Avodah Zarah 63b — the Talmud in English

And he is not concerned ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

on account of the seventh year

lest they take seventh-year produce from him who is suspected of selling it

,

nor on account of tithe

if they are amei ha-aretz, lest they take something that has not been tithed

, nor on account of yayin nesekh

if they are idolaters, lest they take yayin nesekh, and it turns out that he paid his debt to them with yayin nesekh.

Since he did not feed them with his hands, but only gave them money.

And

on the other hand,

if he said to them, “Go and eat, and I will pay; go and drink, and I will pay,”

it is as though he purchased the prohibited item and gave it to them, and therefore

he is concerned on account of the seventh year, on account of tithe, and on account of yayin nesekh.

Rav Sheshet infers:

This demonstrates that,

even though he does not pay at the time when he purchases the prohibited item, but only later, nevertheless

when he

when he ultimately

pays, he pays the money of the prohibition.

And if so, this is difficult:

here too,

when they borrowed seventh-year produce and paid in the eighth year,

when they pay, do they pay the money of the prohibition?

And why is the payment not considered an exchange for seventh-year produce?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Hisda explained it

Rav Hisda explains the above tosefta: it refers

to

to a case in which he said to his workers: Go to

the shopkeeper

so-and-so,

who extends him credit,

that is, the employer regularly purchases from him on credit,

for

from the time that he gave the food to the workers, the employer

becomes obligated to him

to pay him his money.

Therefore, the money that he pays him afterward is considered the money of the prohibition.

Since it is his practice to extend credit

since his practice is to sell to him on credit and he knows with certainty that he will pay him later

,

he acquires a dinar with him

in whatever place it may be.

But the household of Rabbi Yannai, who borrowed seventh-year produce from the poor in order to pay it to them in the eighth year—the poor are not so certain of receiving payment, and their mind did not rely upon acquiring the payment wherever it might be. Therefore, the payment is not considered an exchange for a prohibition.

The Gemara objects: According to your words, only when he sent his workers to eat at a shopkeeper who regularly extends him credit is he concerned on account of the seventh year and so on

, but a shopkeeper who does not extend him credit—what [is the law]?

And is it

permitted

for him to send them to eat without concern

?!

If so, instead of teaching, “Go and eat with this dinar; go and drink with this dinar,”

that is, if so, why must the tanna introduce a new case in order to permit the employer to send his workers, and establish it when he said, “Go and eat with this dinar,”

let him distinguish and teach it in that case itself,

the tanna could distinguish within the same case and say,

“When do these words apply? With a shopkeeper who extends him credit, who becomes obligated to him; but with a shopkeeper who does not extend him credit, it is permitted.”

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

and does a

shopkeeper who does not extend him credit not

not

become obligated?!

But

Rava s

aid: One who says to another, “Give a maneh to so-and-so, and all my property will be acquired by you

in exchange for that maneh

,” and he gave it,

he acquires

the one giving all his property

by the law of a guarantor.

That is, just as a guarantor becomes obligated to pay the lender even though the money did not reach his hand, so too here, the seller becomes obligated with all his property even though the money did not reach his hand. And according to this, even if he said to his workers, “Go and eat, and I will pay,” it is as though he said to the shopkeeper, “Give this produce to my workers, and I will become obligated to you for a maneh,” and the seller acquires the maneh immediately by the law of a guarantor. And our objection has returned to its place: Why is the produce that the household of Rabbi Yannai paid to the poor in the eighth year not considered an exchange for seventh-year produce?

Rather, Rava said,

indeed,

it makes no difference

whether he said it to a shopkeeper who

extends him credit, and it makes no difference

to a shopkeeper

who does not extend him credit, even though he

immediately

makes his property subject to a lien for him

to pay his debt, by the law of a guarantor, as stated above

,

since he does not designate his lien

since he did not designate money for this purpose, when he pays him afterward, the payment is not considered an exchange for seventh-year produce, and

it is not prohibited.

Rather, here,

in the case of “one who says to his workers, ‘Go and eat, and I will pay,’”

why is he concerned on account of the seventh year,

and

here he did not designate his lien

for he did not designate money for the shopkeeper in his payment

?

Rav Pappa said: For example, where he advanced the employer, and paid

him

to the shopkeeper

a dinar

before he sent his workers to him

.

It follows that now they are eating from the employer’s property, and the prohibition of the seventh year is attributed to him. Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching before Rav Zevid of Nehardea

I told Rav Zevid Rav Pappa’s answer

, and he said to me: If so,

if it is as he said, that the case is one where the employer paid the shopkeeper in advance and now must calculate what credit balance remains for him with the shopkeeper,

instead of teaching

why do we teach

“Go and eat, go and drink, and I will pay,”

for he has already paid in advance, and if so,

it should have said, “Go and eat, go and drink, and I will calculate.”

the tanna should have said this]?

He said to him

Rav Kahana: Indeed,

teach:

the beraita should be read

“Go, and I will calculate”

as you said.

The words of the above tosefta may be explained in another manner:

Rav Ashi said: For example, where he took

the employer directly from the shopkeeper the prohibited produce

and gave

it to his workers

by hand.

Therefore he is concerned on account of the seventh year and so on, since he himself feeds them the prohibited item directly, and not because of seventh-year money.

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If so, instead of teaching

why do we teach

“Go and eat, go and drink,”

implying that he does not eat with them—and behold, if the beraita is explained according to your words,

it should have said, “Take and eat, take and drink.”

?!

He said to him

Rav Ashi: Indeed,

teach:

the beraita should be read

“Take and eat, take and drink”

as you said.

The Gemara returns to discuss the law concerning the wages for yayin nesekh:

Sat

he sat

Rav Nahman, and Ulla, and Avimi bar Pappi, and Rabbi Hiyya bar Ami sat with them

and Rabbi Hiyya bar Ami sat beside them

, and they were sitting and raising the following question:

and were uncertain]:

He hired him to break

pot

s

of

yayin nesekh,

and to destroy them from the world,

what [is the law]?

Is his wage prohibited? And the sides of the question are:

Do we say that since

the worker

desires the wine’s continued existence

so that he can come and break it and take his wage

, it is prohibited.

Or perhaps, every

action that a person performs in order

to diminish evil

to diminish the existence of prohibition in the world

, is properly permitted.

Rav Nahman said: Let him break it, and blessing will come upon him.

That is, his wage is permitted.

Let us say

that, apparently, the following beraita

supports

him: