Avodah Zara 21
Summary
- This shiur presents three disputes between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir about selling items that are currently *mechubar lakarka* to an *akum* with a stipulation to remove them promptly, explains why all three cases—*ilanot*, *shachat*, and *kama*—are needed, and extends the issue to selling an animal *al menat lishchot*. It sets out the Mishnah’s rules for renting and selling houses and fields to non-Jews in ארץ ישראל, in Suria, and in *chutz la’aretz*, analyzes why fields are stricter than houses due to *lo techonem* and loss of *ma’aser*, clarifies Suria’s status via "כיבוש יחיד שמי כיבוש"/"כיבוש יחיד לא שמי כיבוש," and records that the halacha follows Rabbi Yosi. It forbids creating a *shekhunah* of non-Jews, restricts renting for a *beit dira* because of לא תביא תועבה אל ביתך, prohibits renting a *merchatz* to an *akum* but allows renting a field to an *akum*, and evaluates the scope of לא תביא תועבה and contemporary practices and leniencies.
- Rabbi Yehuda permits selling an *ilan* to an *akum* *al menat liktzotz* and the *goy* cuts it, while Rabbi Meir allows only if it is already cut. Rabbi Yehuda permits selling *shachat* *al menat ligzoz*, and Rabbi Meir allows only when it is already shorn. Rabbi Yehuda permits selling *kama* *al menat liktzor*, and Rabbi Meir allows only when it is already harvested.
- The Gemara states that a tree may be left standing since delay does not harm it, grain spoils if delayed, and by *shachat* the *shevach* is *nikkar*, so each case could yield different conclusions for Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, requiring all three. Tosafot (in the name of Rabbeinu Elchanan) asks why not state only *shachat* and *kama* as extremes and infer *ilan*; Tosafot answers the Tanna uses a “lo zo af zo” style to teach that even where delay causes loss (as in *kama*) Rabbi Meir still forbids, and even where *shevach* is *nikkar* (as in *shachat*) Rabbi Yehuda still permits.
- The Gemara asks about a *behemah* *al menat lishchot*, and a baraita rules: Rabbi Yehuda allows selling with that condition and the *goy* slaughters, while Rabbi Meir allows only if already slaughtered. Tosafot asks how there can be a dispute when sales of animals are generally presumed for slaughter; it answers per Rashbam that presumption applied to a cow specifically, or per the Kuntres that here it concerns calves and foals where sale is otherwise prohibited.
- The Rosh infers we rule like Rabbi Yehuda because the Gemara inquires further only within his view, while the Biur HaGra (YD 151) rejects this as a general rule and leaves it as a major doubt. The Rami Melunil explains the doubt applies to Rabbi Meir as well, since his stringency may target items *mechubar lakarka* due to a de’oraita of *lo techonem*, while a *behemah gassah* prohibition is derabbanan and could rely on a stipulation, though the severity of Shabbat concerns might still extend the stringency.
- Rabbi Meir rules that in ארץ ישראל one may not rent houses—and certainly not fields—to *ovdei kochavim*; in Suria one may rent houses but not fields; and in *chutz la’aretz* one may sell houses and rent fields, but not sell fields. Rabbi Yosi rules more leniently: in ארץ ישראל one may rent houses but not fields; in Suria one may sell houses and rent fields; and in *chutz la’aretz* one may sell both houses and fields. The Mishnah adds that even where renting is allowed, it is not for a *beit dira* because he brings in עבודה זרה, as in לא תביא תועבה אל ביתך, and that one may not rent a *merchatz* anywhere because it is called by the Jew’s name.
- The Gemara explains fields are stricter due to *lo techonem* and removing the obligation of *ma’aser*, producing a stronger safeguard than houses. The Ramban and the Ran cite a Yerushalmi dispute: Rabbi Yochanan forbids renting fields to *goyim* even if the field will be ruined, while Rabbi Yehoshua permits where no Jews are available; Kaftor VaFerach permits selling a house to a *nochri* in ארץ ישראל in cases of *ones*, while Pischei Shulchan denies a general heter even in great loss.
- Tosafot holds that לא תביא תועבה אל ביתך is de’oraita only when it is truly “ביתך,” i.e., a Jew’s dwelling, like *mezuzah*; the Raavad and Tosafot Shantz hold the de’oraita applies when the Jew himself brings the עבודה זרה, while a *goy* bringing it is derabbanan. The Ramban and the Ritva hold the de’oraita is when one derives *hana’ah*, bringing proof from Makkot 22, and readings of the Rambam are debated; Mar’eh Panim takes “ונאמר לא תביא תועבה אל ביתך” as an asmachta formulation. The sugya of shofar of עבודה זרה (Rosh Hashanah 28) establishes מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו, yet Torat Chesed raises a challenge of מצווה הבאה בעבירה if לא תביא תועבה applies without *hana’ah*. The Rishonim justify contemporary renting to *goyim* by reasons such as their not bringing actual עבודה זרה into homes today or Rabbeinu Chaim Kohen’s claim that a Jew’s house in *chutz la’aretz* is not truly “his” in this sense, among other leniencies.
- The Gemara rejects counting *mezuzah* as a second loss because *mezuzah* is *chovat hadar*, so the sale does not itself uproot it; Tosafot explains that absence of occupancy, not the sale, removes the obligation. Tosafot Chachmei Anglia note a Jew might later dwell there since *mezuzah* follows the dweller, whereas *ma’aser* depends on ownership and is lost to the Levi; the Rashba adds that *mezuzah* protects the resident, while loss of *ma’aser* harms the Levi. The sugya’s silence about Shemitah is cited in debates over היתר מכירה: Yeshu’ot Malko strongly defends it and argues *lo techonem* aims at undermining Jewish settlement, whereas the sale here sustains it, while Chazon Ish counters that *lo techonem* remains prohibitive. The practice of legal stratagems is compared to selling utensils to a *goy* to avoid *tevilat kelim* when a mikveh is unavailable, which Shulchan Aruch and Rema allow for short-term need; the Taz limits reliance, and Chelkat Yaakov challenges the practice by analogy to our sugya’s concern of being *mefake’a* mitzvot.
- For Rabbi Meir, the prohibition in Suria is not merely lest one sell in ארץ ישראל; rather, Suria is inherently restricted because "כיבוש יחיד שמי כיבוש," so by fields—where there are two concerns—the Sages extended restrictions, while by houses they did not. For Rabbi Yosi, "כיבוש יחיד לא שמי כיבוש," so Suria lacks the de’oraita status, and in *chutz la’aretz* distance removes the need for gzeirot; Shmuel rules the halacha follows Rabbi Yosi.
- One may not establish a *shekhunah* of *goyim* even where selling or renting is permitted. A *shekhunah* is defined as fewer than three households not constituting it, implying three constitute a significant group.
- Even where renting is permitted, renting a residence is forbidden because he brings עבודה זרה into the house, as in לא תביא תועבה אל ביתך, and a *merchatz* may not be rented anywhere because it is called by the Jew’s name and will operate on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Renting a *merchatz* to a Kuti is permitted since he keeps Shabbat and Yom Tov, and work on Chol HaMoed is not problematic there due to *tzorech hamoed*. Renting a field to an *akum* is permitted because an *aris* is understood to act on his own sharecropping, whereas a *merchatz* typically operates with hired workers, so observers attribute weekday-like operation on holy days to the Jewish owner.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions