Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 6, 2018 | 讻状讗 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Avodah Zarah 22

According to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, one can rent a field to a non-Jew and stipulate that the non-Jew not work the field on chol hamoed. However, this is not allowed with Samaritans as they will claim, “we know better than you and know that one can work on chol hamoed.”聽 A non-Jew and a Jew who work as sharecroppers in a field or in a partnership, what do they do regarding work done on Shabbat? In which situations would a non-Jew be suspect of engaging in bestiality? Based on that one can purchase an animal of theirs to use for a sacrifice but not leave animals alone in an inn with a non-Jew.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗专讬住讜转讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜转专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜爪讬讬转 讻讜转讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜爪讬讬转 讻讜转讬 诇讗 爪讬讬转 讚讗诪专 讗谞讗 讙诪讬专谞讗 讟驻讬 诪讬谞讱

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar does not accept the principle that a sharecropper works for his tenancy, rather than as the Jew鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪驻谞讬 砖谞拽专讗转 注诇 砖诪讜 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 诪砖讜诐 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 讜注讜讚 诪驻谞讬 砖谞拽专讗转 注诇 砖诪讜

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: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (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.

讛谞讛讜 诪讜专讬拽讗讬 讚讙讜讬 谞拽讬讟 讘砖讘转讗 讜讬砖专讗诇 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖专讗 诇讛讜

搂 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 砖拽讬讘诇讜 砖讚讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讜讬 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讘砖讘转 讜讗谞讬 讘讞讜诇 讜讗诐 讛转谞讜 诪转讞诇讛 诪讜转专

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.

讜讗诐 讘讗讜 诇讞砖讘讜谉 讗住讜专 讗讬讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪诇转讗 讚讛转谞讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜

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.

专讘 讙讘讬讛讛 诪讘讬 讻转讬诇 讗诪专 讛谞讛讜 砖转讬诇讬 讚注专诇讛 讛讜讛 讙讜讬 讗讻讬诇 砖谞讬 讚注专诇讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬 讚讛转讬专讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖专讗 诇讛讜

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.

讜讛讗 讗讜转讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 诇住讬讜注讬 住讬讬注讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Ravina object to the ruling issued by Rava? The Gemara answers: No, Ravina鈥檚 intention was to provide a support for the ruling of Rava. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 Rava embarrassed by Ravina鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: That never happened.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 住转诪讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 讛转谞讜 诪转讞讬诇讛 诪讜转专 讛讗 住转诪讗 讗住讜专

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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讘讗讜 诇讞砖讘讜谉 讗住讜专 讛讗 住转诪讗 诪讜转专 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讘驻讜谞讚拽讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讛专讘讬注讛 讜诇讗 转转讬讬讞讚 讗砖讛 注诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讛注专讬讜转 讜诇讗 讬转讬讬讞讚 讗讚诐 注诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐

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: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (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.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讛诪讛 诇拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘注 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 谞专讘注 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讜拽爪讛 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 谞注讘讚

GEMARA: With regard to the assumption that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 2:1): One may purchase an animal from gentiles for use as an offering, and there is no concern that it might be unfit due to it being an animal that copulated with a person, or due to is being an animal that was the object of bestiality, or due to it having been set aside for idol worship, or due to the animal itself having been worshipped.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗拽爪讬讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻诇讞讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 诇讞讜砖 讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讘专 讗讘讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讙讜讬 讞住 注诇 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇讗 转注拽专

The Gemara analyzes this ruling: Granted, there is no concern that the animal was set aside for idolatry or was itself worshipped. The reason is that if it is so that it was set aside, or if it is so that it was worshipped, then the gentile would not have sold it to the Jew in the first place. But with regard to the possibility that it is an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, let one raise a concern in line with the ruling of the mishna. The Gemara explains: Rav Ta岣ifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avina says in the name of Rav: A gentile protects and thereby spares his own animal so that it will not become barren. Since an act of bestiality may cause an animal to become barren, there is no concern that the gentile engaged in immoral behavior with it. Therefore, one may use an animal purchased from a gentile as an offering.

讛转讬谞讞 谞拽讘讜转 讝讻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讞讬砖讬谉 讘讘砖专

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to female animals, as they can become barren, but with regard to males, what is there to say? Rav Kahana says: Gentiles also refrain from engaging in bestiality with their male livestock, since doing so deteriorates the animals鈥 flesh, i.e., it makes them physically weaker.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诪专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 专讘注讛 诇讛 专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 诪转讬讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 砖讻专

Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may purchase an animal for use as an offering from their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: In light of the ruling of the mishna, let us be concerned that perhaps he engaged in bestiality with the animal, as it does not belong to him, and therefore it should be prohibited to purchase an animal from gentile shepherds. The Gemara answers: Their shepherd is fearful of engaging in bestiality with the animals under his care, due to the forfeit of his wages that would result if this were discovered.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜住专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 诇讬诪讗 专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 诪转讬讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 砖讻专讜

Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may not deliver an animal to their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the contradiction: Why may one not do so? Let us say that their shepherd is fearful due to the forfeit of his wages, and accordingly one should be permitted to give him an animal.

