אם מותר לישראל לומר לעכו"ם ע"ש הילך מעות וקנה לי בשוק פירות אווזין ותרנגולין אם נאמר כיון שנתן לו מעות עם השמש מותר כב"ה שמתירין בכולם עם השמש או אם נאמר שיש נדנוד עבירה:
Regarding the permissibility of a Jew telling a non-Jew before Shabbat: Here are some coins, go buy me some fruit, geese, and chickens! Do we say here that since the coins were given during daytime on Friday, it is permitted, in accordance with Beit Hillel1See Mishnah Shabbat 1:8? Or do we consider this to be close to a transgression?
2
והשיבו אע"פ שמותר ד"ז אין מורים לשום אדם אלא לצנועים, שמא יראו הרואים ויפרצו הגדר:
They responded: even though this is permitted, we only share this ruling with the pious, lest it is seen is public and the masses come to transgress.*The language of the question comes from a responsum of Rav Saadia Gaon, who forbids this practice of asking a non-Jew to buy on Shabbat. The responsum is quoted by the Rosh on Bava Metzia 7:6:1, and although Saadia's reasoning is rejected, it seems that he agrees with the ruling - although maybe the ambiguity reflects something of the answer given here.
אם מותר לישראל לומר לעכו"ם ע"ש הילך מעות וקנה לי בשוק פירות אווזין ותרנגולין אם נאמר כיון שנתן לו מעות עם השמש מותר כב"ה שמתירין בכולם עם השמש או אם נאמר שיש נדנוד עבירה:
Regarding the permissibility of a Jew telling a non-Jew before Shabbat: Here are some coins, go buy me some fruit, geese, and chickens! Do we say here that since the coins were given during daytime on Friday, it is permitted, in accordance with Beit Hillel1See Mishnah Shabbat 1:8? Or do we consider this to be close to a transgression?
והשיבו אע"פ שמותר ד"ז אין מורים לשום אדם אלא לצנועים, שמא יראו הרואים ויפרצו הגדר:
They responded: even though this is permitted, we only share this ruling with the pious, lest it is seen is public and the masses come to transgress.*The language of the question comes from a responsum of Rav Saadia Gaon, who forbids this practice of asking a non-Jew to buy on Shabbat. The responsum is quoted by the Rosh on Bava Metzia 7:6:1, and although Saadia's reasoning is rejected, it seems that he agrees with the ruling - although maybe the ambiguity reflects something of the answer given here.