Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. מסכת עבודה זרה דף כ״ב, we will start eight lines from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא says, הנהו מוריקאי, there were these two saffron growers, and one of them was a גוי and one of them was a ייד. עובד כוכבים נפק בשבתא, the גוי he worked on שבת, he plowed and planted and did everything on שבת, וישראל בחד בשבתא, and the ייד worked on Sunday. אתו לקמיה דרבא, they came to רבא to ask if this partnership is allowed. שרא להו, he allowed it to them, he said it's okay. איתיביה רבינא לרבא, but רבינא asked a קושיא to רבא, we learn in a ברייתא, it says, ישראל ועובד כוכבים שקיבלו שדה בשותפות, a ייד and a גוי that received and accepted a field in partnership, that they together became אריסים on a field, they together rented a field on the חשבון that they would get a certain percentage for working in the field and the owner would get the rest, but they together accepted upon themselves the responsibility of working on the field. So the ברייתא says, לא יאמר ישראל לעובד כוכבים, so the ייד is not allowed to say to the גוי, טול חלקך בשבת, you take your part on שבת, in other words, you work on שבת and you will take your share for שבת, ואני בחול, and I will do it in the weekday, I will work in the weekday and I will take my share for that. So you're not allowed to do that because since they together took the responsibility, so each one is obligated to work every day. So the ייד is also obligated to work on שבת. And when the גוי works for him on שבת and he works for the גוי on Sunday, so it comes out as if half of the day of שבתדיקע work that the גוי does is as a שליח for the ייד, and that you're not allowed to do. So therefore, he shouldn't say to him, "You work on שבת and work for my half also, and because of that I will work your half in the weekday," because then the גוי would be working on שבת for the ייד. ואם התנו מתחלה, and if לכתחילה they made up a condition when they took this partnership, they made up that the גוי is going to work a full day on שבת, and the ייד is going to work a full day one of the weekdays, מותר, it's allowed. Because then the ייד never accepted upon himself to work on שבת, so it's לכתחילה not his responsibility to work on שבת, so we do not say that the גוי, when he works on שבת, half of his work is for the ייד, because לכתחילה they made up that the ייד will not work on שבת. Then the ברייתא has another דין: ואם באו לחשבון, if they didn't make up anything, just that they took together a partnership and they didn't say what's going to happen on שבת and Sunday, ולפועל the גוי worked on שבת and the ייד worked on a day in the weekday, and then they come to make the חשבון, to divide the profits, and the ייד will say to the גוי, "You worked so many

days on שבת, so you get for that this amount; I worked so many weekdays against that, so I get this amount," so that is אסור, because by doing that the ייד is showing that the גוי worked for him. Since he's telling him that, "I worked on a weekday because you worked on the שבת, so you really worked on שבת for my part, and because of that I worked on another weekday for your part," so he's showing that really the גוי was his שליח, and therefore this is אסור. So from here we see that such a partnership is אסור, and that's what רבינא asked רבא: How did you say that they're allowed to have this partnership, that the גוי worked in that field on שבת and the ייד worked against it on a Sunday, when it says מפורש in this ברייתא that the ייד is not allowed to tell the גוי, "You work on שבת and I will work against it in the weekday"? איכסיף, so he was embarrassed. But לסוף אגליא מילתא, later on he found out דהתנו מעיקרא הוה, that this case they had made this condition לכתחילה, that לכתחילה they made up that the גוי would work on שבת and the ייד would work on Sunday. And it says in the ברייתא that if they made the condition לכתחילה, then it's okay, because לכתחילה there is no responsibility on the ייד to work on שבת because they made up that he wouldn't work on שבת, so when the גוי worked on שבת, we do not consider it as if part of his work was done as a שליח to the ייד. Then the גמרא says, רב גביהה מבי כובי אמר, רב גביהה from כובי said that the story we mentioned before was not as we said it before; the problem wasn't concerning שבת, but הנהו שתילא דערלה הוו, these were plants of ערלה. We know that when you plant a tree, the first three years the fruit is considered ערלה and that cannot be eaten and is also אסור בהנאה. And what happened here was that they together accepted upon themselves a partnership of planting these trees, and the problem was concerning ערלה, that what happened, עובד כוכבים אכל שני ערלה, the גוי worked the first three years and he took all the fruit for the first three years, וישראל שני דהיתירא, and the ייד worked later on three years which were allowed and he took all the fruit from those three years and he used the fruit. ואתו לקמיה דרבא, they came to רבא, שרא להו so רבא allowed it to them, because in this case there is no איסור whatsoever, because they're allowed to do it. And even if the ייד would tell the גוי outright, "You work on it for the first three years and take the fruits, and I will work the other three years," it's still okay. Because even the ייד himself is allowed to work on the tree of ערלה. The דין by ערלה is only that you're not allowed to eat the fruit of ערלה. But you're allowed to work on the tree in the years of ערלה. So even if he told the גוי, "You work on the field the first three years, and because of that, I will work on this tree the other three years," it's still okay, even if the גוי is considered a שליח of the ייד, it's okay because the ייד himself is allowed to work on the tree in the year of ערלה. איי, because the גוי took off the fruit the first three years, because of that the ייד will have the fruit of the other three years. So it comes out that the ייד is having הנאה from the fruit of ערלה, because the reason he's getting all the fruit from the other three years is because the גוי got all the fruit from the first three years of ערלה. So לכאורה it seems that the ייד is having הנאה from the fruit of ערלה. But the פשט is that since the גוי worked during those three years, he gets the fruit. This is the way it's normally accepted, that when you work, you get the fruit of your work. So the גוי who worked the first three years, and he was allowed to work, so he deserves the fruit from the first three years. The ייד who worked the other three years deserves the fruit from those three years. So it's not considered that the ייד is having הנאה from the fruit of ערלה. And that's why רבא said it was allowed. The גמרא asks, how can you say that this was the story? והא אותביה רבינא לרבא. Didn't we learn that רבינא asked a קשיא on רבא from that ברייתא? Now, if it's the way you say the story was, then there is no קשיא from there, because in that ברייתא all we see is concerning שבת, since you are not allowed to work on the field on שבת. So if it is a case where the גוי is as if he is your שליח, he is also not allowed to and that is אסור. And that was the קשיא that he asked of רבא. But if it was a case of ערלה, and in the case of ערלה there is no איסור in working, so what kind of קשיא did רבינא ask to רבא from the ברייתא? And the גמרא answers, really it wasn't a קשיא that he asked him. סייועי הוא. All he did was he brought him a ראיה from there. From there we see that if they made a condition לכתחילה, then they are allowed to do it. So what does that show? That as long as there is no question of the איסור of a גוי being a שליח to the ייד in the מלאכה, they are allowed to do this even though the ייד will have הנאה from the money of שבת. Because the reason the ייד got his Sunday, the money for Sunday, was because the גוי had his money for שבת. And it's still allowed, because since they made לכתחילה a תנאי, so the ייד was never obligated to work on שבת. So the גוי is not doing it as a שליח of the ייד. So we see from there that as long as there is no problem with the שליחות of the גוי, so even though the ייד gets his money because the גוי got his money for שבת, it's allowed. So that's a ראיה to the case of ערלה also, that since there is no problem with שליחות in the case of ערלה, because a ייד himself is allowed to work on the tree in ערלה, the only question we had was, is he allowed to take the fruit of those three years because he takes it as an exchange for the fruit that the גוי took the first three years? So that we have a ראיה from here. That's, that just like here the ייד is allowed to take the fruit for Sunday, even though it's an exchange for the fruit that the גוי took for שבת, so too in the case of ערלה, he's allowed to take the fruit from the second three years as an exchange for the fruit that the גוי took in the first three years. But then the גמרא asks, והא איכסוף. But we know the end of the story was that after רבינא brought him the ברייתא, רבא was embarrassed. Now, according to him that it wasn't a קשיא he asked from the ברייתא, but it was a ראיה he brought him from the ברייתא, so why was רבא embarrassed? So he says, לא היו דברים מעולם. This never happened, that it never happened that רבא got embarrassed. It was just a ראיה to him, and that's how the end was. Then the גמרא says,

איבעיא להו, there was a question asked, סתמא מאי? What is the דין if it is סתם? They don't make anything up. They both take together a partnership and the גוי works on שבת, the ייד works on Sunday. The ייד never told the גוי to work on שבת. They never made anything up. And now when they come to divide the profit, are they allowed to divide the profit equally? And obviously the question is when they divide the profit, he doesn't mention to him that, "You take this money because of שבת and I'll take this money because I worked another day." He doesn't mention anything. They just divide the profit equally. Is that allowed or not? So the גמרא says, תא שמע, come, I'll answer your question. In the ברייתא that we brought before it said, אם התנו מתחילה מותר, that if they made a condition לכתחילה that he is going to work on שבת and the ייד is going to work on Sunday, then it is allowed. So it's משמע from there that only if there was ממש a condition made for that, that's when they're allowed to divided later equally. הא סתמא, but if there is no condition made, it was just סתם, they were partners, and the גוי worked on שבת and the ייד worked on Sunday, but they didn't make that condition, so it's משמע that it's אסור. But the גמרא says, "No, it's no ראיה, because אימא סיפא, look at the end of the same ברייתא that says there, אם באו לחשבון אסור. If they come to make a חשבון, then it's אסור, which means, as we said before, if they come to make a חשבון and the ייד says to the גוי, that you will take this money because you worked on שבת, and I will take the money because I worked on another day, so that is אסור. Is משמע הא סתמא, but סתם, if they don't put the חשבון that way, if just the גוי worked on שבת and the ייד worked on Sunday, and later when they come to divide it, they don't make a חשבון of the שבתות, they just divide it equally, מותר, it would be מותר, because the ברייתא says just involved חשבון is אסור, but if

