Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 185:1

סִימָן קפה – הִלְכוֹת שְׁאֵלָה וּשְכִירוּת

185: Laws of Borrowing and Renting

א: הַשׁוֹאֵל אוֹ הַשּׂוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי, לֹא לְהַשְׁאִילָם וְלֹֹא לְהַשְׂכִּירָם לְאַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת בְּעָלִים. אֲפִלּוּ סְפָרִים שֶׁיֵשׁ מִצְוָה בְּהַשְׁאָלָתָן, אֵין אוֹמְרִים, מִן הַסְּתָם נִיחָא לַבְּעָלִים שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה מִצְוָה בְּמָמוֹנָם, כִּי שֶׁמָּא אֵין רְצוֹנָם שֶׁיְהֵא דָבָר שֶׁלָּהֶם בְּיַד אַחֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן בְּעֵינֵיהֶם. אֲבָל מֻתָּר לַשּׁוֹאֵל סֵפֶר לְהַנִּיחַ לְאַחֵר לִלְמֹד בּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְמַד, רַק יְחִידִי, וְלֹא שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּיָחַד. וְאִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁדַּרְכָּן ֹשֶל הַבְּעָלִים לְהַאֲמִין לָזֶה הַשֵּׁנִי בִּדְבָרִים כָּאֵלּוּ, מֻתָּר הַשּׁוֹאֵל לְהַשְּׁאִיל לוֹ וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהַשְּׂכִּיר לוֹ

One who borrows or rents an animal or movable property from his friend, he is not allowed neither to lend them nor to rent them out to another without the knowledge of the owner. Even sefarim, where there is a mitzvah in lending them out, we do not say that ordinarily it is agreeable to the owners that he should do a mitzvah with their money. Because maybe they don’t want something of theirs in the hand of someone else who isn’t trustworthy in their eyes. But it is permitted for a borrower of a seifer to allow someone else to study in it in his [the borrower's] home as long as he doesn’t learn alone rather the two of them together. And if it’s is known that it is the owners’ usual way to trust this one [the third part] in matters like this, the borrower is permitted to lend to him, and the rentor to rent [or lend] to him.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 185:2

ב: מִצְוָה לָתֵת שְׂכַר פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר בִּזְמַנּוֹ. וְאִם אֵחַר, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר, בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶׁמֶשׁ. וּכְמוֹ כֵן מִצְוָה לָתֵת שְׂכַר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ כְלִי בִּזְמַנּוֹ. וְאִם אַחֲרוֹ, עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו, שֶנֶּאֱמַר, לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק שָׂכִיר עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן וְגוֹ’ בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ. וְאֵיזֶהוּ זְמַנּוֹ. אִם כָּלְתָה הַמְּלָאכָה בַּיּוֹם, זְמַנּוֹ כָּל הַיּוֹם. וְאִם עָבַר הַיּוֹם וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ, עוֹבֵר עַל בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶׁמֶשׁ. וְאִם כָּלְתָה הַמְּלָאכָה לְאַחַר שֶׁיָצָא הַיוֹם וְנִכְנַס הַלַּיְלָה, זְמַנוֹ כָּל הַלָּיְלָה. עָבַר הַלַּיְלָה וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ, עוֹבֵר עַל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד-בֹּקֶר. וְכֵן שְׂכִיר שָׁבוּעַ, שְׂכִיר חֹדֶשׁ, שְׂכִיר שָׁנָה, יָצָא מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ בַיוֹם, יֶשׁ לוֹ זְמָן כָּל הַיוֹם. יָצָא מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ בַלַּיְלָה, יֶשׁ לוֹ זְמָן כָּל הַלַּיְלָה וְלֹא יוֹתֵר

It is a mitzvah to pay the wages of an employee on time, and if he delays, he violares a prohibition, as it says “on his day you shall pay his wages, and don’t let the some come upon him” [i.e. set while he is waiting].

Similarly, there is a mitzvah to pay rental on an animal or a utensil on its [proper] time. [The root \שׂכר\ means both hiring per time and rental.] And if it’s delayed, he violates a prohibition, as it says, “do not withhold the pay of the poor and indigent… in his day you shall pay his wages/fee.”

