Avodah Zarah 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: The reasoning is that a sharecropper

arissuta

performs the work;

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar does not hold this view.

He does not reason this way, and therefore he did not permit renting to a Cuthite.

And we object:

But

if so, regarding renting to a

gentile, for what reason is it permitted?

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

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

we tell him “

Do not perform labor on Shabbat,”

and he obeys;

he listens to our command and does not perform labor.

Whereas a

Cuthite

does not obey.

He does not listen to our command and performs labor during the intermediate days of the Festival,

saying

to himself:

I have learned more than you;

I have learned more than you, and I know that it is permitted to perform agricultural labor during the intermediate days of the Festival. For the Cuthites do not accept the Sages’ derivation prohibiting labor during the intermediate days of the Festival.

And we object:

If so,

if the matter is that the Cuthite violates a prohibition,

why specifically

did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar speak and explain that the reason for prohibiting renting a field to a Cuthite is

because it is called by his name,

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

Let him derive it

from a more serious reason:

because

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

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

Granted, in the case of a gentile, “before the blind” does not apply here, since he was not warned concerning labor on Shabbat. But the Cuthite is a convert, and is commanded regarding the mitzvot like a Jew?

And we answer: He said,

“One reason and another.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel stated both reasons for prohibiting renting to a Cuthite:

one,

one reason,

because of “before the blind”;

and another,

because it is called by his name.

The Gemara now discusses the case of a Jew and a gentile who are partners and accepted a field as sharecroppers: Are they permitted to divide the work between them so that the Jew works one weekday in exchange for the gentile’s work on Shabbat? In what manner is this permitted, and in what manner is it prohibited because the gentile performs labor on Shabbat as the Jew’s “agent”?

The Gemara relates an incident involving

certain saffron gardeners,

those gardeners who sowed saffron gardens,

in which the gentile took Shabbat,

taking upon himself 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 to them.

Rava permitted it to them.

Ravina raised an objection to Rava

from a beraita that we learned:

“A Jew and a gentile who accepted a field

to be sharecroppers in it

in partnership,

with the work assigned to both of them,

the Jew may not say to the gentile: ‘Take your share’

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

on Shabbat, and I

will take my share in exchange for my labor

during the week.

Since the work is assigned to both of them each day, 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 share on Shabbat, and I will take my share during the week”—before the work was assigned to them, that is, before they accepted the field as sharecroppers in partnership,

it is permitted.

Since the work was never assigned to the Jew on Shabbat, all the profits of the day of Shabbat belong to the gentile, and the gentile is not acting as the Jew’s agent.

The beraita continues and explains another manner in which it is prohibited to act: when they did not stipulate this at the beginning of their partnership, but accepted the partnership without specification; the gentile worked on Shabbat [without being instructed by the Jew], and the Jew worked in exchange on a weekday,

and

ultimately,

if they came to an accounting,

calculating between themselves how many days the Jew worked and how many the gentile worked, and dividing the produce of the field according to that calculation,

it is prohibited

for the Jew to take produce in return for the weekday on 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.

From this beraita, Ravina challenged Rava for permitting the “saffron gardeners” to divide their proceeds, a weekday in exchange for Shabbat.

He was embarrassed,

Rava was embarrassed by this question, because he thought that he had erred in his halakhic ruling.

Ultimately, the matter became clear:

it became known that Rava had indeed issued the proper ruling, because

they had stipulated from the outset.

The “saffron 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 following Sunday; and the beraita permits this arrangement.

Rav Geviha of Bei Katil said:

That was not how the incident occurred. Rather,

these

gardeners

had saplings subject to orla.

They accepted a field in partnership in order to plant trees in it, receiving as compensation half the fruit, for both of them.

The gentile ate the two years of orla.

That is, the gentile planted the trees and tended them alone throughout all three years of orla, taking for himself all 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 years following the years of orla.

They came before Rava,

to ask whether they had acted properly, and whether the fruit had become prohibited as exchanges for orla fruit.

He permitted it to them,

permitting them to act in this manner, because there was no basis for prohibition here. The Jew had committed no 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 grow trees during the years of orla. Nor is there reason to prohibit it because it appears that the Jew ate the fruit of other years in exchange for the orla fruit eaten by the gentile [and orla is prohibited for benefit], since this is the customary arrangement 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.

The Gemara challenges Rav Geviha of Bei Katil: How could he relate that the incident concerned orla?

