Avodah Zarah 22a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: the reasoning is that a sharecropper

arisuta

performs;

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar does not hold of this.

He does not maintain this view, and therefore he did not permit renting to a Kuti.

And we challenge:

But

if so, regarding renting to a

gentile, what is the reason that it is permitted?

After all, he will perform work there on Shabbat, and people will say that the workers are agents of the Jew. And in what way is a Kuti different from a gentile?

And we answer: It is permitted to rent to a gentile, since

we say to him “

Do not perform work on Shabbat,”

and he obeys,

he listens to our voice and does not perform work —

But

the Kuti—

does not obey.

He does not listen to our voice, and he performs work during the intermediate days of the festival,

for he says,

he thinks to himself:

I have learned more than you,

I have learned more than you, and I know that it is permitted to perform fieldwork during the intermediate days of the festival. For the Kutim do not acknowledge the Sages’ exposition forbidding work during the intermediate days of the festival.

And we challenge:

If so,

if the matter is so, that the Kuti transgresses a prohibition,

why particularly

did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar speak and explain that the reason for the prohibition against renting a field to a Kuti is

because it is called by his name,

which is a relatively lenient reason, merely because of suspicion?

Let him derive it,

he could have found a more serious reason,

because

the Jew who rents it causes him to stumble in a prohibition, and transgresses

“You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind”!?

Granted, in the case of a gentile, “before the blind” does not apply in our case, since he was not warned concerning the work of Shabbat. But the Kuti is a convert, and is commanded concerning the mitzvot like a Jew?

And we answer:

“One thing and another,” he said.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated both reasons for prohibiting renting to a Kuti:

one thing,

one reason,

because of ‘before the blind.’

And another,

because it is called by his name.

And now the Gemara discusses a Jew and a gentile who are partners, who received a field as sharecroppers: are they permitted to divide the work between them in such a manner that the Jew works one weekday in exchange for the gentile’s work on Shabbat? In what manner is it permitted, and in what manner is it forbidden because the gentile works on Shabbat as the Jew’s “agent”?

And the Gemara relates an incident that occurred involving

those gardeners,

those gardeners who sowed saffron gardens,

in which the gentile took Shabbat,

he took for his share to perform the sharecropping work [plowing, sowing, and harvesting] on Shabbat,

and the Jew

performed the garden work

on the first day of the week,

on Sunday.

They came before Rava.

They came before Rava to ask whether it was permitted to do so.

He permitted it for them.

Rava permitted it for them.

Ravina raised an objection to Rava

from a beraita that we learned:

A Jew and a gentile who received a field

to be sharecroppers in it

in partnership,

and the work was imposed upon both of them,

the Jew may not say to the gentile: “Take your portion”

at the time of harvesting or at the time of vintage, in exchange for your labor

on Shabbat, and I

will take my portion in exchange for my labor

on a weekday.

For on every day the work is imposed upon both of them; it follows that the gentile performs the Jew’s agency during half of Shabbat.

But if they stipulated from the outset

this condition—“Take your portion on Shabbat, and I will take my portion on a weekday”—before the work was imposed upon them, namely, before they received the field as sharecroppers in partnership,

it is permitted.

Because the work was not imposed upon the Jew on Shabbat; therefore, all the profits of the day of Shabbat belong to the gentile, and the gentile does not perform the Jew’s agency.

And the beraita continues and explains another manner, which is forbidden to do: when they did not stipulate this at the beginning of accepting the partnership, but accepted it without specification, and the gentile worked on Shabbat [without the Jew’s instruction] and the Jew worked opposite him on a weekday,

and

in the end,

if they came to an accounting,

they calculated between themselves how many days the Jew worked and how many the gentile worked, and according to this accounting they divided the produce of the field,

it is forbidden

for the Jew to take on account of his day, which he worked in exchange for Shabbat. For now he reveals that the gentile worked on Shabbat in exchange for the Jew, and that the gentile was his agent to work for him on Shabbat.

And from this beraita Ravina challenged Rava concerning his permitting “those gardeners” to divide their proceeds, a weekday in exchange for Shabbat?

He was embarrassed,

Rava became embarrassed by this question, because he thought that he had erred in his ruling of halakha.

In the end, the matter became clear,

it became known that Rava had indeed ruled correctly, because

they had stipulated from the outset.

“Those gardeners” had stipulated between themselves before accepting the work that the gentile would undertake to work throughout the entire day of Shabbat, and the Jew would work throughout the entire first day of the week; and in this manner the beraita permitted it.

Rav Gavihah of Bei Katil said:

The incident did not happen this way. Rather,

those

gardeners

had saplings of orla.

They received a field in partnership in order to plant trees in it and, in return for this, to receive half of the fruit for both of them.

The gentile ate the two years of orla.

That is to say, the gentile planted the trees and attended to their cultivation alone throughout all three years of orla, and took for himself all the portion of the fruit that grew during those three years;

and the Jew

performed the fieldwork during the following three years, and the Jew alone ate the fruit of

the two years of permissibility,

the following years after the years of orla.

They came before Rava,

to ask whether they had acted according to law, and whether the fruit had not become forbidden because of an exchange for orla fruit;

he permitted it for them,

and permitted them to do so, because there is no aspect here that would cause a prohibition. For the Jew did not commit any transgression, even though the gentile performed his work during the first three years as the Jew’s agent, since it is permitted even for the Jew himself to work and cultivate trees of orla. And likewise, it is not to be prohibited because it turns out that the Jew eats fruit of other years in exchange for the orla fruit that the gentile ate [and orla is forbidden in benefit], because this is the rule of partners: each one receives the fruit of the year in which he works, and this is not a division of fruit in exchange for fruit.