讗讬谞讛讜 讚讬讚注讬 讘讛讚讚讬 诪专转转讬 讗谞谉 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛讜 诇讗 诪专转转讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讻转讘讗 讙诇诇讗 讘讝注 专讙诇讗 讘讞讘专讬讛 讬讚注

The Gemara answers: With regard to themselves, i.e., other gentiles, as they are aware of each other鈥檚 actions, they are fearful that they may be caught, and therefore will not engage in bestiality with an animal belonging to another gentile. But with regard to ourselves, Jews, as we are not aware of them and their behavior, they are not fearful of us. The Gemara notes that Rabba said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Just as the stylus etches script upon marble, a sinner knows his fellow sinner, i.e., a transgressor is acutely aware of others who act in the same manner.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讝讻专讬诐 诪谞拽讘讜转 诇讗 谞讬讝讘讜谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 诪专讘注讗 诇讬讛 注讬诇讜讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讙专讬 讘讛 诪专转转讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, and the reason one may purchase an animal for use as an offering from a gentile is that engaging in bestiality has a negative impact on the animal, then let us not purchase male animals from female gentiles, as we should be concerned that perhaps she engaged in bestiality with it. This would not damage the animal or render it barren, and therefore there is no deterrent that would prevent a gentile woman from doing so. The Gemara answers: Since, if she were to engage in bestiality, the animal would follow her around in public, she is afraid of others discovering her behavior.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗专诪诇转讗 诇讗 转专讘讬 讻诇讘讗 讜诇讗 转砖专讬 讘专 讘讬 专讘 讘讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讘专 讘讬 专讘 爪谞讬注 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻诇讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讙专讛 讘讛 诪专转转讗

The Gemara further asks: But consider that which Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog due to the suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, and she may not allow a student of Torah to dwell as a lodger [be鈥檜shpiza] in her home. Granted, it makes sense that is prohibited for her to have a student of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as discreet in her eyes, so she will not be deterred from sinning with him. But with regard to a dog, since it would follow her around after she mates with it, she is afraid to engage in bestiality with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise a dog.

讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 砖讚讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讜诪爪讗 讜诪住专讬讱 讗讘转专讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讗讬 讚诪住专讬讱 讗讘转专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜诪爪讗 讚拽讗 诪住专讬讱

The Gemara answers: Since it will also follow her around in a case when she throws it a piece of meat, people will say: The fact that it is following her is due to the meat she threw at it, and they will not suspect her of bestiality. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.

谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚讬谞谉 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讙讜讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讗爪诇 谞砖讬 讞讘专讬讛谉 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讗讛 讜诪讜爪讗 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜专讜讘注讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to female animals with females, what is the reason that we do not permit them to be secluded with each other? Mar Ukva bar 岣ma says: It is because gentiles frequent the wives of others, and on occasion the gentile does not find her, and he finds the animal and engages in bestiality with it instead.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜爪讗讛 谞诪讬 专讜讘注讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 讞讘讬讘讛 注诇讬讛谉 讘讛诪转谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜转专 诪谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖注讛 砖讘讗 谞讞砖 注诇 讞讜讛 讛讟讬诇 讘讛 讝讜讛诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖注诪讚讜 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 驻住拽讛 讝讜讛诪转谉 讙讜讬诐 砖诇讗 注诪讚讜 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 诇讗 驻住拽讛 讝讜讛诪转谉

And if you wish, say instead: Even when he finds the wife, he also engages in bestiality with the animal, as the Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, at the time of the sin of her eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination lingers in all human beings. The Gemara asks: If that is so, a Jew should also be suspected of engaging in bestiality. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜驻讜转 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 讙讜讬 砖诇拽讞 讗讜讜讝 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 专讘注讛 讞谞拽讛 爪诇讗讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 注专讘讬 讗讞讚 砖诇拽讞 讬专讱 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜讞拽拽 讘讛 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讛 专讘注讛 爪诇讗讛 讜讗讻诇讛

搂 The Gemara inquires with regard to the halakha in the case of a bird. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to birds, what is the halakha? Are gentiles suspected of engaging in bestiality with birds? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that they are suspected of doing so, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi 岣nina: I once saw a gentile who bought a goose in the market, engaged in bestiality with it, strangled it, roasted it, and then ate it. And similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: I saw a certain Arab who bought a thigh of meat from the market and carved a space in it that was the size necessary to allow for penetration. Subsequently, he penetrated it, roasted it, and ate it. These incidents demonstrate that gentiles are suspected of immoral conduct with fowl.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 22