without a חשבון, just a regular division, it would be מותר. So from the סיפא is משמע that סתמא is מותר. But after, the גמרא says, אלא, therefore, מיהא ליכא למשמע מינה, from this ברייתא we can't prove anything, since from the רישא of the ברייתא is משמע that it's אסור, from the סיפא of the ברייתא is משמע that it's מותר, so this ברייתא we cannot be מדייק at all, and we can't bring any ראיה from this ברייתא. הדרן עלך לפני אידיהם, הדרן עלך לפני אידיהם, הדרן עלך לפני אידיהם. Concerning this ברייתא where it says that a ייד should not tell the גוי when they make a partnership that you work on שבת and take for שבת and I will work another day in the week and I will take that profit, so תוספות brings a story that happened in the time of רבינו תם. There was this ייד that collected an oven as payment for a debt that a גוי owed him, and the condition that was made that even though the oven belongs to the ייד, nevertheless that גוי still had some profit that was supposed to come to him from the oven, and they made up that certain days of the week the profit will go to the ייד, and certain days of the week the profit will go to the גוי. But they didn't make a condition לכתחילה saying that the גוי will work on the שבת and he will get the profit from שבת, and the ייד will work on another day in the weekdays and he will get the profit from the weekdays. So the ר''י said that nevertheless it's מותר, and even though in our גמרא it says that if you did not make a condition לכתחילה it's אסור, so the ר''י wanted to say that that case is different than the case of our גמרא. Because in the case of the field, because the גוי will work on שבת, the part of the ייד in the weekdays will also be better, and therefore it's considered that when the גוי works in the field on שבת he's also working for the ייד, because the ייד's part in the weekdays is going to be better. But in the case of the oven, that when the גוי will work on this oven on שבת, it doesn't make the oven any better for the weekdays, so in a case like that that is allowed even if they did not make a condition לכתחילה. That was the opinion of the ר''י, but the רבינו תם did not agree to him. And the רבינו תם said that you cannot make a difference between the case of the oven and the case of the field, because even if the oven does not become better through the work that is done on שבת, but still it is considered as if he is working for you. In other words, the reason why the field is אסור is not because when he works on שבת it makes the part of the ייד better so the ייד has הנאה from his work on שבת, it is because it is as if he is working for him. And then it makes no difference whether his work will help the part of the weekdays or not. So just like in the case of the field you're not allowed to do it, in the case of the oven you're also not allowed to do it. And רבינו אלחנן added even more, that in this case of the oven, it's even worse than the case of the field, that even if they would have made up לכתחילה a condition it still wouldn't have helped, because here the oven was only the ייד's. So when the גוי worked in this oven on שבת, it is as if the גוי rented the oven from the ייד, and the ייד is telling to him that the work that you will be doing on שבת should go to you on condition that I will get the work from the weekdays. So then then he really has הנאה from the גוי's work on שבת. While in the case of the field, when they both took it בשותפות so they're both equal, so then the גוי also has a part in the field itself. But in the case of the oven when it's only the ייד's, then it's even worse because then it's as if the גוי is working for the ייד, that the reason the ייד is getting the profits in the weekdays of his is because he rented it to the גוי for שבת. And therefore he also held that it's אסור. And תוספות says that the ר''י later changed his mind and he agreed that in this case it would be אסור. And he even brought a ראיה to the רבינו תם that you cannot be מחלק between the case of the oven and the case of the field, because it is self-understood that a מרחץ would have the same דין as the oven. And we learn in תוספתא מסכת דמאי פרק ו that if a ייד and a גוי bought in partnership a field or a מרחץ, so it says there the ייד should not say to the גוי that you should do your part, etc. And then it comes, the bottom line there is, that the

כלל is that whether it's a vineyard, or it's a field, or it's a מרחץ, or it's an oven, if a ייד and a גוי bought it בשותפות, so then you're not allowed to tell the גוי, "You take your part on שבת, and I will take my part in the weekdays," unless they made a condition לכתחילה before they bought it that on שבת the ייד has no part in it. And there we see that even in the case of an oven the דין is the same, that even though by working on שבת the oven doesn't become better in the weekdays like the ר''י wanted to say לכתחילה, nevertheless it says you're not allowed to do this unless you make a condition לכתחילה, and therefore he changed his mind from the פסק דין that he gave. And the עצה that the רבינו תם gave there to this person what to do was that he should get the money collected from the גוי for the debt, that And then תוספות adds that this דין is only in the case where it actually belongs to the איד, like the case here where he collected this oven as a payment for his debt. But what would be in the case where a איד took an oven for instance as a משכון from a גוי? So then תוספות says, you do not have to make a condition at all, because after all, it still belongs to the גוי. And the profit that the איד will get on a certain day is only the profit as interest from the loan that the גוי owes him. And since the איד has no חלק, no part in the oven itself, so then you don't have to make this condition. Because when it says in the ברייתא that when they bought the object together you have to make a condition לכתחילה, it's only if they bought it, which means that the איד owns part of it. But if the איד doesn't own any part of it, then this דין doesn't apply and even if they didn't make a condition, he's allowed to take the profit from a weekday because this is not considered that he is having הנאה from the work of the גוי on שבת. Concerning the question of the גמרא, the גמרא asks, סתמא מאי? What happens if they didn't make a condition לכתחילה, but later on they didn't say anything either? They took the field together, and the גוי worked on שבת and the איד worked on another day, they never made that up, and when it comes to divide the profit they also don't mention