Why is There a Prohibition to Do Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov? Is it possible to perform this operation without any prohibition? Rashi has a three part mystery. Join us in solving it.
Why is There a Prohibition to Do Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov?
We have an accepted rule regarding hilchot shabbat and yom tov that for every prohibition there is a reason. However, regarding doing business, we are faced with the question of why is this action prohibited when it can be done without transgressing any of the avot melacha! Our sugiya is one of the doors through which we can clarify this point. This time we will examine Rashi and the complexity of his position on the sugiya.
The mishna on daf 36b states:
ืืฉื ื. ืื ืฉืืืืืื ืขืืื ืืฉืื ืฉืืืช, ืืฉืื ืจืฉืืช, ืืฉืื ืืฆืื, ืืฉืืช – ืืืืืื ืขืืื ืืืื ืืื. ืืืื ืื ืืฉืื ืฉืืืช: ืื ืขืืืื ืืืืื, ืืื ืจืืืืื ืขื ืืื ืืืื, ืืื ืฉืืื ืขื ืคื ื ืืืื, ืืื ืืืคืืื, ืืื ืืกืคืงืื, ืืื ืืจืงืืื. ืืืื ืื ืืฉืื ืจืฉืืช: ืื ืื ืื, ืืื ืืงืืฉืื, ืืื ืืืืฆืื, ืืื ืืืืืื. ืืืื ืื ืืฉืื ืืฆืื: ืื ืืงืืืฉืื, ืืื ืืขืจืืืื, ืืื ืืืจืืืื, ืืื ืืืืืืื ืชืจืืื ืืืขืฉืจ. ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืจื, ืงื ืืืืืจ ืืฉืืช. ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืฉืืช ืืื ืืืื ื ืคืฉ ืืืื.
The gemara asks why do we not consecrate objects for the beit hamikdash, take valuation vows, consecrate objects for use of the cohanim, nor separate teruma and maโaser sheini on shabbat and yom tov, if these are mitzvot? It answers that the reason for all of these is that it is similar to doing commerce. Rashi comes to our aid in deciphering the connection between commerce and the list mentioned in the mishna:
ืืฉืื ืืงื ืืืืืจ – ืืืืงื ืืืืืจ ืืื, ืฉืืืฆืื ืืจืฉืืชื ืืจืฉืืช ืืงืืฉ, ืืืงื ืืืืืจ ืืกืืจ ืื ืืืงืจื ืืืชืื ืืืฆืื ืืคืฆื ืืืืจ ืืืจ (ืืฉืขืืื ื ื), ืื ื ืื: ืืงื ืืืืืจ ืืชื ืืืื ืืชืืื ืฉืืจื ืืืืจื, ืืื ืชืืืจ: ืืืื ืื ืืืจื ืืืืจื, ืืืื ืืื ืืืจื ืืื.
Rashi here explains that all of these actions are similar to commerce or are likely to lead to writing documents which is prohibited from the Torah.ย
Rashiโs words suggest an interesting diyuk. Rashi brings two different possibilities for the reason for the prohibition of doing business – one is based on the words of Yeshayahu, where it seems to be connected to the unique character of the day, and the second is a decree aimed at preventing one from transgressing one of the 39 melachot: writing.ย
We need to clarify what is the relationship between these two reasons brought consecutively by Rashi – why is it prohibited to do business on shabbat? We will examine the note of Rabbi Akiva Eiger in ืืืืื ืืฉ”ืก:
ืจืฉ”ื ื”ื ืืฉืื ืืงื ืืืืืจ ืืื’ ืืกืืจ ืื ืืืงืจื. ืขืืื ืจืฉ”ื ืืขืื ืืฃ ืื ืข”ื ื”ื ืืื ืคืืกืงืื.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger sends us to look in Rashi on daf 27, and as is characteristic of him, suffices with the reference only, which turns it into a sort of riddle which, by opening the source, will illuminate new things for us.ย
The mishna and gemara on daf 27 discuss the prohibition of setting the price for an animal on shabbat:ย
ืืฉื ื. ืืื ื ืื ืื ืขื ืืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืืื ืืื, ืืื ื ืื ืื ืขืืื ืืขืจื ืืื ืืื, ืืฉืืืืื ืืืืืงืื ืืื ืืื.
ืืืจื. ืืื ืืื ื ืื ืื? ืืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื: ืืื ืคืืกืงืื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืขื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืื.