What is “its [proper] time”? If the work was comeplete during the day, its time is the entire day. If the day went past and he didn’t pay him, he violated “on his day you shall pay his wages, and don’t let the some come upon him”. And if  the work was completed after the day left [ended] and the night entered [started], its time is the entire night. If the[entire] night passes and he didn’t pay him, he violated “do not rest the work of a hire with you until the morning.” Similarly someone hired for the week, hired for the month, hired for the year — if he leaves his work during the day, he has the time of the entire day and if he leaves the work at night, he has the time of the entire night, and no more.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 185:3

ג: וְכֵן אִם נָתַן טַלִיתוֹ לְאֻמָּן לְתַקְּנָהּ בְּקַבְּלָנוּת וֶהֱבִיאָהּ לוֹ בַיוֹם, יֶשׁ לוֹ זְמָן כָּל הַיוֹם בִּלְבָד. הֱבִיאָהּ לוֹ בַלַּיְלָה, יֶשׁ לוֹ זְמָן כָּל הַלַּיְלָה בִּלְבָד. אֲבָל כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטַּלִּית בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן, אַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה וְכָלְתָה מְלַאכְתָּהּ, אֵין בַּעַל-הַבַּית עוֹבֵר, אֲפִלּוּ הִיא אֵצֶל הָאֻמָּן כַּמָּה יָמִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁיָבִיא לוֹ מָעוֹת וְיִטּוֹל אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר

Similarly if he gices his tallis to a worker to fix it as a job-worker [i.e. paid for doing a task, not per hour like in the previous se'if] and she [the tailor] brings it back during the day, he has the time of that entire day only [to repay her]. If she brings it to him at night, he has the time of the entire night alone.

However, the entire time that the tallis is in the hands / posession of the worker, even though she finished and completed her work, the owners is not in violation — even if it stays with the worker a number of days. Even if she informs him that he should bring her the money and take what is his [ie the tallis], in any case he is not violating [the prohibition against delayed payment of salary].

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 185:4

ד: אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר משּׁוּם בַּל תָּלִין וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן תְּבָעוֹ הַשָּׂכִיר וְיֶשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת לִתֵּן לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא תְבָעוֹ הַשָּׂכִיר, אוֹ שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ מָעוֹת, אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת הִיא לִלְווֹת וְלִפְרֹעַ לַשָּׂכִיר בִּזְמַנּוֹ, כִּי הוּא עָנִי וְאֵלָיו הוּא נוֹשֵׂא אֶת נַפְשְׁוֹ. וּמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִפְרֹעַ לַפּוֹעֲלִים עַד לְאַחַר הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן, אֲפִלּוּ תָבְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ דָבָר מֻעָט שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי מַגִּיעַ לָהֶם, מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר, שֶׁכֵּיוָן ֹשֶיָדוּעַ שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ כֵן, עַל דַּעַת כֵּן נִשְׂכְּרו אֶצְלוֹ

One doesn’t violate “do not keep overnight” and “do not allow the sun to come on him” [ie the prohibition against late payment of wages] unless the worker approaches him to collect and he has the money to pay him. But if the worker doesn’t approach him to collect, or he does approach him but he doesn’t have the money, he isn’t violating. In any case, it is a middah of piety to borrow [the money] and pay the worker on time, because he is poor and it is upon him that he carries his soul [he relies on the employer's money to keep soul in body, a roof over his head, etc...].

Someone whose [usual] manner is not to pay the workers until after doing the accounting, even if they approach him to collect a small amount that is certainly coming to them, in any case he is not violating [this prohibition] since it is known tht this is his way, and on this knowledge they accepted work by him.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 185:5

ה: שָׂכִיר שֶׁעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה לְבַעַל-הַבַּיִת וְהִפְסִידָהּ, אֲפִלּוּ בִפְשִׁיעָה, בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁעַל פִּי הַדִין הוּא חַיָב בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין, מִצְוָה עַל בַּעַל-הַבַּיִת לְהִכָּנֵס עִמּוֹ לִפְנִים מִשׁוּרַת הַדִּין וְלִמְחוֹל לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, לְמַעַן תֵּלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ טוֹבִים. וְאִם הַשָׂכִיר עָנִי הוּא וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל, מִצְוָה לִתֵּן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֶמַר, וְאָרְחוֹת צַדִּיקִים תִּשְׁמֹר. וְזֶה הוּא אֹרַח צַדִּיקִים, לִשְׁמֹר דֶרֶךְ ה’ לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט לִפְנִים מִשׁוּרַת הַדִּין

