave your friend in trouble and go off from him, rather help him put it back and burden the animal [correctly], as it says, “[You shall not see your brothers donkey or his ox fallen on the road, and you hide yourself from them] you shall surely pick it up [with him].” (Devarim 22:4)

And if someone leaves his friend, and didn’t unburden or burden [the animal in need], he neglected an obligation and violated a prohibition, as it says “You shall not see your brothers donkey or his ox fallen on the road…” (Ibid.)

ה: כְּשֶׁבָּא לְהַחֲזִיר אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, לֹא יַחֲזִירֶנּוּ לְאֶחָד מִּבְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ ֹשֶל הַמַּפְקִיד שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. וְכֵן כְּשֶׁבָּא לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֵיזֶה חֵפֶץ שֶׁהִשְׁאִיל לוֹ אוֹ לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבוֹ. אֲבָל יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִיר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי מִן הַסְּתָם הִיא נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְהַבַּעַל מַפְקִיד כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ בְּיָדָהּ

When he comes to return the desposit, he should give it to someone of the depositor’s household without his knowledge. Similar, when he comes to return any item that was lent to him, or repay his loan. But he can return it to [the depositor's] wife, because by default she buys and sells in the home, and the husband appoints all his property to her control.

ג: חַיָב לִשְׁמֹר אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּאֹפֶן הַיוֹתֵר טוֹב כְּפִי הַדֶּרֶךְ לִשְׁמֹר חֲפָצִים כָּאֵלּוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הוּא אֵינוֹ מְדַקְדֵק כָּל כָּךְ בִּשְׁמִירַת חֲפָצִים שֶׁלּוֹ בַּפִּקָּדוֹן, חַיָב לְדַקְדֵּק יוֹתֵר

One is obligated to guard the deposit in a manner that is better than he would guard his own property. And even if he isn’t all that careful with the guarding of his own items, with a deposit he must be very careful.

ד:אֵין הַנִּפְקָד רַשַּׁאי לְהַפְקִיד אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים, אֲפִלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים וְנֶאֱמָנִים יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הַמַּפְקִיד גַּם כֵּן רָגִיל לְהַפְקִיד דְּבָרִים כָּאֵלּוּ אֶצְלָם

The one who receives the deposit is not allowed to deposit the item in the hands [control] of others — even [people] who are more kosher and trustworthy than he is. Except if the depositor is also accustomed to deposit items similar to these with them.

סִימָן קפח – הִלְכוֹת פִּקָּדוֹן

188: Laws of Deposits

א: הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ, עַתָּה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁכָּל עֲסָקֵינוּ בְּמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן וְהַכֹּל צְרִיכִין לְמָעוֹת, מִן הַסְּתָם נִתְרַצָּה הַמַּפְקִיד, שֶׁהַנִּפְקָד יוֹצִיאֵן כְּשֶׁיִצְטָרֵךְ. וְלָכֵן מֻתָּר לוֹ לְהוֹצִיאָן, וַהֲרֵי הֵן אֶצְלוֹ כְּמוֹ מִלְוָה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גִּלָּה הַמַּפְקִיד דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁאֵין רְצוֹנוֹ בְּכָךְ, כְּגוֹן שֶׁחֲתָמָן אוֹ קְשָרָן בְּקֶשֶׁר מְשֻׁנֶּה, אָז אֵין הַנִּפְקָד רַשַּׁאי לְהוֹצִיאָן

Someone who deposits money by a friend, now in these days that all our jobs are in buying and selling and we all need cash, the norm is that the depositor is willing to have the person responsible will take it out [for his own use] when he needs it. Therefore, he may take the deposit out, and it is with him like a loan — unless the depositor revealed that he did not want it. Such as if he sealed it in, or tied them with a unique knot; then the responsible party may not take it out [for his own use].