anything about שבת. Is it allowed or not? And the גמרא first wanted to prove from the רישא of the ברייתא where it says אם התנו מתחילה מותר, is a ראיה that סתמא is אסור. Later they were מדייק from the סיפא where it says אם באו לחשבון אסור, is משמע סתמא מותר, and the גמרא said there is no ראיה from here. So תוספות asks, why did לכתחילה the גמרא want to bring a ראיה from the words אם התנו מתחילה מותר? Why didn't they try to bring a ראיה from the first part of the ברייתא which is even before that? In the first part of the ברייתא it says that a איד should not say to the גוי, you take your part on שבת and I take in the weekdays, is משמע that if he says it, it's no good, but if it's סתם, it's מותר. So why do they have to be מדייק from the other part, which we call the רישא of the סיפא, why can't we be מדייק from the רישא of the רישא, the first part, where it's משמע that you cannot say it to him, but if you do not say it to him, then it's מותר? And תוספות answers that לכתחילה we could think that באמת even if you don't say it, it's still אסור. And why does the ברייתא mention you shouldn't say it? To tell us that אם התנו, if you made a condition, it's מותר even though you spoke about it, but as long as it was a condition done before you started, then it's allowed. That would be the חידוש. But the ברייתא did not mean to tell us that only if you said it it's אסור, but if you didn't say it, it's מותר. Even if you didn't say it, maybe it's also אסור. But only if you made a condition before you started it's מותר, so therefore it's no ראיה. The only ראיה the גמרא had was from the other part where it says אם התנו מתחילה מותר, from there we were מדייק, but סתמא is אסור. Concerning the second part of the ברייתא, where the גמרא was מדייק the opposite, where it says if they came to a חשבון it's אסור, and the גמרא wanted to be מדייק, but if it's סתם, then it's מותר, so תוספות asks, maybe there is no דיוק like that in the ברייתא. Maybe what the ברייתא meant to say was, אם באו לחשבון it's אסור, even if they made a condition לכתחילה. And if they made a condition לכתחילה, we said before it's מותר, but even that is only allowed if later on when they divide it, they don't mention anything about שבת. But if they make a

חשבון and he says to him, you take this for your שבת and I will take that for the other day, then it's אסור even if they made a condition. So if that is the פשט, then there is no דיוק, הא סתמא is מותר, because could be סתם is also אסור. But the difference is, if it's סתם, it's only אסור if they didn't make a condition לכתחילה. But if they made a condition לכתחילה, then סתם is מותר. But if they come לחשבון, even if they made a condition לכתחילה, it's אסור. And according to that, we have no ראיה from the סיפא for סתמא. And תוספות says, the גמרא holds that if they made a condition לכתחילה, that it should be מותר בכל ענין. The גמרא didn't feel that it's possible to say that when it says in the ברייתא אם באו לחשבון אסור means that even if they made a condition it should be אסור. And therefore, the only דיוק we could have, that if they didn't make a condition it's אסור, הא סתמא שרי, and that was what was the גמרא's ראיה. And the end of the גמרא was that since there's a ראיה from the רישא one way and from the סיפא another way, we cannot use this ברייתא as a proof at all. And now we will start the second פרק. The משנה says, אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עובדי כוכבים, you're not allowed to put animals in the inns of the גוים, מפני שחשודים על הרביעה, because we suspect that they might do an immoral act with the בהמה. Also, ולא תתייחד אשה עמהם, a woman should not remain alone with גוים, מפני שחשודים על העריות, because we suspect that they will do an immoral act with a woman. Also, ולא יתייחד אדם עמהם, a man should not even be alone with them, מפני שחשודים על שפיכות דמים, because we suspect them of murder. So if you're alone there, they might kill you, that's why the דין is you're not allowed to have ייחוד with a גוי. And the גמרא says, ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא. We learned in a ברייתא, לוקחין מהם בהמה לקרבן, you're allowed to buy an animal by a גוי for a קרבן in the בית המקדש, ואין חוששין ש... And then we don't suspect, לא משום רובע, not that the בהמה was used to do an immoral act, ולא משום נרבע, and not that the בהמה was used and an immoral act was done with it. Because if this would have happened, then the בהמה would have been פסול for a קרבן. But the ברייתא says that we don't suspect that this was done, and therefore you could buy a בהמה from a גוי and use it for a קרבן. Also ולא משום מוקצה, we don't suspect that this בהמה was set aside for עבודה זרה, because the דין is that even if it was just set aside for עבודה זרה, it is already פסול for a קרבן. And as תוספות explains, it doesn't mean just if it was set aside that they just said that this will be used as a קרבן for עבודה זרה. When is it אסור? If they set it aside to be מקריב for עבודה זרה, and they actually gave it already over to the priest, and he already fed it the vegetables of עבודה זרה, that's when it would be אסור. And the ברייתא here says that we don't suspect that this is what was done with the animal. And also ולא משום נעבד, we don't suspect that this animal was worshipped as an עבודה זרה. But the גמרא asks, בשלמא מוקצה ונעבד, מילא when it says we don't suspect that it was set aside for עבודה זרה or that it was actually worshipped as עבודה זרה, because אי איתא דאקציה, because if it would have been true that this was set aside for עבודה זרה, או אי איתא דפלחה, or if it would have been true that he had worshipped this animal, לא הוה מזבן ליה, he wouldn't have sold it. אלא רובע ונרבע ניחוש, but the first part, that it was used for an immoral act, let's be afraid. Doesn't our משנה say that? In our משנה, it says that you're not allowed to leave an animal with the גוים, because we're afraid that they're going to use it for an immoral act.