讗专讬住讜转讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜转专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜爪讬讬转 讻讜转讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜爪讬讬转 讻讜转讬 诇讗 爪讬讬转 讚讗诪专 讗谞讗 讙诪讬专谞讗 讟驻讬 诪讬谞讱

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar does not accept the principle that a sharecropper works for his tenancy, rather than as the Jew鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪驻谞讬 砖谞拽专讗转 注诇 砖诪讜 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 诪砖讜诐 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 讜注讜讚 诪驻谞讬 砖谞拽专讗转 注诇 砖诪讜

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: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (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.

讛谞讛讜 诪讜专讬拽讗讬 讚讙讜讬 谞拽讬讟 讘砖讘转讗 讜讬砖专讗诇 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖专讗 诇讛讜

搂 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 砖拽讬讘诇讜 砖讚讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讜讬 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讘砖讘转 讜讗谞讬 讘讞讜诇 讜讗诐 讛转谞讜 诪转讞诇讛 诪讜转专

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.

讜讗诐 讘讗讜 诇讞砖讘讜谉 讗住讜专 讗讬讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪诇转讗 讚讛转谞讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜

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.

专讘 讙讘讬讛讛 诪讘讬 讻转讬诇 讗诪专 讛谞讛讜 砖转讬诇讬 讚注专诇讛 讛讜讛 讙讜讬 讗讻讬诇 砖谞讬 讚注专诇讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬 讚讛转讬专讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖专讗 诇讛讜

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.

讜讛讗 讗讜转讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 诇住讬讜注讬 住讬讬注讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Ravina object to the ruling issued by Rava? The Gemara answers: No, Ravina鈥檚 intention was to provide a support for the ruling of Rava. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 Rava embarrassed by Ravina鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: That never happened.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 住转诪讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 讛转谞讜 诪转讞讬诇讛 诪讜转专 讛讗 住转诪讗 讗住讜专

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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讘讗讜 诇讞砖讘讜谉 讗住讜专 讛讗 住转诪讗 诪讜转专 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讘驻讜谞讚拽讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讛专讘讬注讛 讜诇讗 转转讬讬讞讚 讗砖讛 注诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讛注专讬讜转 讜诇讗 讬转讬讬讞讚 讗讚诐 注诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐

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: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (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.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讛诪讛 诇拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘注 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 谞专讘注 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讜拽爪讛 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 谞注讘讚

GEMARA: With regard to the assumption that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 2:1): One may purchase an animal from gentiles for use as an offering, and there is no concern that it might be unfit due to it being an animal that copulated with a person, or due to is being an animal that was the object of bestiality, or due to it having been set aside for idol worship, or due to the animal itself having been worshipped.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗拽爪讬讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻诇讞讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 诇讞讜砖 讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讘专 讗讘讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讙讜讬 讞住 注诇 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇讗 转注拽专

The Gemara analyzes this ruling: Granted, there is no concern that the animal was set aside for idolatry or was itself worshipped. The reason is that if it is so that it was set aside, or if it is so that it was worshipped, then the gentile would not have sold it to the Jew in the first place. But with regard to the possibility that it is an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, let one raise a concern in line with the ruling of the mishna. The Gemara explains: Rav Ta岣ifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avina says in the name of Rav: A gentile protects and thereby spares his own animal so that it will not become barren. Since an act of bestiality may cause an animal to become barren, there is no concern that the gentile engaged in immoral behavior with it. Therefore, one may use an animal purchased from a gentile as an offering.

讛转讬谞讞 谞拽讘讜转 讝讻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讞讬砖讬谉 讘讘砖专

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to female animals, as they can become barren, but with regard to males, what is there to say? Rav Kahana says: Gentiles also refrain from engaging in bestiality with their male livestock, since doing so deteriorates the animals鈥 flesh, i.e., it makes them physically weaker.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诪专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 专讘注讛 诇讛 专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 诪转讬讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 砖讻专

Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may purchase an animal for use as an offering from their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: In light of the ruling of the mishna, let us be concerned that perhaps he engaged in bestiality with the animal, as it does not belong to him, and therefore it should be prohibited to purchase an animal from gentile shepherds. The Gemara answers: Their shepherd is fearful of engaging in bestiality with the animals under his care, due to the forfeit of his wages that would result if this were discovered.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜住专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 诇讬诪讗 专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 诪转讬讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 砖讻专讜

Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may not deliver an animal to their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the contradiction: Why may one not do so? Let us say that their shepherd is fearful due to the forfeit of his wages, and accordingly one should be permitted to give him an animal.

