שוכ"ט לידידי הרב המופלג והמופלא כמו"ה שלמה נ"י אב"ד דק"ק העלישטאבע יע"א:
Peace and good wishes to my dear friend, our honorable teacher, the brilliant and wondrous Rabbi Shlomo, Head of the Court of the holy congregation of Halishtaba, God should protect them.
2
גי"ה קבלתי ע"ד השוחט מיכאל ראב שוחט בכפר א' פגע באיש א' נכבד כה' מיכאל פשקיז מקהלתו דמעלתו והתל בו שילדה אשתו של השוחט בן זכר ושמכבדו במצות מילת בנו באשר ידע המהתל ההוא כי הנכבד ר' מיכאל מהדר מאוד על מצוה זו וביום א' העבר נסע ר' מיכאל מהלך ארבעה שעות מקהלתו לכפר ההוא והנה שיקר בו ונקבה ילדה והי' לשחוק בעיני כל ונפשו בשאלתו וכן הגאון אבדק"ק ס"ה שואל אם יש להעביר השוחט מאומנתו על מעשה הנ"ל או מה לעשות לו:
I received the seal of his holy hand about [a question] regarding the shochet (ritual slaughterer) Michael Raab, the shochet of a certain village: He met a certain honorable man, the honorable Rabbi Michael Pashkez, from your esteemed congregation and he mocked him, [telling him] that the shochet's wife gave birth to a son, and that he would honor him [to perform] the commandment of his son's circumcision - the mocker knowing that the honorable Rabbi Michael was very devoted to this commandment. So last Sunday, Rabbi Michael traveled four hours from his community to that village [to do the circumcision]. And behold, he lied to him - she had given birth to a girl. So he was a laughing stock in front of everyone [there]. And 'his soul is wrapped up in this question': And likewise does the luminary head of the court ask whether the shochet should be removed from his profession because of the deed mentioned above or what [else] to do to him?
3
הנה יש בכאן דיני ממונות ודיני אונאה ואחרון ראשון כי אינה חברו בדברים עכ"פ ואחז"ל בגדר לאו דלא תונו בב"מ נ"ח ע"ב אם הי' חמרים מבקשים תבואה ממנו ואמר להם לכו אצל פלוני שהוא מוכר תבואה ויודע בו שלא מכר לעולם ופסקו בש"ע סי' רכ"ח ס"ד ובכיוון אחז"ל אמר לחמרים שבאו בלא"ה לעיר לקנות תבואה ולא גרם להם שום הפסד אלא שמבקשים להודיעם מי המוכר והוא מהתל בהם בדברים עובר על לאו דלא תונו ועי"ז שפטו בריש פסחים על ההוא ארמאי דסליק לאכול פסחים וכו' דמאי דקמן דידע ריב"ב אינו מהתל דא"כ עובר על לאו דלא תונו וה"נ אלו הי' הר"ר מיכאל דר בכפר והי' השוחט מהתל בו עד שבא לבה"כ כמוהל ונמצא שאין כאן בן למול הי' עובר על לאו הזה וחז"ל החמירו בזה עד שהשוו לעע"ז שם ל"ט ע"א ג' אין הפרגוד נועלים:
Behold here we have [issues related] to monetary laws and laws of exploitation. And the latter is primary, since he in any case verbally exploited his fellow. And our Sages, may their memory be blessed, said in Bava Metzia 58b regarding the parameters of the negative commandment, “Do not exploit,” “If donkey drivers are asking to purchase grain from someone, and he has none, he may not say to them: Go to so-and-so, as he sells grain, if he knows about him that he never sold grain at all.” And the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228:4 rules [like this]. And the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said with precision that one who said [this] to donkey drivers who regardless had come to a city to purchase grain, so no loss was caused to them, except that they requested that he inform them who sells [grain] and he mocked them with his words - violates the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” And they judged accordingly in the beginning of Pesachim 3b about the Aramean who came up [and tricked the Jews] to eat from the Pesach sacrifices, etc. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteirah [who thwarted the Aramean’s trickery, by misleading him] knew that it was not considered mocking; otherwise he would have been in violation of “Do not exploit.” Here too, [even] had the rabbi, Rabbi Michael, lived in the village and the shochet mocked him to the point that he came to the synagogue to do the circumcision and found that there was no boy there to circumcise, he would have [still] violated this negative commandment. And our Sages were stringent about this over there, to the point that they likened it to worshiping idols (Bava Metzia 39a): “[There are] three [sins before whose transgressors] the curtain [between the world and the Divine Presence] is not locked (meaning, their sins reach the Divine Presence).”
