Avodah Zarah 22a:11עבודה זרה כ״ב א:יא
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Avodah Zarah 22a:11"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
22aכ״ב א

אריסותא לר"ש בן אלעזר לית ליה אלא עובד כוכבים מ"ט מותר דאמרינן ליה וציית כותי נמי אמרינן ליה וציית כותי לא ציית דאמר אנא גמירנא טפי מינך

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar does not accept the principle that a sharecropper works for his tenancy, rather than as the Jew’s employee. The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to a gentile, what is the reason that it is permitted to rent to him? The Gemara answers that we say to him that he may not perform labor on certain days, and he complies. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of a Samaritan as well, we can say to him that he may not perform labor on certain days, and he will comply. The Gemara answers: A Samaritan will not comply, as he says: I am more learned than you, and I know that it is permitted to work on these days.

א"ה מאי איריא מפני שנקראת על שמו תיפוק ליה משום (ויקרא יט, יד) לפני עור לא תתן מכשול חדא ועוד קאמר חדא משום לפני עור ועוד מפני שנקראת על שמו

The Gemara asks: If that is so, why does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar state specifically that the reason for the prohibition is because the field is called by the name of the owner? Let him derive this halakha due to the fact that the Samaritan, like a Jew, is commanded to refrain from labor during the intermediate days of the Festival, and since he will work on these days, renting him a field is included in the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states one reason and adds another: One reason is that of the prohibition: You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind; and, furthermore, it is prohibited because the field is called by the name of the owner.

הנהו מוריקאי דעובד כוכבים נקיט בשבתא וישראל בחד בשבתא אתו לקמיה דרבא שרא להו

§ The Gemara relates that there were certain saffron growers who jointly owned a field in an arrangement according to which a gentile took possession of the field and worked in it on Shabbat, and a Jew took possession of it on Sunday. They came before Rava, to find out if they could divide their profits equally, and Rava permitted them to do so.

איתיביה רבינא לרבא ישראל ועובד כוכבים שקיבלו שדה בשותפות לא יאמר ישראל לעובד כוכבים טול חלקך בשבת ואני בחול ואם התנו מתחלה מותר

Ravina raised an objection to the ruling of Rava from a baraita: In the case of a Jew and a gentile who received tenancy of a field in partnership, with the understanding that they were to work the field and receive part of its produce in exchange, the Jew may not say to the gentile: Take your portion of the profit for your work on Shabbat, and I will take my portion for my work on one of the days of the rest of the week. The reason one may not do so is that it turns out that when the gentile worked on Shabbat, he was laboring partly on behalf of his Jewish partner. But if they initially stipulated when they entered into their partnership that the gentile would receive a share of the profit in exchange for his work on Shabbat, and the Jew would receive a share for the work that he performs during one of the days of the week, it is permitted.

ואם באו לחשבון אסור איכסיף לסוף איגלאי מלתא דהתנו מעיקרא הוו

And if they did not make this stipulation and later came to calculate the number of weekdays for which the Jew should receive the profit, corresponding to the number of Shabbatot that the gentile worked, it is prohibited, as this would mean that when the gentile worked on Shabbat, he was working on behalf of the Jew. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately, the matter was revealed that the saffron growers had stipulated from the outset that this was the arrangement, and therefore even according to the baraita Rava had ruled correctly.

רב גביהה מבי כתיל אמר הנהו שתילי דערלה הוה עובד כוכבים אכיל שני דערלה וישראל שני דהתירא אתו לקמיה דרבא שרא להו

Rav Geviha from Bei Ketil said that the incident was actually as follows: The Jew and the gentile formed a partnership with regard to those orla saplings, to tend to them and sell them. The gentile would work and profit from them during the orla years, the first three years after the tree is planted when it is prohibited for a Jew to eat its fruit, and the Jew would work and profit from them during the years where the fruit is permitted. They came before Rava, who permitted them to do so.

והא אותביה רבינא לרבא לסיועי סייעיה והא אכסיף לא היו דברים מעולם

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Ravina object to the ruling issued by Rava? The Gemara answers: No, Ravina’s intention was to provide a support for the ruling of Rava. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rava embarrassed by Ravina’s statement? The Gemara answers: That never happened.

איבעיא להו סתמא מאי ת"ש אם התנו מתחילה מותר הא סתמא אסור

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the partners did not specify that the gentile would work on Shabbat and the Jew during the week, but they also did not calculate their profits so that they would split the earnings equally, what is the halakha? The Gemara attempts to provide an answer from the baraita: Come and hear: If they initially stipulated that the gentile would receive a share of the profit in exchange for his work on Shabbat, while the Jew would receive a share for the work on one of the other days of the week, it is permitted. This indicates that without specification, it is prohibited.

אימא סיפא אם באו לחשבון אסור הא סתמא מותר אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה:

The Gemara rejects this proof: Say the last clause: If they came to calculate their profits, it is prohibited; this indicates that without specification, doing so is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this baraita, as the inferences contradict each other.



הדרן עלך לפני אידיהן

May we return to you, chapter “Before their festivals”

מתני׳ אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עובדי כוכבים מפני שחשודין על הרביעה ולא תתייחד אשה עמהן מפני שחשודין על העריות ולא יתייחד אדם עמהן מפני שחשודין על שפיכות דמים: גמ׳

MISHNA: One may not keep an animal in the inns [befundekaot] of gentiles because they are suspected of bestiality. Since even gentiles are prohibited from engaging in bestiality, a Jew who places his animal there is guilty of violating the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). And a woman may not seclude herself with gentiles because they are suspected of engaging in forbidden sexual relations. And any person may not seclude himself with gentiles because they are suspected of bloodshed.