But Ravina raised an objection to Rava,

for Ravina challenged him from a beraita taught with regard to the laws of Shabbat. If the incident concerned orla fruit, why did Ravina challenge Rava, from a beraita dealing with the laws of Shabbat, regarding Rava’s permission concerning orla? What connection is there between Shabbat, where it is prohibited for a Jew to tell a gentile to perform fieldwork as the Jew’s agent, and orla, where it is permitted even for the Jew himself to work in the field during the years of orla? And the Gemara answers: Rav Geviha of Bei Katil holds that Ravina did not challenge Rava; on the contrary,

he brought it as support

and cited the beraita to demonstrate the correctness of Rava’s ruling concerning orla. Since the beraita permits the arrangement with regard to Shabbat when they stipulated from the outset, it follows that where the gentile is not acting as the Jew’s agent, it is permitted, even though ultimately the Jew benefits from this partnership. Accordingly, it is also permitted with regard to orla, since the gentile is not acting as the Jew’s agent.

And we object:

But he was embarrassed!

Rava was embarrassed; and if your statement is correct, why was Rava embarrassed? On the contrary, Ravina had brought him proof!?

And we answer: Rav Geviha holds:

“That never happened!”

Rava was not embarrassed at all.

The Gemara now returns to the laws of Shabbat.

They raised a dilemma:

The members of the academy were uncertain:

An unspecified arrangement:

If they did not stipulate between themselves at 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 reckoning one day in exchange for another, and the Jew does not say to him, “Take your share on Shabbat, and I will take mine during the week”—

what is the ruling?

Is this arrangement permitted, since they did not discuss a weekday in exchange for Shabbat and do not calculate Shabbat in exchange for a weekday, or is it prohibited?

Come and hear:

The Gemara resolves the dilemma from the middle ruling of the beraita, which states:

“If they stipulated from the outset”—

it is permitted.

The inference is: It is permitted specifically in this manner, where the Jew never accepted responsibility for the day of Shabbat.

But an unspecified arrangement,

where they did not stipulate explicitly—

is prohibited.

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

consider 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 prohibited.

And one may infer:

But an unspecified arrangement,

where they did not come to an accounting even at the time of division, but divide equally—

is permitted.

Rather, from this

beraita,

nothing can be inferred.

There is no way to resolve the matter either from the first clause in favor of prohibition or from the latter clause in favor of permission, and we do not know whether the tanna who taught the beraita was precise in his wording in the first clause or in the latter clause. The dilemma therefore remains unresolved.

We will return to you, Before Their Festivals.

Introduction to the chapter “We Do Not Establish”

The Sages instituted measures to distance Jews from gentiles and from their practices in three ways:

a. To refrain from business dealings with them and from performing work for them when there is concern that this might assist in matters related to idolatry or to other prohibitions. [Most of this subject was taught in the previous chapter, and part of it appears at the beginning of our chapter].

b. To refrain from and distance oneself from anything belonging to gentiles that could be used for idolatry [such as the concern regarding wine used for libations and ordinary gentile wine, and the like].

c. To distance oneself from and prohibit anything liable to lead to closeness with them and to 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 subjects of the chapter and these obligations of distancing into several topics, according to their order in the chapter:

a. The obligation to distance oneself from gentiles themselves and to refrain from joint activities with them that could lead to a prohibition [such as secluding our daughters or our animals with them], or to danger [such as seclusion with them, which can lead to the danger of bloodshed, or being treated by them, and the like]. This subject is a kind of continuation and completion of the topics discussed in the previous chapter.

b. Things belonging to gentiles that are entirely prohibited to us in benefit, with no possibility of rendering them fit [such as gentile wine and other prohibited foods].

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

d. The laws governing foods made by gentiles that are permitted in benefit but prohibited for consumption, both because of the decree of “food cooked by gentiles” [and additional decrees] and because of concerns regarding the kashrut of the foods. And also foods made by gentiles that are free of these concerns.

Mishna:

One may not place an animal in inns of star worshippers, because star worshippers are suspected of bestiality. There is concern lest the star worshipper mate with the Jew's animal. Gentiles are prohibited from mating with an animal. Since the descendants of Noah were prohibited from mating with an animal, a Jew who leaves an animal in a gentile's domain violates, “Before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block”!

And

likewise

a woman may not seclude herself with them

with gentiles,

because they are suspected

the gentiles

of forbidden sexual relations!

And likewise

a man may not seclude himself

a male

with them, because they are suspected of bloodshed!