Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 148

1) BORROWING OBJECTS ON SHABBOS

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a person borrows an item on Shabbos, he should ask to borrow it by saying, "Hash'ileini" and not "Halveini." The difference between these two terms is that "Hash'ileini" refers to borrowing an object that will be returned exactly as it was lent. "Halveini" refers to borrowing an object that will not be returned itself, but something else of equal value will be returned in its place (for example, when one borrows money, he never returns the same coins and bills that he borrowed, but he returns other coins and bills).

Why should it make a difference what term one uses to borrow an item on Shabbos?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that a person is only permitted to use a term which shows that he is borrowing the item for a short period of time. If he uses a term which *shows* that he wants to borrow it for a long period of time, the Rabanan were afraid that the lender might make a written record of the loan on Shabbos. The RITVA adds that it is not even permitted to specifically state, "Halveini, for a short period of time."

(b) TOSFOS explains that the only reason one must say "Hash'ileini" is in order to make a noticeable difference in the way that one usually does something (as the Gemara concludes). By saying "Hash'ileini" when one borrows wine or bread on Shabbos, a term not usually used in such a manner, one remembers that it is Shabbos and will not write a record of the loan.

The RAN adds that in foreign languages in which only one term is used to refer to both "Hash'ileini" and "Halveini" (such as English), a person must still make some sort of change from his usual mode of expression (for example, he should say "Please *give* it to me" instead "Please *lend* it to me").

(c) The RITVA and TOSFOS RID explain that it is not even permitted to say "Hash'ileini," since most people do not know the difference between "Hash'ileini" and "Halveini." Furthermore, the person of our Mishnah is not actually borrowing the item. Rather, he is buying it, and he intends to pay money in return for it.

When the Mishnah says that one should say, "Hash'ileini," it means that he may only keep the item for a *short* amount of time before paying. That is, it does not mean that he must only *say* "Hash'ileini," but rather that he must specify that he is taking the object for a short period of time.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 307:11) records the opinion of Rashi, as well as the Ran's opinion that in a language which does not differentiate between "Hash'ileini" and "Halveini," one should make some change in the normal way of asking to borrow an item.

The MISHNAH BERURAH (307:43) cites the PRI MEGADIM who adds that even when borrowing an item of a Mitzvah, such as a Sefer, one should not use the same term that one normally uses to borrow an item.

148b

The Gemara says that if someone is transgressing a rabbinical prohibition, unaware that the act is prohibited, one should not rebuke him if he knows that the transgressor will continue sinning knowingly ("Mutav sh'Yehu Shogegin v'Al Yehu Mezidin"). This concept does not apply, though, to prohibitions that are written in the Torah.

The Poskim (OC 608:2) discuss the details that are relevant to this Halachah in practice:

(a) A person must rebuke someone who *willfully* sins, even if one feels certain that the sinner will not heed the rebuke. If a person is transgressing a prohibition that is written *explicitly* in the Torah, it is assumed that he knows that it is forbidden and he is sinning intentionally, and therefore one must rebuke him and tell him to stop sinning.

(b) If one sees that the wrongdoer is not accepting the rebuke, then one should continue to rebuke him until the wrongdoer gets upset and yells at him. However, this rebuke should be administered in private and not in public (one rebukes a sinner in public only once). Also, if the sin was committed in private, one should rebuke the sinner only in private.

The Bi'ur Halachah (608 DH Chayav) writes in the name of Sefer Chasidim (#413) that one does not need to rebuke a person until the person yells at him unless he feels close to the person (that is, they know each other well and there is a chance that the rebuke will be accepted).

(It is important to remember that the point of rebuke is *exclusively* to bring the wrongdoer back to the just ways of Hashem and His Mitzvos, and not to reprimand the sinner. Depending on the level of scholarship of the person who sinned, rebuke must be administered in different ways in order to be effective.)

(c) However, if the person is committing a sin that is not stated explicitly in the Torah, or one that is prohibited mid'Rabanan (and it is not evident that he knows it is forbidden), then if one knows for sure that the sinner is not going to listen to the rebuke, he is not required to tell the sinner to stop, because rebuking him will only make his sin worse (by changing it from an unintentional sin to an intentional one).

If there is a *possibility* that he might listen to the rebuke, then one is obligated to rebuke him (as the Gemara said on 55a).

From the fact that the Mishnah says that one may *not* borrow bread on *Shabbos* by using the term "Halveini," the Gemara infers that it is *permissible* to borrow bread during the *week*, even without assessing the value of the bread. The Gemara therefore asserts that the Mishnah does not agree with the opinion of Hillel, who maintains that one must first assess the value of the bread in order to avoid any question of paying back with interest.

Why must the Gemara *infer* that the Mishnah maintains that it is permissible to borrow bread during the week without assessing its value? The Mishnah stated *explicitly* that it is permissible to borrow bread on Shabbos when one uses the term "Hash'ileini?"

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHBA answers that even Hillel would agree that one may borrow bread on Shabbos by saying "Hash'ileini" without assessing its value, because "Hash'ileini" implies a short-term loan and there is no fear that the price of wheat will rise in such a short amount of time.

(b) RAV MOSHE MORDECHAI KARP, in his notes on the Rashba (Oraisa edition), suggests two more answers. The MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 242:2) rules that for the sake of honoring Shabbos, it is permissible to take a loan with a type of interest which is Rabbinically prohibited (such as the type that Hillel is discussing). Therefore, the fact that one may borrow a load of bread on Shabbos does not show that it is also permitted during the week.

(c) Rav Karp adds that TOSFOS (149b, DH B'nei) says that Hillel himself would permit borrowing bread with the term "Hash'ileini." He only prohibits using the phrase "Halveini" because that makes it look like a real loan, to which the laws of interest apply. This may also be Rashi's intent here (in DH Ha b'Chol).