Avodah Zarah 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

And

this indicates that the latter clause of the Mishna was taught

anonymously, in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

According to his view, there are places where it is permitted to rent out property, but not in every place, since in Eretz Yisrael it is prohibited to rent out houses.

If it is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, however, then everywhere,

even in Eretz Yisrael,

they rent out

and it is permitted to rent out houses. Why, then, did the Mishna use the phrase “and in a place where they said that it is permitted to rent out”?

Rather, this indicates that our Mishna is an anonymous Mishna and follows the view of Rabbi Meir.

We learned in our Mishna:

And everywhere, one may not rent out his bathhouse to him, because it is known by his name.

And the Gemara cites a beraita dealing with renting out a bathhouse to a gentile.

It was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A person should not rent out

[rent it out]

his bathhouse to a gentile, because

the bathhouse

is known by his name

of the Jew,

and this gentile

performs work there on Shabbat and Festivals.

And one who sees the bathhouse attendants heating water on Shabbat will say that they are agents of the Jew.

And the Gemara infers from the fact that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel prohibited renting it to a “gentile” but did not also prohibit renting it to a “Kuti” —that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it is permitted to rent a bathhouse to a “Kuti”—

The Kutim, as explained, were a people who lived in Eretz Yisrael, and according to several tannaim they converted and had the status of Jews, although they did not observe all Jewish laws, but only some of them.

But as for a Kuti, what

is the law?

It is permitted.

It is permitted to rent a bathhouse to him, because

a Kuti, I would say

when

would he perform work there? During the intermediate days of a Festival—

For the Kutim are not suspected of heating water on Shabbat. Had they been suspected of violating the prohibitions against labor on Shabbat, it would indeed have been prohibited to rent a bathhouse to them. Rather, the Kutim do not heed the rabbinic exposition that prohibits performing certain types of labor during the intermediate days of a Festival. Therefore, the only concern that might lead one not to rent a bathhouse to them is that they might heat it during the intermediate days of a Festival. But there is no reason for concern, since this is permitted, as

during the intermediate days of a Festival

we too perform such work,

as we, the Jewish people, are also permitted to heat bathhouses during the intermediate days of a Festival. Therefore, it is permitted to rent one to them.

The Gemara further infers from the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

From the fact that he prohibited a “bathhouse,” it follows that

but

renting

his field to a gentile,

[for example, outside Eretz Yisrael, where renting out a field was not prohibited because of the prohibition “You shall not show them favor,”]

what

does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel hold?

It is permitted

and is allowed.

For he prohibited only a “bathhouse,” but not a “field.”

What is the reason?

Why is it permitted to rent a field to him, given that the gentile performs work there on Shabbat, and the field is known by the name of the Jew, so that people will suspect that his agents are working the field on Shabbat?

The reason is that they will not suspect the Jew, because

the tenant farmer

the gentile who rents the field and is a tenant farmer in it, receiving a share of the field’s produce—

performs the work of his tenancy

he works for himself, in exchange for the share due to him, and does not work on behalf of the Jew.

And we raise a difficulty: If so, why did they prohibit a bathhouse?

A bathhouse too,

when the gentile rents it,

they will say

the observers will say:

The tenant farmer performs the work of his tenancy,

working for himself and not on behalf of the Jew.

Why, then, did they prohibit a bathhouse but permit a field?

And we answer:

People do not make a bathhouse into a tenancy,

for people are not accustomed to rent out a bathhouse to others, and it remains associated with the Jew’s name. Therefore, it is prohibited.

The Gemara now cites another beraita concerning renting out a field to a “Kuti.”

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A person may not rent out his field to a Kuti, because

the field

is known by his name

of the Jew,

and this Kuti performs work there during the intermediate days of a Festival,

and it is prohibited to perform fieldwork during the intermediate days of a Festival.

And the Gemara infers from Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s words, as he said “Kuti,” that

but

renting out a field to a

gentile

[in a place where there is no prohibition or decree against renting out a field to gentiles]

what

does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar hold?

It is permitted,

and is allowed.

And the reason is that

because

those who see the gentile working in the field

will say

they will say:

A tenant farmer—

he performs the work of his tenancy,

working the field for himself as a tenant farmer.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

if this is the reason for permitting it, why did he prohibit renting to a Kuti? After all,

a Kuti too—

they will say

the observers will say:

A tenant farmer—

he performs the work of his tenancy?

What, then, is the reason for distinguishing between a gentile and a Kuti?