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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 6, 2018 | ื›ืดื ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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.”ย  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"

ืืจื™ืกื•ืชื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืืœื ื’ื•ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžื•ืชืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืฆื™ื™ืช ื›ื•ืชื™ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืฆื™ื™ืช ื›ื•ืชื™ ืœื ืฆื™ื™ืช ื“ืืžืจ ืื ื ื’ืžื™ืจื ื ื˜ืคื™ ืžื™ื ืš

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

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืงืจืืช ืขืœ ืฉืžื• ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืœืคื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ืœื ืชืชืŸ ืžื›ืฉืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ืงืืžืจ ื—ื“ื ืžืฉื•ื ืœืคื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืงืจืืช ืขืœ ืฉืžื•

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: โ€œYou shall not put a stumbling block before the blindโ€ (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.

ื”ื ื”ื• ืžื•ืจื™ืงืื™ ื“ื’ื•ื™ ื ืงื™ื˜ ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืฉืจื ืœื”ื•

ยง 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.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœื• ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื˜ื•ืœ ื—ืœืงืš ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืื ื™ ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื•ืื ื”ืชื ื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ืžื•ืชืจ

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.

ื•ืื ื‘ืื• ืœื—ืฉื‘ื•ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืื™ื›ืกื™ืฃ ืœืกื•ืฃ ืื™ื’ืœืื™ ืžืœืชื ื“ื”ืชื ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื•

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.

ืจื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ื” ืžื‘ื™ ื›ืชื™ืœ ืืžืจ ื”ื ื”ื• ืฉืชื™ืœื™ ื“ืขืจืœื” ื”ื•ื” ื’ื•ื™ ืื›ื™ืœ ืฉื ื™ ื“ืขืจืœื” ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื”ืชื™ืจื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืฉืจื ืœื”ื•

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.

ื•ื”ื ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ืœืกื™ื•ืขื™ ืกื™ื™ืขื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื›ืกื™ืฃ ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื

The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t Ravina object to the ruling issued by Rava? The Gemara answers: No, Ravinaโ€™s intention was to provide a support for the ruling of Rava. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t Rava embarrassed by Ravinaโ€™s statement? The Gemara answers: That never happened.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืกืชืžื ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืื ื”ืชื ื• ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ืืกื•ืจ

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.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืื ื‘ืื• ืœื—ืฉื‘ื•ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ืžื•ืชืจ ืืœื ืžื”ื ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืœืคื ื™ ืื™ื“ื™ื”ืŸ

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืคื•ื ื“ืงืื•ืช ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื” ื•ืœื ืชืชื™ื™ื—ื“ ืืฉื” ืขืžื”ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืœื ื™ืชื™ื™ื—ื“ ืื“ื ืขืžื”ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื

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: โ€œYou shall not put a stumbling block before the blindโ€ (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.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืžื”ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืจื•ื‘ืข ื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื ืจื‘ืข ื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืžื•ืงืฆื” ื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื ืขื‘ื“

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.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžื•ืงืฆื” ื•ื ืขื‘ื“ ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืืงืฆื™ื™ื” ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืคืœื—ื™ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืจื•ื‘ืข ื•ื ืจื‘ืข ืœื—ื•ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืœื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื’ื•ื™ ื—ืก ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืฉืœื ืชืขืงืจ

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 Taแธฅlifa 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.

ื”ืชื™ื ื— ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ

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 animalsโ€™ flesh, i.e., it makes them physically weaker.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืœื™ื—ื•ืฉ ื“ืœืžื ืจื‘ืขื” ืœื” ืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืžืชื™ื™ืจื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ืคืกื“ ืฉื›ืจ

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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืžืชื™ื™ืจื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ืคืกื“ ืฉื›ืจื•

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.