And the Gemara challenges Rav Gavihah of Bei Katil: How did he relate that the incident concerned orla?

But Ravina raised an objection to Rava.

For Ravina challenged him from a beraita that was taught concerning the laws of Shabbat; and if the incident involved orla fruit, why did Ravina challenge Rava from a beraita dealing with the laws of Shabbat concerning Rava’s permission regarding orla? What connection is there between Shabbat, concerning which it is forbidden for a Jew to tell a gentile to perform fieldwork as the Jew’s agent, and orla, concerning which it is permitted even for the Jew himself to work in the field during the years of orla? And the Gemara answers: Rav Gavihah of Bei Katil holds that Ravina did not challenge Rava; rather, to the contrary,

he supported him,

he brought the beraita to prove the correctness of Rava’s ruling concerning orla. For since the beraita permits it concerning Shabbat when they stipulated from the outset, it follows that where the gentile does not act as the Jew’s agent, it is permitted, even though in the end the Jew benefits from this partnership. If so, it is also permitted with orla, since the gentile does not act as the Jew’s agent.

And we challenge:

But he was embarrassed!

Rava became embarrassed; and if it is as you say, why did Rava become embarrassed, when, on the contrary, Ravina brought him proof!?

And we answer: Rav Gavihah holds:

“Such a thing never happened!”

Rava did not become embarrassed, not at all.

And now the Gemara returns to the laws of Shabbat.

It was asked of them,

the members of the academy were uncertain:

Without specification,

if they did not stipulate between themselves from the outset, and performed their work without specification—the gentile on Shabbat and the Jew on a weekday—and now they come to divide the produce of the field equally, without considering one day in exchange for one day, and the Jew does not say to him, “Take your portion on Shabbat, and I on a weekday” —

what

is the ruling? Is it permitted in this manner, since they did not negotiate between themselves a weekday in exchange for Shabbat, and they do not calculate Shabbat in exchange for a weekday, or is it forbidden?

Come and hear:

the Gemara resolves it from the middle ruling of the beraita, as it states:

“If they stipulated from the outset”—

it is permitted,

and one may infer: It is specifically in this manner, in which the Jew never undertook the day of Shabbat, that it is permitted.

But without specification,

when they did not explicitly stipulate—

it is forbidden.

И мы отвергаем это доказательство: из этой барайты нельзя разрешить вопрос, поскольку

And we reject: It is impossible to resolve it from this beraita, because

say the latter clause,

what is stated in the latter clause:

“If they came to an accounting,”

and the Jew said to him, “Take produce in exchange for your work on Shabbat,”

it is forbidden.

And one may infer:

But without specification,

when they did not come to an accounting even at the time of division, but consider it equally—

it is permitted.

Но из этого

Rather, from this

beraita,

there is nothing to infer from it.

There is no possibility of resolving it, neither from the opening clause to prohibition nor from the latter clause to permission; and we do not know whether the tannai who taught the beraita was precise in his wording in the opening clause or in the latter clause. The question therefore remains unresolved.

We shall return to you, Before Their Festivals.

Introduction to the chapter “They Do Not Establish”

The Sages instituted distancing oneself from gentiles and from their practices in three ways:

a. To refrain from business dealings and from performing work for them when there is concern lest the matter assist a need of idolatry, or a need involving other prohibitions. [Most of this matter was taught in the previous chapter, and part of it at the beginning of our chapter].

b. To refrain and distance oneself from every object belonging to gentiles that is liable to serve for idolatry [such as the concern regarding wine of libation and ordinary wine of gentiles, and the like].

c. To distance oneself from and prohibit every matter liable to bring about closeness with them and marriage with their daughters. These matters of distancing are explained in the chapter before us.

The Meiri, at the beginning of our chapter, divides the matters of the chapter and these obligations of distancing into several subjects, according to their order in the chapter:

a. The obligation to distance oneself from the gentiles themselves, and to refrain from joint actions with them that may bring about a prohibition [such as secluding our daughters and our animals with them], or danger [such as seclusion with them, which brings about the danger of bloodshed, or being healed by them, and the like]. This matter is a kind of continuation and completion of the subjects discussed in the previous chapter.

b. Objects belonging to gentiles that are entirely prohibited to us for benefit, without the possibility of rendering them permissible [such as the wine of gentiles and other prohibited foods].

c. Objects belonging to gentiles that are prohibited for benefit, but which can be rendered fit and rectified [such as wine vessels, their laws and their rendering fit].

d. The laws of foods made by gentiles that are permitted for benefit but prohibited for eating, both on account of the decree of “food cooked by gentiles” [and additional decrees], and on account of concerns regarding the kashrut of the foods. And likewise, foods made by gentiles but free of these concerns.

Mishna:

They do not establish an animal in inns hostels of star-worshippers, because star-worshippers are suspected with regard to bestiality. And one must be concerned lest the star-worshipper mate with the animal of the Jew. And gentiles are prohibited from mating with an animal. And since the descendants of Noah were prohibited from mating with an animal, it follows that a Jew who leaves an animal in a gentile’s domain transgresses “before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block”!

And

likewise

a woman may not seclude herself with them

with the gentiles,

because they are suspected

the gentiles

with regard to forbidden sexual relations!

And likewise

a person may not seclude himself

a male

with them, because they are suspected of bloodshed!