ב: הַמַּפְקִיד שְׁאָר חֵפֶץ אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ, אָסוּר לְהַנִּפְקָד לְהִשְּׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּחֵפֶץ זֶה לְצָרְכּוֹ. וְאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַחֵפֶץ מִתְקַלְקֵל כְּלָל בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ זֶה, מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲוֵי שׁוֹאֵל שֶׁלֹּא מִדָּעַת. וְשׁוֹאֵל שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת, גַּזְלָן הוּא. וְאִם יָדוּעַ בְּבֵרוּר שֶׁאֵין הַמַּפְקִיד מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו, מֻתָּר. וְיֵשׁ אוֹסְרִין גַּם בָּזֶה, מִשּׁוּם דְּפִקָּדוֹן אֲפִלּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַקְפִּיד, אָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוֵי שׁוֹלֵחַ יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן גַּם בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא. וְיֵשׁ לְהַחְמִיר

Someone who deposits another item [as opposed to the money discussed in the previous se'if], the responsible party may not use this item for his own needs. Even if the item would not get damaged at all by this use, in any case, it would be [an instance of] borrowing without [the owner's] knowledge. One who borrows without [their] knowledge is a thief. But if he knows for sure that the depositor doesn’t care about it — it is permitted. Although some prohibit even in this [case], since a deposit  — even of something people don’t normally deposit — is prohibited, because one who sends a hand to a deposit also similarly [a thief]. And there is [good reason] to be stringent.

ג: כָּל הַמּוֹצֵא אֲבֵדָה, בֵּין שֶׁיֵשׁ בָּהּ סִימָן בֵּין שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן, אִם מְצָאָהּ דֶּרֶךְ הַנָּחָה, כְּגוֹן טַלִּית וְקַרְדֹּם בְּצַד הַגָּדֵר, וַאֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק אִם הִנִּיחָם שָׁם בְּכַוָּנָה אוֹ אִבְּדָם ֹשָם, אָסוּר לִגַּע בָּהֶם

Anyone who finds a lost item,whether it has an [identifying] sign or whether it has no sign, if he found it in a manner in which it is usually placed down, like a tallis or axe alongside a fence, Even if there is reason to be unsure whether he placed them their intentionally or left them there, it is prohibited to touch them.

ד:מִי שֶׁהוּא זָקֵן מְכֻבָּד, וּמָצָא אֲבֵדָה וְהוּא דָבָר מְבֻזֶּה, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שֶׁלּוֹ, לֹא הָיָה נוֹטְלוֹ לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם דַהֲוֵי לֵהּ בִּזָּיוֹן, אֵינוֹ חַיָב לְטַּפֵּל בָּהּ. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם יֶשׁ לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִין וּלְטַפֵּל בָּהּ, אַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ לְפִי כְבוֹדוֹ

Someone who is a respected elder and he finds a lost item which is embarrassing, so that even if it were his he wouldn’t pick it up to bring it to his home because is would be embarrassing for him, he doesn’t have to busy himself with it. In any case, it is appropriate for him to act within the limit of the law and busy himself with [returning] it, even though it is not according to his honor.

ה:מָצָא מְצִיאָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵע מִי אִבְּדָהּ, בֵּין שֶׁיֵשׁ בָּה סִימָן בֵּין ֹשֶאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן, יֵשׁ בְּעִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ הַרְבֵּה חִלּוּקֵי דִינִים, וְיַעֲשֶׂה שְׁאֵלַת חָכָם אֵיךְ יַעֲשֶׂה

Someone who finds something and does not know who lost it, whether it has a sign or whether it doesn’t have a sign, there are in these topics many distinctions between the laws, and you should ask a learned person what to do.


A lesson to take even from se’if 5’s statement that the laws are too involved for a brief guide like the Qitzur Shulchan Arukh. How much quicker we are to ask a rabbi a question of kashrus than one of proper financial behavior! Notice the warning here; these laws too have their complexities, and cultivating a habit of consulting one’s rabbi when they touch issues that are beyond our knowledge is appropriate.