讗讬谞讛讜 讚讬讚注讬 讘讛讚讚讬 诪专转转讬 讗谞谉 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛讜 诇讗 诪专转转讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讻转讘讗 讙诇诇讗 讘讝注 专讙诇讗 讘讞讘专讬讛 讬讚注

The Gemara answers: With regard to themselves, i.e., other gentiles, as they are aware of each other鈥檚 actions, they are fearful that they may be caught, and therefore will not engage in bestiality with an animal belonging to another gentile. But with regard to ourselves, Jews, as we are not aware of them and their behavior, they are not fearful of us. The Gemara notes that Rabba said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Just as the stylus etches script upon marble, a sinner knows his fellow sinner, i.e., a transgressor is acutely aware of others who act in the same manner.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讝讻专讬诐 诪谞拽讘讜转 诇讗 谞讬讝讘讜谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 诪专讘注讗 诇讬讛 注讬诇讜讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讙专讬 讘讛 诪专转转讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, and the reason one may purchase an animal for use as an offering from a gentile is that engaging in bestiality has a negative impact on the animal, then let us not purchase male animals from female gentiles, as we should be concerned that perhaps she engaged in bestiality with it. This would not damage the animal or render it barren, and therefore there is no deterrent that would prevent a gentile woman from doing so. The Gemara answers: Since, if she were to engage in bestiality, the animal would follow her around in public, she is afraid of others discovering her behavior.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗专诪诇转讗 诇讗 转专讘讬 讻诇讘讗 讜诇讗 转砖专讬 讘专 讘讬 专讘 讘讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讘专 讘讬 专讘 爪谞讬注 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻诇讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讙专讛 讘讛 诪专转转讗

The Gemara further asks: But consider that which Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog due to the suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, and she may not allow a student of Torah to dwell as a lodger [be鈥檜shpiza] in her home. Granted, it makes sense that is prohibited for her to have a student of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as discreet in her eyes, so she will not be deterred from sinning with him. But with regard to a dog, since it would follow her around after she mates with it, she is afraid to engage in bestiality with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise a dog.

讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 砖讚讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讜诪爪讗 讜诪住专讬讱 讗讘转专讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讗讬 讚诪住专讬讱 讗讘转专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜诪爪讗 讚拽讗 诪住专讬讱

The Gemara answers: Since it will also follow her around in a case when she throws it a piece of meat, people will say: The fact that it is following her is due to the meat she threw at it, and they will not suspect her of bestiality. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.

谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚讬谞谉 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讙讜讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讗爪诇 谞砖讬 讞讘专讬讛谉 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讗讛 讜诪讜爪讗 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜专讜讘注讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to female animals with females, what is the reason that we do not permit them to be secluded with each other? Mar Ukva bar 岣ma says: It is because gentiles frequent the wives of others, and on occasion the gentile does not find her, and he finds the animal and engages in bestiality with it instead.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜爪讗讛 谞诪讬 专讜讘注讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 讞讘讬讘讛 注诇讬讛谉 讘讛诪转谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜转专 诪谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖注讛 砖讘讗 谞讞砖 注诇 讞讜讛 讛讟讬诇 讘讛 讝讜讛诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖注诪讚讜 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 驻住拽讛 讝讜讛诪转谉 讙讜讬诐 砖诇讗 注诪讚讜 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 诇讗 驻住拽讛 讝讜讛诪转谉

And if you wish, say instead: Even when he finds the wife, he also engages in bestiality with the animal, as the Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, at the time of the sin of her eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination lingers in all human beings. The Gemara asks: If that is so, a Jew should also be suspected of engaging in bestiality. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜驻讜转 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 讙讜讬 砖诇拽讞 讗讜讜讝 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 专讘注讛 讞谞拽讛 爪诇讗讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 注专讘讬 讗讞讚 砖诇拽讞 讬专讱 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜讞拽拽 讘讛 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讛 专讘注讛 爪诇讗讛 讜讗讻诇讛

搂 The Gemara inquires with regard to the halakha in the case of a bird. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to birds, what is the halakha? Are gentiles suspected of engaging in bestiality with birds? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that they are suspected of doing so, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi 岣nina: I once saw a gentile who bought a goose in the market, engaged in bestiality with it, strangled it, roasted it, and then ate it. And similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: I saw a certain Arab who bought a thigh of meat from the market and carved a space in it that was the size necessary to allow for penetration. Subsequently, he penetrated it, roasted it, and ate it. These incidents demonstrate that gentiles are suspected of immoral conduct with fowl.

Scroll To Top