Rashi explains why lechatchila it is prohibited to set a price for an animal on shabbat:
ืืืจื. ืืื ืคืืกืงืื ืืืื – ืืืงื ืืืืืจ ืืฉืืช ืืืืื ืืื ืืกืืจ, ืืกืคืจ ืขืืจื (ื ืืืื ืื).
Rashi on daf 27 brings another source for the prohibition of doing business from Ketuvim: a passuk from Nechemia. The question arises – what is the relationship between the three sources that Rashi brings for the prohibition of doing business?
We will again present each of the three sources and will expand on each one:
- Doing business is prohibited because of the passuk in Yeshayahu 58:13:ย
ืึดืึพืชึผึธืฉืึดึคืื ืึดืฉึผืึทืึผึธืชึ ืจึทืึฐืึถึืึธ ืขึฒืฉืึฅืึนืช ืึฒืคึธืฆึถึืืึธ ืึผึฐืึฃืึนื ืงึธืึฐืฉืึดึื ืึฐืงึธืจึธึจืืชึธ ืึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึืช ืขึนึื ึถื ืึดืงึฐืึคืึนืฉื ืึฐืงึนืึธืงึ ืึฐืึปืึผึธึื ืึฐืึดืึผึทืึฐืชึผืึนึ ืึตืขึฒืฉืึฃืึนืช ืึผึฐืจึธืึถึืืึธ ืึดืึผึฐืฆึฅืึนื ืึถืคึฐืฆึฐืึธึ ืึฐืึทืึผึตึฅืจ ืึผึธืึธึฝืจ
- Doing business is prohibited from the pesukim in Ezra and Nechemia 13:
ืึผึทืึผึธืึดึฃืื ืึธืึตึกืึผึธื ืจึธืึดึฃืืชึดื ืึดึฝืืืึผืึธึฃืื ืึนึฝืจึฐืึดึฝืืึพืึผึดืชึผึฃืึนืชื ืึผึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึกืช ืึผืึฐืึดืืึดึฃืื ืึธืขึฒืจึตืึฃืึนืช ืึฐึฝืขึนืึฐืกึดึชืื ืขึทืึพ ืึทืึฒืึนืจึดึืื ืึฐืึทืฃึพืึทึืึดื ืขึฒื ึธืึดึคืื ืึผืชึฐืึตื ึดืืึ ืึฐืึธืึพืึทืฉึผืึธึื ืึผืึฐืึดืืึดึฅืื ืึฐืจืึผืฉืึธืึทึดึื ืึผึฐืึฃืึนื ืึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึืช ืึธืึธืขึดึืื ืึผึฐืึืึนื ืึดืึฐืจึธึฅื ืฆึธึฝืึดื: (ืื) ืึฐืึทืฆึผึนืจึดืืึ ืึธึฃืฉืึฐืืึผ ืึธึืึผ ืึฐืึดืืึดึฅืื ืึผึธึืื ืึฐืึธืึพืึถึืึถืจ ืึผืึนืึฐืจึดึงืื ืึผึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึืช ืึดืึฐื ึตึฅื ืึฐืืึผืึธึื ืึผืึดืืจืึผืฉืึธืึธึดึฝื: (ืื) ืึธืึธืจึดึืืึธื ืึตึืช ืึนืจึตึฃื ืึฐืืึผืึธึื ืึธืึนืึฐืจึธึฃื ืึธืึถึื ืึธึฝืึพืึทืึผึธืึธึจืจ ืึธืจึธึคืข ืึทืึผึถืึ ืึฒืฉืึถึฃืจ ืึทืชึผึถึฃื ืขึนืฉืึดึืื ืึผึฝืึฐืึทืึผึฐืึดึืื ืึถืชึพืึฅืึนื ืึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึฝืช: (ืื) ืึฒืึจืึนื ืึนึคื ืขึธืฉืืึผึ ืึฒืึนึฃืชึตืืึถึื ืึทืึผึธืึตึจื