4
בדיני ממונות השוכר הפועל לעשות לו מלאכה ונמצא שאין לו מזה לא דברו חז"ל ממהתל פושע ומאנה דברשעי לא עסקי' אלא שלא ביקר שדהו סי' של"ג סוף סעי' א' ואמנם בפועל מצוה כגון מלמד ללמוד עם בנו מבואר בסס"י של"ד דנותן לו שכרו משלם דיותר נח וכו' וה"נ יותר נוח לו למול ולקבל שכר שמים של פסיעות הולך ב' פרסאות מצוה מלישב בטל וא"כ צריך לשלם לו שכרו משלם ושכר מילה הוא עשרה זהו' ושכר פסיעות אין בידי לשער ופליגי פוסקים בסי' שפ"ב אי שכרו קצוב או לפי ראות עיני הדיינים ונ"ל דהך שיעורא הוא ההפרש שבין שכר עושה בפועל ובין חשב לעשות ונאנס ולא עשה וק"ל וצ"ע קצת בעובדא דרבי וצדוקי ס"פ כיסו הדם:
In monetary law [regarding] one who employs a worker to do work and it comes out that there was none; it is not about this that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, were talking about - one who is a mocker, a sinner and an oppressor - as 'we are not dealing with evildoers,' but rather when [the employer] did not survey his field (Choshen Mishpat 333:1 at the end). However in the case of [work that involves a] commandment - such as a teacher to teach one's child - it is explained in Choshen Mishpat 334:4, that [the employer] gives him his wages in full. [This is not like other workers who get the lower wage ascribed to a job that involves no actual work], because it is preferable to him [to do a commandment than to be involved with nothing]. And here too, it is preferable to him to do a circumcision and to receive the reward from heaven for his travels of walking two parsa than to sit idly. And if so, [the shochet] needs to pay him his wages in full. And his wage for the circumcision is ten gold coins, but I am not able to assess the wage for his travels. And the legal scholars debate about Shulchan Aruch 382(?), whether his payment should be a set fee or according to what is fit in the eyes of the judges. And it would seem to me that this amount should be the difference between the wage of one who actually did [the work] and one who thought to do it but was prevented and did not do it. And that is simple to me, but [then] the case of of Rabbi and the Sadducee at the end of the chapter [entitled] Kisui HaDam requires a little further study.
5
אך בזה"ז אין גובי' כמבואר שם אך חוזר הדבר למ"ש סי' א' סעי' ה' ועוד שם סעי' ו' ויען אין לנו רשות ממלכות לנדות ואמנם מדינא הנידוי לגרשו מבה"כ ושלא למול את בנו ומכל הנראה לב"ד כמבואר בי"ד סי' של"ד סעי' ו' ברמ"א וש"ך סקי"ט ומכ"ש דאיכא עלי' רשעת לאו דלא תונו פשיטא שיכולים להעבירו מאומנתו עד שיפייס את שכנגדו בכל מה שראוי' לפי הנ"ל ולקבל תשובתו על חוצפתו ולאו של אונאה ועד אז אני מסכים להעבירו אם קבלו ב"ד טענת הצדדי' ואמתלאותם וימצא את השוחט חייב כנ"ל כל זה כתבתי בחפזי הכ"ד א"נ. פ"ב יום ב' ער"ח ניסן תקצ"ה לפ"ק. משה"ק סופר מפפד"מ:
However, in our times, we do not collect [these fees], as is explained there. Rather the matter returns to that which is written in Choshen Mishpat 1:5, and also there in 1:6, and because we do not have the authority from the government to expel him [from the congregation]. However, [we do have the authority] to excommunicate him from the synagogue, and to not circumcise his son. And [they may apply sanctions against him, according] to everything that appears correct to the court, as is explained in Yoreh Deah 334:6 in Remah, and in Shakh 19; and all the more so since he possesses the evil of [violating] the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” It is obvious that they may remove him from his profession, until he satisfies the plaintiff - with all that is fitting, according to that which is mentioned above - and [they] accept his repentance regarding his brazenness and [his violation of] the negative commandment of exploitation. But until then, I am in agreement to remove him from his profession; [assuming] the court receives statements from both sides and ratifies them, and finds the shochet to be liable according to all that is mentioned above. I have written all of this 'in my haste.' Such are my words, honored sir. Pressburg, Erev Rosh Chodesh Nissan 5595 according to our count (Monday, March 30, 1835), Moshe Sofer the Small from Frankfurt am Main
שוכ"ט לידידי הרב המופלג והמופלא כמו"ה שלמה נ"י אב"ד דק"ק העלישטאבע יע"א:
Peace and good wishes to my dear friend, our honorable teacher, the brilliant and wondrous Rabbi Shlomo, Head of the Court of the holy congregation of Halishtaba, God should protect them.