And since this is a דין that you're not allowed to do, obviously we really suspect them in doing it. So how come in this case we don't suspect? Why is the דין that you are allowed to buy the animal from the גוי and use it as a קרבן, and we don't suspect that it was used for immoral acts, when in our משנה it's משמע that we do suspect the גוים using it for an immoral act? The גמרא says, אמר רב תחליפא אמר רב שילא בר אבינא משמיה דרב, רב תחליפא said in the name of רב שילא בר אבינא in the name of רב, עובד כוכבים חס על בהמתו שלא תעקר, that a גוי would have regard for his cattle that it shouldn't become an עקר, it shouldn't become barren. Because if an immoral act is done with a female animal, this female animal cannot give birth to any calves anymore. So a גוי would not do it. And this is the difference between that ברייתא and our משנה. In our משנה, when it's not the גוי's, it is our cattle that is going to stay with the גוי, the גוי doesn't care. So therefore, we definitely suspect that he would do an immoral act with it. But in the case over there, where we're buying it from the גוי, so this belongs to the גוי, now a גוי would not do it to his own animal, because this would spoil his own animal, it would make it barren. But then the גמרא asks, הא תינח נקבה, this is understood if it is a female animal, then he would not do it with his own animal because it would make it barren. זכר מאי איכא למימר? But to buy a זכר, a male animal from a גוי, what is there? Why don't we suspect that the גוי did an immoral act with the male animal? And there we cannot say that he's afraid to do it because it would become barren, because this is a male. אמר רב כהנא, so רב כהנא says, הואיל ומכחישן בבשר, that since it weakens the flesh, that even though it doesn't do that much harm to the male animal, but some harm it does, because if an immoral act was done with it, it becomes weak, so a גוי would not do it to his own animal. While in our משנה where it's not his own animal, there we suspect he would do it. When the גמרא before said that concerning מוקצה and נעבד we do not have a קשיא, because if it would be set aside for עבודה זרה or if it would have been worshipped, then the גוי wouldn't have sold it, so תוספות says, really the גמרא didn't have to say that. Because we know that בכלל we don't find that we should suspect an animal was מוקצה and נעבד. So it is not because he wouldn't have sold it, because בכלל there is no such חשש. There is no place that we try to prove that there is such a חשש, that we have to give a reason why we don't suspect. לכתחילה we don't suspect such a thing. So why did the גמרא have to mention that the reason we don't suspect, because if it would have happened, he wouldn't have sold it? So תוספות says, this is לרווחא דמילתא. This is just an additional סברא. Which means to say that even if it would be a place where people would constantly do that, and therefore there would be a

reason to suspect that a גוי did set it aside for עבודה זרה, or did worship it, nevertheless, if you buy it from him, then we don't suspect because we assume he didn't sell it. And that was the reason the גמרא brought that part also. And now we continue with the גמרא. The גמרא asks, אלא הא דתניא, but if so, that you say that we do not suspect that a גוי would do an immoral act with his own בהמה, whether it is a female or a male, because of the damage that it'll do to his בהמה, הא דתניא, we learn in a ברייתא, לוקחין בהמה מרועה שלהן, you're allowed to buy a בהמה from a shepherd of theirs, which means from a גויישע shepherd. Now the question is, ניחוש, let us be afraid, דילמא רבע לה, maybe he did an immoral act with it, since he's only a shepherd, so the בהמות are not his. And as said before, in the case where it's not his, we do suspect that he will do an immoral act. So why don't we suspect it in the case of the shepherd, and the דין is that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from them? And the גמרא answers: רועה שלהן, their shepherd, means a גויישה shepherd, מירתת. He is afraid to do an immoral act even if it's not his בהמה. Why? משום הפסד שכר, because he is afraid that he is going to lose the payment he gets for being a shepherd. If they will catch him doing that, they won't pay him, and that's why he is afraid to do it. But then the גמרא asks: אלא מעתה, if so, הא דתניא, we learned a ברייתא, אין מוסרין בהמה לרועה שלהן, we are not allowed to give our בהמה to their shepherd. A ייד is not allowed to give away his בהמה to a גויישה shepherd, and the reason is because we're afraid that the גויישה shepherd will do an immoral act with it. But the question is: לימא, let us say, רועה שלהן מירתת משום הפסד שכרו, that this גויישה shepherd will be afraid to do it because he will lose his payment, just like we said before. And the גמרא answers: אינהו דידעי בהדדי, they, the גוים that know each other, מירתתי, they're afraid. If you're going to buy a בהמה from a גויישה shepherd, the shepherd has the בהמה from other גוים, so there we say that he is afraid to do the immoral act because the owner of the בהמה, which is another גוי, might find out, and that's why he's afraid. Why will he find out? Because the גוים know each other, they know all about this, and therefore he's afraid. But אנן, we, דלא ידעינן בהו, we don't know about these things, so therefore, if we will give over our בהמה to him, לא מירתת, he's not afraid. Since he knows that we don't know much about it, so he's not afraid he'll be caught and lose his payment, therefore we do suspect he'll do this immoral act, and that's why we are not allowed to give him our בהמה. אמר רבא, רבא said: היינו דאמרי אינשי, this is what people say: מכתב הגללא ביזא, רגלא בחבריה ידעה. Just like the the writing penetrates the stone, so does one מסור know about the other. ריגלא means the person who goes around spreading לשון הרע, מסר'ינג, comes from the word רגיל, as רש''י says. So what he's saying is that people used to say that just like the stone knows its writing, so does one person who goes on speaking לשון הרע know another. And the same thing here, that one גוי knows the other, so that's why the shepherd who is a גוי is afraid of the other גוים to do the immoral act. But from a ייד he's not afraid. תוספות is not גורס here 'ריגלא' with a רי''ש, but תוספות says that רבינו תם is גורס with a דל''ת, 'דיגלא', and that means a liar. And what he's saying here is, that one liar knows the other, and so too, one גוי knows the other. Then the גמרא says:

אי הכי, if so, זכרים מן הנקבות לא ניזבון, to buy male animals from female גוים, we shouldn't be allowed. דחיישינן, we should be afraid, דילמא מרבעא ליה עליה, maybe she will take that animal to do an immoral act to her. The whole reason we said why are you allowed to buy the animal from a גוי, and we don't suspect that the גוי would have done an immoral act with it, because if it's a נקבה, it'll make it barren, if it is a זכר, and he is going to make it weak, because the act that the man will do to this בהמה will weaken the בהמה. But that doesn't apply if the בהמה is a זכר and the גוי is a female, because there, it will not cause any of these things to the בהמה. But the question is, how come we don't find a דין that you're not allowed to buy a בהמה, a male בהמה, from a female גוי? And the גמרא answers: כיון דמיקרבא מירתתא. Since if she will do that with the animal, the animal will constantly follow her, so she's afraid. She'll be afraid to do this because she knows that this will be found out later, because people will see that animal constantly following her, they will understand why is the animal following her, because she did this immoral act, so people will find out. That's why לכתחילה she will not do this immoral act, and that's why the דין is that you are allowed to buy a male animal even from a female גויה. But then the גמרא says: אלא, if so, הא דתני רב יוסף, this is what רב יוסף learned: ארמלתא לא תרבי כלבא, an אלמנה, widow, should not raise a dog, ולא תשרה בר בי רב באושפיזא, and she should not have a student stay in her house. And the reason is because we're afraid that something bad will happen: she will do an immoral act over the dog or with that student that will stay in the house. And the question is: בשלמא בר בי רב, מילא, concerning the דין of the student, צניע ליה. We don't say the בשלמא בר בי רב צניע ליה, מילא, we understand why she's not allowed to have as a guest a student, because the student will not follow her. She relies on the modesty of the student, and therefore she has nothing to be afraid of. She might do the immoral act, and later no one will find out. The student will not follow her because the student himself will be ashamed. אלא כלבא, but concerning the dog, why is the דין that she's not allowed to raise a dog in the house? כיון דמיקרב מירתתא, since if she would do an immoral act with the dog, the dog would constantly follow her around, so she should be afraid of that. Just like we said before, that you're allowed to buy from a female גויה, an animal זכר, because we're not afraid she'll do an immoral act because if she would, that animal will follow her, the same thing should apply here too, that a אלמנה should be allowed to raise a dog and we shouldn't be afraid that she might do an immoral act, because she definitely will be afraid to do it, because if she'll do it, the dog will constantly follow her around. And the גמרא answers, כיון דכי שדיא ליה אומצא, since the fact is that if she would throw a piece of meat to the dog, ומסריך אבתרה, he would also follow her around, מימר אמרי אינשי, the people will say, האי דמסריך אבתרה משום אומצא דקא מסריך, and the reason the dog is following her, because she gave him a piece of meat. In the case of another animal, there is no other reason why the animal should follow her around, only because she did this immoral act with the animal, and therefore, she's afraid to do it, because she knows the animal will follow her around, and people will see that happen, they will understand that she did the immoral act. But in the case of the dog, there is another reason why the dog could follow her around: If she would have given him a piece of meat, he would follow her around. So therefore, she is not afraid to do this immoral act, because even though this will cause the dog to follow her around, but nevertheless, she's not ashamed of that, because this will be no proof that she did the immoral act. People will say the reason the dog follows her is because she gave the dog a piece of meat. And then the גמרא asks: נקבות אצל נקבות מאי טעמא לא מוקמינן? We know that we're not allowed to leave an animal between גוים because we're afraid the גוים will do an immoral act with the animal. And this דין is also that you're not allowed to leave a female animal amongst female גוים. Now the question is: Why not? In this case, they cannot do an immoral act with the animal. אמר מר עוקבא בר חמא, and מר עוקבא בר חמא said: מפני שעובדי כוכבים מצויין אצל נשי חבריהם, because גוים come frequently to the wife of their friend to do an immoral act with the woman. ופעמים שאינו מוצאה, sometimes he will come there and will not find her, ומוצא את הבהמה, but he will find the בהמה that was put there, ורובעה, he will do an immoral act with the בהמה. And that is the reason you can't leave a female בהמה with female גוים, because this also could bring that a גוי should do an immoral act with this בהמה, if he will come there and not find the woman. ואי בעית אימא, some say: אפילו מוצא נמי רובע, not only if he will not find the woman he will do the immoral act with the בהמה, even if he will find the woman, he will also do it. דאמר מר, because we know, דחביבא עליהם בהמתן של ישראל יותר מנשותיהם, because by the גוים it is more beloved, the בהמות of יידן than their own wives. דאמר רבי יוחנן, because רבי יוחנן said: בשעה שבא נחש על חוה, when the נחש, the snake, had relations with חוה, הטיל בה זוהמא, he infused filth into her, and therefore, the גוי doesn't have real pleasure with his wife. But the גמרא asks: אי הכי, if so, ישראל נמי, so by ייד