ืึฑืึนืึตึืื ืึผ ืขึธืึตึืื ืึผ ืึตึืช ืึผึธืึพืึธืจึธืขึธึฃื ืึทืึผึนึืืช ืึฐืขึทึื ืึธืขึดึฃืืจ ืึทืึผึนึืืช ืึฐืึทืชึผึถึื ืืึนืกึดืืคึดึคืื ืึธืจืึนืึ ืขึทืึพืึดืฉืึฐืจึธืึตึื ืึฐืึทืึผึตึื ืึถืชึพืึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึฝืช: ืค (ืื) ืึทืึฐืึดึกื ืึผึทืึฒืฉืึถึฃืจ ืฆึธึฝืึฒืืึผึฉ ืฉืึทืขึฒืจึตึจื ืึฐืจืึผืฉืึธืึทึดึื ืึดืคึฐื ึตึฃื ืึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึืช ืึธืึนึฝืึฐืจึธืึ ืึทืึผึดืกึผึธืึฐืจึฃืึผ ืึทืึผึฐืึธืชึืึนืช ืึธืึนึฃืึฐืจึธึื ืึฒืฉืึถืจึ ืึนึฃื ืึดืคึฐืชึผึธืึืึผื ืขึทึื ืึทืึทึฃืจ ืึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึืช ืึผืึดื ึผึฐืขึธืจึทึื ืึถึฝืขึฑืึทึืึฐืชึผึดืึ ืขึทืึพืึทืฉึผืึฐืขึธืจึดึืื ืึนืึพืึธืึฅืึนื ืึทืฉึผืึธึื ืึผึฐืึฅืึนื ืึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึฝืช: (ื) ืึทืึผึธืึดึจืื ืึผ ืึธืจึนืึฐืึดึืื ืึผืึนืึฐืจึตึงื ืึธืึพืึดืึฐืึผึธึืจ ืึดืึฅืึผืฅ ืึดืืจืึผืฉืึธืึธึดึื ืคึผึทึฅืขึทื ืึผืฉืึฐืชึผึธึฝืึดื: (ืื) ืึธืึธืขึดึฃืืึธื ืึธืึถึื ืึธืึนืึฐืจึธึคื ืึฒืึตืืึถืึ ืึทืึผึืึผืขึท ืึทืชึผึถึคื ืึตื ึดืืึ ื ึถึฃืึถื ืึทืืึนืึธึื ืึดืึพืชึผึดืฉืึฐื ึืึผ ืึธึื ืึถืฉืึฐืึทึฃื ืึผึธืึถึื ืึดืึพืึธืขึตึฃืช ืึทืึดึืื ืึนืึพืึธึืืึผ ืึผึทืฉึผืึทืึผึธึฝืช: ืกย
- Doing business is prohibited as a decree lest one come to write.ย
The first two sources point to an ืืืกืืจ ืืืืจืืืชื or something close to this. The words of Yeshayahu are described by Rashi as a Torah prohibition – a surprising expression which points to a type of prohibition which is stricter than a rabbinic prohibition. Ezraโs adamentness that the nation not do business on shabbat also seems to be connected to a Torah prohibition and not to a decree. However, the third source points to a prohibition whose strength is rabbinic, and is a fence around a different prohibition. In light of these three different sources brought by Rashi, the question arises – when is the prohibition against doing business a prohibition which is more than a rabbinic prohibition, and what is the source and character of this prohibition, which is not one of the 39 melachot?