גי"ה קבלתי ע"ד השוחט מיכאל ראב שוחט בכפר א' פגע באיש א' נכבד כה' מיכאל פשקיז מקהלתו דמעלתו והתל בו שילדה אשתו של השוחט בן זכר ושמכבדו במצות מילת בנו באשר ידע המהתל ההוא כי הנכבד ר' מיכאל מהדר מאוד על מצוה זו וביום א' העבר נסע ר' מיכאל מהלך ארבעה שעות מקהלתו לכפר ההוא והנה שיקר בו ונקבה ילדה והי' לשחוק בעיני כל ונפשו בשאלתו וכן הגאון אבדק"ק ס"ה שואל אם יש להעביר השוחט מאומנתו על מעשה הנ"ל או מה לעשות לו:
I received the seal of his holy hand about [a question] regarding the shochet (ritual slaughterer) Michael Raab, the shochet of a certain village: He met a certain honorable man, the honorable Rabbi Michael Pashkez, from your esteemed congregation and he mocked him, [telling him] that the shochet's wife gave birth to a son, and that he would honor him [to perform] the commandment of his son's circumcision - the mocker knowing that the honorable Rabbi Michael was very devoted to this commandment. So last Sunday, Rabbi Michael traveled four hours from his community to that village [to do the circumcision]. And behold, he lied to him - she had given birth to a girl. So he was a laughing stock in front of everyone [there]. And 'his soul is wrapped up in this question': And likewise does the luminary head of the court ask whether the shochet should be removed from his profession because of the deed mentioned above or what [else] to do to him?
הנה יש בכאן דיני ממונות ודיני אונאה ואחרון ראשון כי אינה חברו בדברים עכ"פ ואחז"ל בגדר לאו דלא תונו בב"מ נ"ח ע"ב אם הי' חמרים מבקשים תבואה ממנו ואמר להם לכו אצל פלוני שהוא מוכר תבואה ויודע בו שלא מכר לעולם ופסקו בש"ע סי' רכ"ח ס"ד ובכיוון אחז"ל אמר לחמרים שבאו בלא"ה לעיר לקנות תבואה ולא גרם להם שום הפסד אלא שמבקשים להודיעם מי המוכר והוא מהתל בהם בדברים עובר על לאו דלא תונו ועי"ז שפטו בריש פסחים על ההוא ארמאי דסליק לאכול פסחים וכו' דמאי דקמן דידע ריב"ב אינו מהתל דא"כ עובר על לאו דלא תונו וה"נ אלו הי' הר"ר מיכאל דר בכפר והי' השוחט מהתל בו עד שבא לבה"כ כמוהל ונמצא שאין כאן בן למול הי' עובר על לאו הזה וחז"ל החמירו בזה עד שהשוו לעע"ז שם ל"ט ע"א ג' אין הפרגוד נועלים:
Behold here we have [issues related] to monetary laws and laws of exploitation. And the latter is primary, since he in any case verbally exploited his fellow. And our Sages, may their memory be blessed, said in Bava Metzia 58b regarding the parameters of the negative commandment, “Do not exploit,” “If donkey drivers are asking to purchase grain from someone, and he has none, he may not say to them: Go to so-and-so, as he sells grain, if he knows about him that he never sold grain at all.” And the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228:4 rules [like this]. And the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said with precision that one who said [this] to donkey drivers who regardless had come to a city to purchase grain, so no loss was caused to them, except that they requested that he inform them who sells [grain] and he mocked them with his words - violates the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” And they judged accordingly in the beginning of Pesachim 3b about the Aramean who came up [and tricked the Jews] to eat from the Pesach sacrifices, etc. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteirah [who thwarted the Aramean’s trickery, by misleading him] knew that it was not considered mocking; otherwise he would have been in violation of “Do not exploit.” Here too, [even] had the rabbi, Rabbi Michael, lived in the village and the shochet mocked him to the point that he came to the synagogue to do the circumcision and found that there was no boy there to circumcise, he would have [still] violated this negative commandment. And our Sages were stringent about this over there, to the point that they likened it to worshiping idols (Bava Metzia 39a): “[There are] three [sins before whose transgressors] the curtain [between the world and the Divine Presence] is not locked (meaning, their sins reach the Divine Presence).”