ืื™ื ื”ื• ื“ื™ื“ืขื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืžืจืชืชื™ ืื ืŸ ื“ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ื• ืœื ืžืจืชืชื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ืžื›ืชื‘ื ื’ืœืœื ื‘ื–ืข ืจื’ืœื ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื™ื“ืข

The Gemara answers: With regard to themselves, i.e., other gentiles, as they are aware of each otherโ€™s 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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืžื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืœื ื ื™ื–ื‘ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื“ืœืžื ืžืจื‘ืขื ืœื™ื” ืขื™ืœื•ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื’ืจื™ ื‘ื” ืžืจืชืชื

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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืจืžืœืชื ืœื ืชืจื‘ื™ ื›ืœื‘ื ื•ืœื ืชืฉืจื™ ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ื‘ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืฆื ื™ืข ืœื” ืืœื ื›ืœื‘ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื’ืจื” ื‘ื” ืžืจืชืชื

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 [beโ€™ushpiza] 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.

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ ืฉื“ื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื•ืžืฆื ื•ืžืกืจื™ืš ืื‘ืชืจื” ืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื”ืื™ ื“ืžืกืจื™ืš ืื‘ืชืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ืื•ืžืฆื ื“ืงื ืžืกืจื™ืš

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.

ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืืฆืœ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืžื™ื™ื—ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื’ื•ื™ื ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ื ืฉื™ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆืื” ื•ืžื•ืฆื ืืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืจื•ื‘ืขื”

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 แธคama 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.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื•ืฆืื” ื ืžื™ ืจื•ื‘ืขื” ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื” ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžืชืŸ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื ืฉื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื‘ื ื ื—ืฉ ืขืœ ื—ื•ื” ื”ื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื” ื–ื•ื”ืžื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืขืžื“ื• ืขืœ ื”ืจ ืกื™ื ื™ ืคืกืงื” ื–ื•ื”ืžืชืŸ ื’ื•ื™ื ืฉืœื ืขืžื“ื• ืขืœ ื”ืจ ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื ืคืกืงื” ื–ื•ื”ืžืชืŸ

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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืขื•ืคื•ืช ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืœืงื— ืื•ื•ื– ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื•ืง ืจื‘ืขื” ื—ื ืงื” ืฆืœืื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ ืขืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื“ ืฉืœืงื— ื™ืจืš ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื•ืง ื•ื—ืงืง ื‘ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืขื” ืจื‘ืขื” ืฆืœืื” ื•ืื›ืœื”

ยง 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 แธคanina: 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 sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ืืจื™ืกื•ืชื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืืœื ื’ื•ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžื•ืชืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืฆื™ื™ืช ื›ื•ืชื™ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืฆื™ื™ืช ื›ื•ืชื™ ืœื ืฆื™ื™ืช ื“ืืžืจ ืื ื ื’ืžื™ืจื ื ื˜ืคื™ ืžื™ื ืš

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

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืงืจืืช ืขืœ ืฉืžื• ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืœืคื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ืœื ืชืชืŸ ืžื›ืฉืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ืงืืžืจ ื—ื“ื ืžืฉื•ื ืœืคื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืงืจืืช ืขืœ ืฉืžื•

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: โ€œYou shall not put a stumbling block before the blindโ€ (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.

ื”ื ื”ื• ืžื•ืจื™ืงืื™ ื“ื’ื•ื™ ื ืงื™ื˜ ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืฉืจื ืœื”ื•

ยง 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.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœื• ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื˜ื•ืœ ื—ืœืงืš ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืื ื™ ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื•ืื ื”ืชื ื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ืžื•ืชืจ

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.

ื•ืื ื‘ืื• ืœื—ืฉื‘ื•ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืื™ื›ืกื™ืฃ ืœืกื•ืฃ ืื™ื’ืœืื™ ืžืœืชื ื“ื”ืชื ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื•

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.

ืจื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื”ื” ืžื‘ื™ ื›ืชื™ืœ ืืžืจ ื”ื ื”ื• ืฉืชื™ืœื™ ื“ืขืจืœื” ื”ื•ื” ื’ื•ื™ ืื›ื™ืœ ืฉื ื™ ื“ืขืจืœื” ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื”ืชื™ืจื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืฉืจื ืœื”ื•

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.