The rishonim and achronim have different approaches which can shed light on our Rashi.ย
The Rambanโs approach to the mitzvah of resting on shabbat:
The Ramban on the Torah, in Vayikra 23:24, asks as to the language of the Torah: why does the Torah refer to chagim as โืฉืืชืืโ? The Ramban brings the statement of Rav Ashi from Shabbat daf 24 where he says that there is a mitzvah to rest on shabbatot and chagim, and one who does not do this transgresses a positive mitzvah. The Ramban is surprised by his words and asks what is the halachic meaning of this โืฉืืชืืโ – the prohibition of doing melacha is generally connected to specific actions which were spelled out. To what then is the mitzvah of โืฉืืชืืโ referring? The Ramban suggests the following:ย
ืื ืจืื ืื ืฉืืืืจืฉ ืืื ืืืืจ ืฉื ืฆืืืื ื ืื ืืชืืจื ืืืืืช ืื ื ืื ืืื ืื”ื ืืคืืื ืืืืจืื ืฉืืื ื ืืืืื, ืื ืฉืืืจื ืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืชืืืืืช ืืืฉืงืื ืืคืืจืืช ืืืืชื ืืช ืืืืื ืืืืืืช ืืื, ืืืคื ืืช ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืช ืืืืช ืืืืงืื ืืืงืื, ืืื ืืืชื ืขืืจ ืืืงืคืช ืืืื ืืืืชืืช ื ืขืืืืช ืืืืื ืืืื ืขืืืกืื ืขื ืืืืืจืื ืืืฃ ืืื ืืขื ืืื ืืชืื ืื ืืื ืืฉื ืืืืื ืื”ื ืืืืื ืืฉืืง ืืื ืืื ืืงื ืืืืืจ, ืืชืืื ืืื ืืช ืคืชืืื ืืืื ืื ื ืืงืืฃ ืืืฉืืื ืื ืขื ืฉืืื ื ืืืืืืืื ืืคื ืืื, ืืืืื ืืคืืขืืื ืืฉืืืืื ืืืืืืชื ืืืฉืืืจืื ืขืฆืื ืืืื ืืืืจืื ืืื ืืืืืฆื ืืื, ืืืืชืจื ืืืืื ืืืืืื ืืืื ืืืคืืื ืืฉืืช ืขืฆืื ืฉืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืืืื, ืืื ืืืจื ืชืืจื “ืฉืืชืื” ืฉืืืื ืืื ืฉืืืชื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืจื. ืืืื ืคืืจืืฉ ืืื ืืืคื:ย
This approach of the Ramban can clarify Rashi: if a person does a single act of business, he transgresses a rabbinic decree lest he come to write. But if there is an active market on shabbat, the entire character of the day of shabbat as a day of rest is damaged by the business that is taking place, and then the positive ืืฆืืื ืืืืจืืืชื of โืฉืืชืืโ is transgressed. In light of this, we can understand why Ezra was so strict about the people not doing business. Ezra was speaking out against their reality in which the people were transgressing on a Torah level, as the special character of shabbat was ruined because of the market that was active outside of Jerusalem. We can understand from here that the character of the prohibition is connected to the words of the navi: “ืืืฆืื ืืคืฆื ืืืืืจ ืืืจ”. The damage is on a Torah level, and is based on a passuk, as Rashi says, but it is expressed through damaging the character of the day, meaning in the way that we speak and the actions that we do, which are described by the navi.ย
These words of the Ramban illuminate and clarify Rashiโs position, as well as a strange halacha in the Rambam. The Rambam in Hilchot Shabbat 1:1 writes:
ื ืืืจ ืืชืืจื ืฉืืืช ื”ื ืชืฉืืืช ืืคืืื ืืืืจืื ืฉืืื ื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืืช ืืื, ืืืืจืื ืืจืื ืื ืฉืืกืจื ืืืืื ืืฉืื ืฉืืืช, ืืื ืืืจืื ืืกืืจืื ืืคื ื ืฉืื ืืืืื ืืืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืจืื ืืกืืจืื ืืืจื ืฉืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืกืืจ ืกืงืืื, ืืืื ืื.ย
The opening of the Rambamโs words is strange – chapter 21 deals with a host of rabbinic laws, and so why does the Rambam open with a statement about a Torah law? The Chatam Sofer in ืืืง ื’ ืืืฉืืืืช ืกืืื ืงืฆื addresses this question in his answer to the question of whether or not a person who opens his store on shabbat or yom tov is considered to have transgressed shabbat on a Torah level. The Chatam Sofer discusses this and says that while there is no punishment of stoning for this, he is still transgressing shabbat, as he is not fulfilling the positive mitzvah of โืฉืืชืืโ that is mentioned by the Ramban. The Chatam Sofer claims that this is also the explanation for the Rambam in this halacha. In the background of the rabbinic prohibition lies a ืืืืจืืืชื mitzvah. The merchant who transgresses rabbinic prohibitions which hurt the character of the shabbat will also cause transgression of a positive Torah level mitzvah of resting.ย
Summary:
We have seen three different explanations in Rashi as to the basis of the prohibition of doing business – two of them point to a Torah law while the third states that we are dealing with a rabbinic law. With the help of the Ramban, we saw that there is a ืืืืจืืืชื mitzvah of rest on shabbat. A person who damages the unique character of shabbat by widespread transgression of rabbinic prohibitions will transgress this mitzvah as well. The Ramban helps to understand Nechemia 13 who describes Ezraโs great effort to fight the market that was active in Jerusalem on shabbatot, and also to understand the Rambamโs strange wording.ย
