Avodah Zarah 21a — the Talmud in English

And in Syria

the Sages were more lenient

they rent houses to them,

and they did not decree that if they permitted renting, they would come even to sell, for even if they sold, they would not transgress a prohibition of Torah law, since Syria is not like the Land of Israel, and the prohibition “You shall not show them favor”—you shall not give them a settlement in the land—was not said concerning it. But they do not sell houses, because it is necessary to decree lest they come to sell even in the Land of Israel —

But they do not

rent there

fields.

And the Gemara will explain why the Sages were more stringent concerning fields.

And outside the Land,

places distant from the Land of Israel, they were more lenient and said: even

they sell houses to them.

And they did not decree lest they come to sell even in the Land of Israel, because concerning houses they were lenient; but they do not sell fields to them, as a decree lest they come to sell even in the Land of Israel —

And they rent

even

fields,

and all the more so houses. And they did not decree concerning renting on account of selling, nor concerning selling outside the Land on account of selling in the Land of Israel, since this is a decree upon a decree [that is, the Sages decreed decrees and made safeguards against prohibitions, by virtue of “And you shall safeguard My safeguard,” whose meaning is that one must decree decrees and make safeguards so that people will not come to transgress Torah prohibitions. But there is no commandment in the Torah to decree decrees so that people will not transgress rabbinic decrees],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: In the Land of Israel they rent houses to them

and they did not decree lest they come to sell. But they do not sell houses to them, since this matter is a prohibition from the Torah, by virtue of “You shall not show them favor.”

But they do not

rent

fields,

as a decree lest they come to sell them to them.

And in Syria, they sell houses.

And they did not decree concerning the sale of “houses” there lest they come to sell in the Land of Israel. And all the more so they rent houses.

And they rent fields.

Because it is a decree upon a decree: renting on account of selling, and Syria on account of the Land of Israel. But they do not sell fields there, as a decree lest they come to sell in the Land of Israel.

And outside the Land,

which is distant from the Land of Israel, they decreed nothing,

and they sell both

houses and even fields.

Even in a place where they said

that it is permitted

to rent

a house [for Rabbi Yosei, even in the Land of Israel; and for Rabbi Meir, in Syria], it is permitted to rent only for the purpose of a storehouse for wood and straw, and

they did not say for a dwelling-house.

They did not permit renting to a gentile who would use it for dwelling,

because he brings idolatry into it. As it is stated

[Deuteronomy 7] “

You shall not bring an abomination into your house.”

And everywhere—

he may not rent him the public bathhouse

public

because it is called by his name

of the Israelite, and there is concern for marit ayin: one who sees that it is heated on Shabbat will think that the bath attendants are hired workers of the Israelite, and will not know that it is now rented to the gentile.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that concerning fields the Sages were stringent and decreed more than concerning houses.

And the Gemara explains why this is so.

What

is the explanation of the words of the Mishna, “

there is no need to say fields”?

What is the greater stringency of fields?

If you say,

if it is said,

because there are two [reasons] in it,

that there are two reasons for stringency concerning the field,

one,

because of the prohibition of

giving settlement in the land,

which is derived [in the preceding sugya] from what is stated, “You shall not show them favor.”

And one,

another reason: because

he removes it from the tithe,

for when the Israelite sells it to a gentile, he removes the produce of the field from terumot and tithes, because terumot and tithes will not be separated from it —

If so,

if so, it is difficult:

houses also have two [reasons],

there are also two reasons for stringency concerning houses:

one

because of

giving settlement in the land,

for there is also a prohibition of giving settlement concerning houses,

and one,

another reason,

because he removes the house from mezuzah,

for the gentile will not affix a mezuzah in the house he has purchased.

And in what is a house different from a field?

And we answer:

Rav Mesharsheya said: Mezuzah,

is not an obligation imposed upon the house, but

it is the obligation of the dweller,

the obligation is imposed upon the owner of the house, as it is stated, “Upon the doorposts of your house,” and we expound “your house” in the sense of “your entering,” that is, the commandment is imposed upon the person who enters the house and leaves it, to affix a mezuzah.

Therefore, one who sells a house to a gentile does not remove the “house” from the obligation of mezuzah, because the “house” is not obligated in mezuzah. This is unlike a field, upon which the obligation and sanctity of terumot and tithes rests.

We learned in our Mishna:

“In Syria they rent houses, but not fields … the words of Rabbi Meir.”