בדיני ממונות השוכר הפועל לעשות לו מלאכה ונמצא שאין לו מזה לא דברו חז"ל ממהתל פושע ומאנה דברשעי לא עסקי' אלא שלא ביקר שדהו סי' של"ג סוף סעי' א' ואמנם בפועל מצוה כגון מלמד ללמוד עם בנו מבואר בסס"י של"ד דנותן לו שכרו משלם דיותר נח וכו' וה"נ יותר נוח לו למול ולקבל שכר שמים של פסיעות הולך ב' פרסאות מצוה מלישב בטל וא"כ צריך לשלם לו שכרו משלם ושכר מילה הוא עשרה זהו' ושכר פסיעות אין בידי לשער ופליגי פוסקים בסי' שפ"ב אי שכרו קצוב או לפי ראות עיני הדיינים ונ"ל דהך שיעורא הוא ההפרש שבין שכר עושה בפועל ובין חשב לעשות ונאנס ולא עשה וק"ל וצ"ע קצת בעובדא דרבי וצדוקי ס"פ כיסו הדם:
In monetary law [regarding] one who employs a worker to do work and it comes out that there was none; it is not about this that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, were talking about - one who is a mocker, a sinner and an oppressor - as 'we are not dealing with evildoers,' but rather when [the employer] did not survey his field (Choshen Mishpat 333:1 at the end). However in the case of [work that involves a] commandment - such as a teacher to teach one's child - it is explained in Choshen Mishpat 334:4, that [the employer] gives him his wages in full. [This is not like other workers who get the lower wage ascribed to a job that involves no actual work], because it is preferable to him [to do a commandment than to be involved with nothing]. And here too, it is preferable to him to do a circumcision and to receive the reward from heaven for his travels of walking two parsa than to sit idly. And if so, [the shochet] needs to pay him his wages in full. And his wage for the circumcision is ten gold coins, but I am not able to assess the wage for his travels. And the legal scholars debate about Shulchan Aruch 382(?), whether his payment should be a set fee or according to what is fit in the eyes of the judges. And it would seem to me that this amount should be the difference between the wage of one who actually did [the work] and one who thought to do it but was prevented and did not do it. And that is simple to me, but [then] the case of of Rabbi and the Sadducee at the end of the chapter [entitled] Kisui HaDam requires a little further study.
אך בזה"ז אין גובי' כמבואר שם אך חוזר הדבר למ"ש סי' א' סעי' ה' ועוד שם סעי' ו' ויען אין לנו רשות ממלכות לנדות ואמנם מדינא הנידוי לגרשו מבה"כ ושלא למול את בנו ומכל הנראה לב"ד כמבואר בי"ד סי' של"ד סעי' ו' ברמ"א וש"ך סקי"ט ומכ"ש דאיכא עלי' רשעת לאו דלא תונו פשיטא שיכולים להעבירו מאומנתו עד שיפייס את שכנגדו בכל מה שראוי' לפי הנ"ל ולקבל תשובתו על חוצפתו ולאו של אונאה ועד אז אני מסכים להעבירו אם קבלו ב"ד טענת הצדדי' ואמתלאותם וימצא את השוחט חייב כנ"ל כל זה כתבתי בחפזי הכ"ד א"נ. פ"ב יום ב' ער"ח ניסן תקצ"ה לפ"ק. משה"ק סופר מפפד"מ:
However, in our times, we do not collect [these fees], as is explained there. Rather the matter returns to that which is written in Choshen Mishpat 1:5, and also there in 1:6, and because we do not have the authority from the government to expel him [from the congregation]. However, [we do have the authority] to excommunicate him from the synagogue, and to not circumcise his son. And [they may apply sanctions against him, according] to everything that appears correct to the court, as is explained in Yoreh Deah 334:6 in Remah, and in Shakh 19; and all the more so since he possesses the evil of [violating] the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” It is obvious that they may remove him from his profession, until he satisfies the plaintiff - with all that is fitting, according to that which is mentioned above - and [they] accept his repentance regarding his brazenness and [his violation of] the negative commandment of exploitation. But until then, I am in agreement to remove him from his profession; [assuming] the court receives statements from both sides and ratifies them, and finds the shochet to be liable according to all that is mentioned above. I have written all of this 'in my haste.' Such are my words, honored sir. Pressburg, Erev Rosh Chodesh Nissan 5595 according to our count (Monday, March 30, 1835), Moshe Sofer the Small from Frankfurt am Main