also. The יידן are also descendants of חוה, so the same filth should be by the יידן also. And the גמרא answers: ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן, that the יידן, since they stood by הר סיני and they received the תורה, this filth left them. עובדי כוכבים שלא עמדו על הר סיני, but the גוים that didn't stand by הר סיני, they didn't receive the תורה, לא פסקה זוהמתן, their filth didn't go away. And therefore, a גוי has more pleasure with a Jew than with their own wives, and even with the בהמה of a Jew he has more pleasure than with his own wife. And therefore, we're afraid that he's going to do the immoral act with the בהמה of the ייד. And this that the יידן stood by הר סיני and that took away the filth from them is not only concerning יידן themselves, but also concerning גרים, because we know that even the נשמה, the מזל of the גרים stood by הר סיני. And therefore, the גמרא here couldn't ask that this is only concerning a ייד that is a ייד from birth. What about a גר who didn't stand by הר סיני, how come over there we're also afraid that the גוי will do an immoral act with his בהמה? Because even גרים also stood by הר סיני, and therefore the filth is not there by them either, and the גוי has more pleasure in the בהמה even of a גר than of his own wife. Then the גמרא says: איבעיא להו, there was a question asked: עופות מאי, what is the דין concerning birds? Are you allowed to leave birds amongst גוים? Are we afraid that he will do an immoral act with a bird also or not? The גמרא says: תא שמע, come hear, I'll answer your question. דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, משום רבי חנינא, in the name of רבי חנינא: אני ראיתי עובד כוכבים, I saw a גוי, שלקח אווז מן השוק, that he bought a goose in the market, רבעה, he did with it an immoral act, חנקה, then he choked it, וצלאה, he roasted it, ואכלה, and he ate it. אמר רב ירמיה מדיפתי, and רב ירמיה מדיפתי said: אני ראיתי ערבי אחד, I saw one Arab, שלקח ירך מן השוק, that he bought a ירך, which is a thigh-meat from the street, from the market, וחקק בה כדי רביעה, and he carved out a hole in it for the sake of an immoral act, רבעה, he did an immoral act with it, צלאה, he roasted it, ואכלה, and he ate it. So we see that a גוי is suspected of doing an immoral act with anything, and therefore, you are not allowed to leave even birds amongst גוים because we're afraid that he will do an immoral act even with the bird. Now לפועל, it comes out from here that we are not allowed to leave our animals amongst גוים, as it says in the משנה, it also says in the גמרא that you cannot give a בהמה to a גוי shepherd, and the reason is because we're afraid they are going to do an immoral act with the בהמה. So תוספות says, what is the reason that nowadays we don't care about this, and we do give over our בהמות to גוים, and we leave our בהמות amongst גוים? And רבינו תם says, because later on in the גמרא, there's another תירוץ that the גמרא gives to answer the סתירה between our משנה and the ברייתא, where our משנה it says that we are not allowed to leave the בהמות amongst גוים, because we're afraid they're going to do an immoral act, and in the ברייתא it says we are allowed to buy בהמות from גוים and use it for a קרבן, and we're not afraid that he used it for immoral act. So later on, there's a תירוץ in the גמרא in the name of רב פדא, that there is a מחלוקת in this, that in the משנה where it says we are afraid that he's going to do the immoral act, that goes according to רבי אלעזר. And the ברייתא where it says that we are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי and use it for a קרבן, and we don't suspect that he did the immoral act, that goes according to the רבנן, that hold that we don't suspect a גוי in doing this immoral act. Now if we're going to say that פשט, then we understand why nowadays we're allowed to, because if the one that says you're not allowed is רבי אלעזר, who argues against the רבנן, we פסקן like the רבנן. And even though not everybody accepts the תירוץ of רב פדא, that this is a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and the רבנן, and one of those that don't accept the תירוץ of רב פדא, but says his own תירוץ, is רבינא, and usually we פסקן like רבינא, because רבינא was the end of הוראה, which means he was the end of the גמרא, and therefore we usually פסקן like רבינא, but in this case, it seems like the תירוץ of רב פדא is the עיקר תירוץ. And תוספות says why: because first of all, the גמרא first quotes the תירוץ of רבינא, and then brings the תירוץ of רב פדא. And really, רב פדא should have come first, because רב פדא lived much before רבינא. Because we know that רב פדא was the son of רבי אלעזר, and that רבי אלעזר was a תלמיד of רבי יוחנן, so that goes back many years before רבינא. So the question is, why did the גמרא bring first the תירוץ of רבינא and then the תירוץ of רב פדא? So that is to show that the second תירוץ, the end תירוץ, that is the real תירוץ that's accepted. And therefore in this case, even though רבינא doesn't accept רב פדא's תירוץ, nevertheless, we have to say that the תירוץ of רב פדא is the עיקר תירוץ, and according to that, it seems that there is a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and the חכמים, and according to the חכמים, we are not afraid that he will do an immoral act, and that's how we פסקן, and therefore we're allowed to do it. And

also תוספות says, that בשל סופרים קיימא לן דהלכה כדברי המיקל, when it comes to a שאלה who we פסקן like, and it's a question, a דין דרבנן, we follow the one that is מיקל. And therefore here too, since there is a שאלה, a ספק, whether the הלכה is that we're allowed or we're not allowed, so we פסקן like the מיקל, and we say we are allowed. And even though this משנה here where it says אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עכו״ם is a סתם משנה, it doesn't mention the name, so in other words, even though we say that this משנה goes according to רבי אלעזר, but seeing that the משנה does not mention his name, it's a סתם משנה, where you have the כלל always that the הלכה is like סתם משנה, nevertheless, in this case, we don't פסקן like that. And the reason is, because later on we find a מחלוקת. Because in the משנה in פרה, as the גמרא brings later, we find a מחלוקת. And the rule is, that whenever we have a מחלוקת after סתם, first comes a סתם משנה, and then we find a משנה later with a מחלוקת in that, the הלכה is like the מחלוקת. And תוספות says even more: even if the order would be different, even if we would have first the מחלוקת and then the סתם, in this case we also would have no ראיה that we פסקן like the סתם משנה, because we have a כלל that in two מסכתות we don't have a סדר. And since the מחלוקת is in מסכת פרה, so we don't follow the order in the case of the two מסכתות. So even if we would have first the מחלוקת and then the סתם, that usually the כלל is that מחלוקת ואחר כך סתם, הלכה כסתם, but in this case we wouldn't say that, because it is in two מסכתות. And therefore, the fact that this is a סתם doesn't prove anything, because in another place, this is a מחלוקת. And therefore here we're able to say that we don't פסקן like the סתם, but we פסקן like the חכמים, that you are allowed to leave the בהמה amongst גוים, because we do not suspect that a גוי will do an immoral act to the בהמה.