The Gemara thought that Rabbi Meir’s reason for prohibiting in Syria is because of a decree lest people come to permit it even in the Land of Israel; therefore we ask —

What is different about selling

how is the sale of houses different—

that it is not

that the Sages did not permit it in Syria—

because of

a decree on account of [lest they come to permit]

selling in the Land of Israel,

which is forbidden by Torah law—

and it is difficult:

if so,

if so,

let us also decree concerning renting

why did they not also decree concerning renting houses, just as it is forbidden in the Land of Israel? And we answer:

that itself,

even renting itself in the Land of Israel is not forbidden except because of a

decree—

And

would

we

we Sages

arise and decree a decree

concerning renting houses in Syria

on account of a decree,

on account of renting in the Land of Israel, which itself is only a decree?! But one does not decree a decree upon a decree.

And we ask: Is it not the case that we do decree a decree upon a decree?

But renting

of

a field in Syria, which is a decree upon a decree,

on account of renting in the Land of Israel, while renting in the Land of Israel itself is a decree on account of selling,

and we do decree

and the Sages did decree?

And we answer:

There,

in Syria,

it is not a decree

on account of the Land of Israel

itself—

Rather, Syria itself is forbidden with regard to giving settlement to a gentile, just as the Land of Israel is forbidden, because

he holds

Rabbi Meir holds:

a private conquest

that Syria was conquered by David

is called a conquest

and it was appended to the Land of Israel.

And that it is forbidden to “sell” fields or houses in them is because of the prohibition of “You shall not show them favor”—

And “renting”—concerning a field, the Sages decreed on account of selling in Syria , but concerning a house they did not decree—

And the reason for distinguishing between houses and fields is:

A field, which has two [reasons] in it,

two reasons not to sell it, both “You shall not show them favor” and because he removes tithes from it, therefore

the Rabbis decreed concerning it

on account of selling. However,

houses, which do not have two [reasons] in them,

which do not have two reasons not to sell them,

the Rabbis did not decree concerning them.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And outside the Land, they sell them houses and rent fields, the words of Rabbi Meir.”

And the Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Meir’s view.

A field, which has two [reasons] in it—

the Rabbis decreed concerning them

not to sell outside the Land, lest they come to permit selling in the Land of Israel [and they did not decree concerning renting because it is a decree upon a decree].

Houses, which do not have two [reasons] in them, the Rabbis did not decree concerning them

even concerning the sale of houses.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Rabbi Yosei says: In the Land of Israel they rent houses to them, but not fields.”

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s reason:

What is the reason

of Rabbi Yosei, that he did not decree concerning renting houses in the Land of Israel on account of selling houses, just as he decreed concerning renting fields on account of selling fields?

Fields, which have two [reasons] in them, the Rabbis decreed concerning them.

But

houses, which do not have two [reasons] in them—

the Rabbis did not decree concerning them

even in the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Yosei said further:

“And in Syria, they sell houses and rent fields.”

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

of Rabbi Yosei, that he decreed concerning selling fields in Syria, and why did he not decree concerning selling houses?

He holds

Rabbi Yosei,

a private conquest is not called a conquest.

And the conquest of Syria, which was in the category of a private conquest, does not sanctify it with the sanctity of the Land of Israel; therefore, the law of Syria remains like that of outside the Land, and by Torah law it is permitted to sell houses and even fields there.

And

therefore,

a field, which has two [reasons] in it—

the Rabbis decreed concerning it

selling fields on account of selling in the Land of Israel. But concerning renting fields they did not decree, because it is a decree upon a decree—

Houses, which do not have two [reasons] in them—

the Rabbis did not decree concerning them

even concerning selling, on account of selling in the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Yosei said further:

“And outside the Land, they sell both.”

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Why did they decree nothing at all?

Since it is distant,

since it is far from the Land of Israel,

we do not decree

at all; whereas in Syria they decreed to some extent, since it is near the Land of Israel.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei.

Rav Yosef said:

Although the halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei, and it is permitted to rent houses to gentiles in the Land of Israel and to sell in Syria [and outside the Land],

provided that he does not make it a neighborhood

of gentiles.

And how much

is it

a neighborhood?

A tanna,

we learned in a beraita:

A neighborhood is no fewer than three people.

And we clarify: It implies that it is permitted to sell to two,

but let us be concerned,

for there is reason for concern,

perhaps

lest

this Israelite go,

that is, perhaps the Israelite will go

and sell,

and indeed sell only

to one gentile, and

but afterward

he will go,

that gentile will go and divide his house into three parts, leaving one for himself,

and

the other two

he will sell to two

he will sell to two other gentiles, and it turns out that there is here a neighborhood of three gentiles?

Abaye said: “Regarding ‘before,’ we are instructed,

we are commanded not to sell to many gentiles, whereas

regarding ‘before-before’ we are not instructed.

We are not commanded to be concerned lest the gentile who purchases make a neighborhood from it, for it is a remote concern.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Even in a place where they said to rent”—

“they did not say [this] for a dwelling.”

And the Gemara infers the wording, “in a place where they said to rent”—

From this

you learn

that there is a place

where there are places

where they do not rent.

For it is forbidden to rent houses to gentiles.