ื•ื”ื ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ืœืกื™ื•ืขื™ ืกื™ื™ืขื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื›ืกื™ืฃ ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื

The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t Ravina object to the ruling issued by Rava? The Gemara answers: No, Ravinaโ€™s intention was to provide a support for the ruling of Rava. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t Rava embarrassed by Ravinaโ€™s statement? The Gemara answers: That never happened.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืกืชืžื ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืื ื”ืชื ื• ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ืืกื•ืจ

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.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืื ื‘ืื• ืœื—ืฉื‘ื•ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ืžื•ืชืจ ืืœื ืžื”ื ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืœืคื ื™ ืื™ื“ื™ื”ืŸ

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืคื•ื ื“ืงืื•ืช ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื” ื•ืœื ืชืชื™ื™ื—ื“ ืืฉื” ืขืžื”ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืœื ื™ืชื™ื™ื—ื“ ืื“ื ืขืžื”ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ืฉื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื

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: โ€œYou shall not put a stumbling block before the blindโ€ (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.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืžื”ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืจื•ื‘ืข ื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื ืจื‘ืข ื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืžื•ืงืฆื” ื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื ืขื‘ื“

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.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžื•ืงืฆื” ื•ื ืขื‘ื“ ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืืงืฆื™ื™ื” ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืคืœื—ื™ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืจื•ื‘ืข ื•ื ืจื‘ืข ืœื—ื•ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืœื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื’ื•ื™ ื—ืก ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืฉืœื ืชืขืงืจ

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 Taแธฅlifa 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.

ื”ืชื™ื ื— ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ

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 animalsโ€™ flesh, i.e., it makes them physically weaker.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืœื™ื—ื•ืฉ ื“ืœืžื ืจื‘ืขื” ืœื” ืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืžืชื™ื™ืจื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ืคืกื“ ืฉื›ืจ

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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืจื•ืขื” ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืžืชื™ื™ืจื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ืคืกื“ ืฉื›ืจื•

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.

ืื™ื ื”ื• ื“ื™ื“ืขื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืžืจืชืชื™ ืื ืŸ ื“ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ื• ืœื ืžืจืชืชื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ืžื›ืชื‘ื ื’ืœืœื ื‘ื–ืข ืจื’ืœื ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื™ื“ืข

The Gemara answers: With regard to themselves, i.e., other gentiles, as they are aware of each otherโ€™s 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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืžื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืœื ื ื™ื–ื‘ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื“ืœืžื ืžืจื‘ืขื ืœื™ื” ืขื™ืœื•ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื’ืจื™ ื‘ื” ืžืจืชืชื

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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืจืžืœืชื ืœื ืชืจื‘ื™ ื›ืœื‘ื ื•ืœื ืชืฉืจื™ ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ื‘ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืฆื ื™ืข ืœื” ืืœื ื›ืœื‘ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื’ืจื” ื‘ื” ืžืจืชืชื

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 [beโ€™ushpiza] 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.

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ ืฉื“ื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื•ืžืฆื ื•ืžืกืจื™ืš ืื‘ืชืจื” ืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื”ืื™ ื“ืžืกืจื™ืš ืื‘ืชืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ืื•ืžืฆื ื“ืงื ืžืกืจื™ืš

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.

ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืืฆืœ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืžื™ื™ื—ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื’ื•ื™ื ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ื ืฉื™ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆืื” ื•ืžื•ืฆื ืืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืจื•ื‘ืขื”

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 แธคama 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.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื•ืฆืื” ื ืžื™ ืจื•ื‘ืขื” ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื” ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžืชืŸ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื ืฉื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื‘ื ื ื—ืฉ ืขืœ ื—ื•ื” ื”ื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ื” ื–ื•ื”ืžื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืขืžื“ื• ืขืœ ื”ืจ ืกื™ื ื™ ืคืกืงื” ื–ื•ื”ืžืชืŸ ื’ื•ื™ื ืฉืœื ืขืžื“ื• ืขืœ ื”ืจ ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื ืคืกืงื” ื–ื•ื”ืžืชืŸ

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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืขื•ืคื•ืช ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืœืงื— ืื•ื•ื– ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื•ืง ืจื‘ืขื” ื—ื ืงื” ืฆืœืื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ ืขืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื“ ืฉืœืงื— ื™ืจืš ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื•ืง ื•ื—ืงืง ื‘ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืขื” ืจื‘ืขื” ืฆืœืื” ื•ืื›ืœื”

ยง 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 แธคanina: 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