Talmud Builders

    Avodah Zarah 22a

    Chapter 1 - Lifnei Eideihen

    גם: עבודה זרה דף כ״ב ע״א, פרק א׳ לפני אידיהן

    English translation - Avodah Zarah 22a

    Read alongside the Aramaic below; numbers match the passages of the daf.

    1The 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.

    2The 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.

    3§ 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.

    4Ravina 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.

    5And 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.

    6Rav 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.

    7The 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.

    8A 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.

    9The 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.

    10May we return to you, chapter “Before their festivals”

    11MISHNA: 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.

    Text
    Layout
    Concept key:
    Text size
    100%
    Original size

    Rashi

    Mishnah - "We do not place an animal in gentile inns" - This refers to inns where travelers lodge and pay the owners for accommodations.

    "Because they are suspected of bestiality" - The descendants of Noah (gentiles) are prohibited from such acts, as it is written, "They shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), which excludes animals, wild creatures, and birds. Allowing this would violate the prohibition of "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind."

    License: CC0

    עבודה זרה 22 עמוד א

    1אריסותא 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.

    2א"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.

    3הנהו מוריקאי דעובד כוכבים נקיט בשבתא, וישראל בחד בשבתא, אתו לקמיה דרבא שרא להו.

    4איתיביה רבינא לרבא: ישראל ועובד כוכבים שקיבלו שדה בשותפות, לא יאמר ישראל לעובד כוכבים ״טול חלקך בשבת ואני בחול״, ואם התנו מתחלה מותר,׃

    5ואם באו לחשבון אסור. איכסיף, לסוף איגלאי מלתא דהתנו מעיקרא הוו.

    6רב גביהה מבי כתיל אמר: הנהו שתילי דערלה, הוה עובד כוכבים אכיל שני דערלה, וישראל שני דהתירא. אתו לקמיה דרבא, שרא להו.

    7והא אותביה רבינא לרבא! לסיועי סייעיה. והא אכסיף! לא היו דברים מעולם.

    8איבעיא להו: סתמא מאי? ת"ש אם התנו מתחילה מותר, הא סתמא אסור.

    9אימא סיפא: אם באו לחשבון אסור, הא סתמא מותר! אלא, מהא ליכא למשמע מינה.

    10הדרן עלך לפני אידיהן.

    Mishna

    11אין 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׳׃

    Tosafot

    "We do not place an animal in gentile inns" The Gemara teaches that one is also prohibited from handing over an animal to their gentile shepherd. The question arises: What is our basis for relying on allowing our animals to be left alone with them, as we often do? Additionally, we even entrust our animals to their shepherds. It cannot be explained based on what Rav said earlier in the first chapter (Avodah Zarah 14b), "In a place where it is permitted to sell, it is permitted to leave the animal alone," because that explanation does not hold; even Rav ultimately retracted that position. Rather, Rabbeinu Tam explains that we rely on Rabbi Pedat's answer in the Gemara (23a), which establishes that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who is concerned about bestiality, whereas the baraita—which permits purchasing animals from them for sacrifices—follows the Sages, who are not concerned about this. Since we follow the Sages, this concern does not apply to us. And although Ravina, who represented the later authorities, disagreed with Rabbi Pedat and offered a different explanation, Rabbi Pedat's reasoning appears more compelling for several reasons: Rabbi Pedat's interpretation precedes Ravina's, as Rabbi Pedat lived many years before Ravina. Rabbi Pedat was the son of Rabbi Eliezer, as stated in the first chapter of Berakhot (11b), and he was also a colleague of Rabbi Zeira, as stated in the first chapter of Niddah (8a): Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Pedat, "See, from you and your father the world receives blessing." That Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Pedat's father, was a student of Rabbi Yochanan. Furthermore, in matters of rabbinic decrees, we follow the more lenient opinion. And although the anonymous Mishnah, "We do not place [an animal in gentile inns]," is established according to Rabbi Eliezer, nevertheless, the halacha does not follow him, because there is a dispute about this in Masechet Parah (Chapter 2, Mishnah 1), and in two tractates everyone agrees that there is no fixed order of precedence (ein seder).

    License: CC0

    Tap a passage to mark the comments that open with the same words.

    More commentaries

    Rabbeinu Chananel

    הנהו מוריקאי דעובד כוכבים מלקט ונקיט בשבתא וישראל נקיט בחד בשבתא אתו לקמיה דרבא שרא להו ואותביה רבינא ישראל ועובד כוכבים שקיבלו שדה בשותפות לא יאמר ישראל לעובד כוכבים טול חלקך אתה בשבת ואני חלקי בחול ואם התנו מעיקרא על מנת שיום השבת לעובד כוכבים ויום אחד בשבת לישראל שרי ואם באו לחשבון פי' שיאמר אחד לחבירו לקחת אתה בשבת כך וכך כספים ואני לא לקחתי בחול אלא פחות מרוק לי וכן אם אמר העובד כוכבים לישראל כעניין הזה אסור ואינו מותר אלא אם התנו מעיקרא מה שיזדמן בשבת הרי הוא לעובד כוכבים בין רב בין מעט וכן בחול לישראל.

    איכסיף רבא לסוף איגלאי מילתא דהתנו מעיקרא הוו ושפיר שרא להו רבא.

    רב גביהה מבי כתיל אמר שתלאי דערלה הוו עובד כוכבים אכל שני ערלה וישראל אכל שני דהיתירא כו'.

    איבעיא להו אם התנו מעיקרא מותר סתמא מאי ולא איפשיטא ועבדי' ביה לחומרא דאיסורא דאורייתא היא:

    ירושל' הא במקום שנהגו למכור מוכרין להן אפי' בית דירה ומשכירין להן אפילו בית דירה ר' בון בשם רבנן דתמן זאת אומרת שדה הנתונה על אם הדרך אסור להשכירה לעובד כוכבים מפני שנקראת על שמו ועובד כוכבים עושה בה מלאכה בשבתות וי"ט:

    בתוספתא שאלו לר' יהושע מהו שילמד אדם את בנו חכמת יוונית אמר להן צאו וראו איזו שעה אינה לא מן היום ולא מן הלילה שהיום והלילה חייב בהגיון תורה שנא' והגית בו יומם ולילה. תוספתא לא יטייל ישראל עם שיירא בתרפות אפי' לצאת אפי' מקדים ואפי' מחשיך ואפי' מתיירא מפני ליסטים מפני רוח רעה חיה רעה שנא' לא תלכו אחרי אלהים אחרים ר' אלעזר (בר) [בנו ש"ר] יוסי הגלילי אומר אם ראית רשע יוצא לדרך התרחק ממנו ג' ימים כי מלאכי חבלה יוצאין עמו שנא' הפקד עליו רשע ושטן יעמד על ימינו וכן אם ראית צדיק יוצא לדרך צא עמו כי מלאכי שלום עמו שנא' כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך:

    הדרן עלך לפני אידיהן:

    Babylonian Talmud · folio map

    Avodah Zarah 22a

    Avodah Zarah 22a. The full printed text of this folio side - 11 numbered segments, about 199 words - with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

    Open the full commentary page

    Smart source finder

    Type a reference or pick tractate, book or part and the exact unit - the finder resolves it to a page on this site and shows which sages cite it.

    Resolved to: Avodah Zarah 22a

    Open in the reader
    Reverse sources - sages citing this page

    Source: he.wikisource.org (Wikisource Talmud Bavli) · License: CC-BY-SA

    Edition: Wikisource Talmud Bavli · Wording checked against the source on 07/09/2026