A worker who was doing work for the homeowner and lost it, even intentionally [or through gross negligence] in a manner that by law he would have to be obligated in repayment, it is a mitzvah upon the homeowner to enter with him beyond the limit of the law and forgive him [the debt]. As it says, “so that you will walk in the ways of the good ones [or: in good ways].” If the hire is poor and doesn’t have what to eat, it’s a mitzvah to pay him his wages, as it says, “and the ways of the righteous you shall observe.”

This is the way of the righteous, so guard Hashem’s way, to do what’s right and justice beyond the letter of the law.


The Qitzur’s obvious source is the following gemara (Bava Metzi’ah 83a):

רבה בר בר חנן תברו ליה הנהו שקולאי חביתא דחמרא. שקל לגלימייהו. אתו, אמרו לרב. אמר ליה, “הב להו גלימייהו.” אמר ליה, “דינא הכי?” אמר ליה, “אין — “למען תלך בדרך טובים.’ (משלי ב)” יהיב להו גלימייהו, אמרו ליה, “עניי אנן, וטרחינן כולה יומא, וכפינן, ולית לן מידי!” אמר ליה, “זיל הב אגרייהו.” א”ל, “דינא הכי?” אמר ליה, “אין — ‘וארחות צדיקים תשמור’ (משלי ב)”:

Rabbah bar bar Chanan had some porters who broke his barrel of wine. He grabbed their cloaks. They went and told Rav. Rav said to [Rabbah] “Give them their cloaks.” He said to [Rav], “Is this the law?” [Rav] said to Rabbah], “Yes — ‘so that you will walk in the ways of the good’ (Mishlei 2:20)”. He gave them their cloaks. They said to him, “We are poor, and we labored all day, and now we are exhausted, and we don’t have anything!” [Rav] said to Raba, “Go give them their wages.” He said to [Rav], “Is that the law?” [Rav] said to Rabbah], “Yes — ‘and the way of the righteous you shall observe’ (ibid)”.

This gemara involves a favorite paradox. Rav tells Rabbah bar bar Chanan that it is the letter of the law for him in this instance to go beyond the letter of the law. That there is a time when the law requires going beyond its own limits to do what is moral and generous. The Qitzur too here codifies a law and then tells us it’s an obligation to go beyond the limits of obligation, to the ways of the righteous.

A law not in the  act — it’s beyond the limits of the laws of actions, but in who we should be — one of the good and the righteous.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 185:6

ו: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבַּעַל-הַבַּיִת מֻזְהָר שֶׁלֹּא לִגְזֹל שְׂכַר הֶעָנִי וְלֹא לְאַחֲרוֹ, כָּךְ הֶעָנִי מֻזְהָר שֶׁלֹא יִבָּטֵל מִמְּלֶאכֶת בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. וְחַיָב לַעֲבוֹד בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָׁלוֹם, “כִּ֚י בְּכָל־כֹּחִ֔י עָבַ֖דְתִּי אֶת־אֲבִיכֶֽן”. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין הַפּוֹעֵל רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בַלַּיְלָה וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר עַצְמוֹ בַיּוֹם, – שֶכְּבָר נֶחֱלַשׁ מֵהַלַּיְלָה, וְכֵן אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בִּבְהֶמְתּוֹ בַלַּיְלָה וּלְהַשְׂכִּירָהּ בַּיוֹם. וְאֵין הַפּוֹעֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַרְעִיב וּלְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי מַחֲלִישׁ כֹּחוֹ וְלֹא יוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלֶאכֶת בַּעַל-הַבִַּיִת כָּרָאוּי. וְכֵן הוּא דִּין הַמְלַמֵּד – עַיֵּן לְעֵיל סִימָן קסה סָעִיף יב

Just as the homeowner is warned not to steal the wages of the poor nor to delay it, so to the poor person is warned not to desist from the work of the homeowner. He must work with all his ability. As Yaaqov our forefather, peace be upon him, said, “[And you know that with all my ability I served your father.” (Bereishis 31:6)

Therefore a worker is not allowed to do work at night and hire himself out during the day, for he is already weakened from the night. Similarly, he can’t do work with his animal at night and hire it out / lease it during the day. The worker is also not allowed to starve or torture oneself, for he weakens his abilities and isn’t able to do the homeowner’s work properly.

The law is similar for a teacher, see previously, 165:12


I see that while 165 deals with teaching Torah rather than fiscal law, and therefore wasn’t in my original plan, it does contain three se’ifim of interpersonal mitzvos. I will present them tomorrow, and then return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 165:13-14

Yesterday’s halakhah made me aware of this short snippet of laws about teachers that deal with interpersonal halakhah.


יב: הַמְלַמֵּד, צָרִיךְ לֵישֵׁב וּלְלַמֵּד אֶת הַתִּינוֹקוֹת כָּל הַיּוֹם וּקְצָת מִן הַלַּיְלָה, כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכָם לִלְמֹד בַּיּוֹם וּבַלָּיְלָה. וְלֹא יְבַטְּלוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת כְּלָל, חוּץ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְעֶרֶב יוֹם-טוֹב בְּסוֹף הַיוֹם. אֵין מְבַטְּלִין אֶת הַתִּינוֹקוֹת אֲפִלוּ לְבִנְיַן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ

A teacher must sit and instruct the children all day and part of the night, so that he teaches them to study [Torah] at day and at night. They may not desist from the children at all, except for erev Shabbos and erev Yom Kippur toward the end of the day. We do not interrupt the children even for the building of the Temple.

יב: מְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַתִּינוֹקןת וְיוֹצֵא, אוֹ שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת עִמָּהֶם, אוֹ שֶׁמִּתְרַשֵּׁל בְּתַלְמוּדוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל אָרוּר עוֹשֶׂה מְלֶאכֶת ה’ רְמִיָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לְהוֹשִׁיב מְלַמֵּד אֶלָּא בַּעַל יִרְאָה, מָהִיר לִקְרֹא וּלְדַקְדֵּק. וְאֵין לַמְלַמֵּד לִהְיוֹת נֵעוֹר בַּלַיְלָה יוֹתֵר מִדַּי, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה עָצֵל בַּיּוֹם לְלַמֵּד. וְכֵן לֹא יִתְעַנֶּה אוֹ יַעֲצֹר אֶת עַצְמוֹ מִמַּאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה אוֹ יֹאכַל יוֹתֵר מִדַּי, כִּי כָּל אֵלּוּ הַדְבָרִים, גוֹרְמִים ֹשֶלֹּא יוּכַל לְלַמֵּד הֵיטֵב. וְכָל הַמְשַׁנֶה, יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה וּמְסַלְּקִין לֵהּ

A teacher of children who puts the children to rest and leaves, or does some other work with them, or slacks off in his learning, he is in the category of “cursed is one who is lax in doing Hashem’s work” (Yirmiyahu 48:10). Therefore, one does not setp up a teacher anyone but a person of fear/awe [of the Almighty], who is quick to read and be careful.

A teacher should not stay up too late at night, so that he won’t be lazy during the day. Similarly, he shouldn’t fast, or stop himself from food or drink, nor eat too much, for all these things will cause him to be unable to teach well. And anyone who veers from this, his hand is on the lower [i.e. his claim in a court would be weaker], and we fire him.

יב: לֹא יַכֶּה אוֹתָם מַכַּת אוֹיֵב, מוּסָר אַכְזָרִי, לֹא בְשׁוֹטִים וְלֹא בְמַקֵּל, אֶלָּא בִּרְצוּעָה קְטַנָה

He should not hit them as an enemy would smite, the rebuke of the callous, neither with whips nor with a stick, only with a thin strap.


Note that by citing 165:12 as being similar to the laws of 185, Rabbi Ganzfried is giving a second reason for it. Not only is it bad education for the children to learn that their studies are interruptable and hence unimportant, nor is such interruption good for the universe (their studies take priority even over building the Beis haMiqdash!), but here the Qitzur adds that it would be prohibited for the same reasons as for any other employee. The same could be said of the negligent teacher in se’if 13.

Se’if 14 touches on the question of corporeal punishment. Clearly R’ Ganzfried’s approach would be counterproductive with today’s children. However, as we saw in 184:2, the Qitzur only permits hitting children where that is the most effective way to correct behavior.