Later on in the גמרא, where the גמרא asked a סתירה from this משנה to the ברייתא, and this משנה it says that you are not allowed to leave a בהמה amongst גוים because we're afraid of the immoral act, and in the ברייתא it says that we are allowed to buy a בהמה from גוים for a קרבן, and we do not suspect that the גוי did an immoral act with the בהמה and made it פסול for the קרבן, so on that תוספות asked a קשיא, that why did the גמרא have to ask a קשיא, a סתירה between the ברייתא and our משנה, when really, the גמרא could have asked a סתירה between this משנה and the previous משנה? Because the משנה on דף י״ד עמוד ב׳ says: מקום שנהגו למכור בהמה דקה לעובדי כוכבים מוכרין, מקום שנהגו שלא למכור אין מוכרין, and a place where the custom was that you do not sell a small cattle to גוים, the דין is you shouldn't. If it is a custom that you do, then you are allowed. So we see from there, it is only a מנהג that you are not allowed in certain places, but as an איסור, there is no איסור in it, which shows that מעיקר הדין, we do not suspect that a גוי will do an immoral act, and therefore, there is no איסור. And in this משנה, it says that you are not allowed to have an animal of yours stand amongst גוים because they are afraid of the immoral act. And the גמרא could have answered the same תירץ it gives: that over there, when we're selling it to a גוי, so it's going to belong to the גוי, we're not afraid he's going to do an immoral act, as the גמרא says here that a גוי will not do it to his own בהמה. But in this משנה, where it's speaking about us putting our בהמות amongst the גוים, where it's not the גוי's, here we are afraid of the גוי doing an immoral act. So why doesn't the גמרא ask this question, rather than asking the סתירה between the משנה and the ברייתא? The truth is that this question was already asked earlier on that משנה. The גמרא there right away on that משנה asked this קשיא, that from that משנה we see that there is no איסור, just a מנהג, and the גמרא quoted there our משנה, where it says אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עכו״ם, so we see that we do suspect that they will do an immoral act. And there, the גמרא gave two תרוצים. The second תירץ was the תירץ the גמרא gives here, but the first תירץ the גמרא gave is a תירץ that רב said, that רב said that when it says in our משנה that we are not allowed to put our בהמות amongst גוים, this is only in the case where the מנהג is not to sell. In other words, the two משניות go together: in a case where the מנהג is not to sell because they suspect of the immoral act, in that place you are not allowed to leave the בהמה in the גויישע inn either. In the place where you are allowed to sell, which means in the place where we do not suspect that a גוי will do an immoral act, in that place you're allowed to leave the בהמה amongst the גוים also. And this דין of אין מעמידין that we have in our משנה would not apply there. And the גמרא says later on that רב had חרטה from this תירץ, but לכתחילה the גמרא gave that תירץ. So תוספות asks: Why didn't the גמרא give that תירץ here, too? Because that תירץ that רב said there to answer the סתירה between the two משניות is also a good תירץ to answer the סתירה between the משנה and the ברייתא, because we could say that when it says in the ברייתא that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן, and we do not suspect that he did an immoral act with it, we could say this is only in the place where the מנהג is that we are allowed to sell them בהמה דקה, that is only in that place where the מנהג is that we are allowed to leave בהמות amongst them. But in the place where we are not allowed to leave בהמות amongst them, and that's what the משנה is talking about when it says אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עכו״ם, in that place we are not allowed to buy from them a בהמה for a קרבן either. So the גמרא could have given that תירץ also. So why didn't it? And תוספות answers that the reason the גמרא didn't ask the סתירה here between this משנה and that משנה is for that simple reason, because the גמרא had already asked that סתירה, and the גמרא had already answered this תירץ. And that's why the גמרא didn't want to ask that. But what the גמרא did ask was that we have another סתירה between this משנה and a ברייתא, and that the גמרא didn't ask yet. And concerning this, the גמרא answers that the same תירץ that we gave there concerning the סתירה of the two משניות, we also are able to give concerning the סתירה between the משנה and the ברייתא. But the question still remains: Why didn't the גמרא here also answer the תירץ that רב gave over there, that this itself depends on a מקום שנהגו? So תוספות says the reason the גמרא did not want to give this answer, because according to this תירץ, what would come out? That in a place where the מנהג is that you're not allowed to sell בהמה דקה to a גוי, you're not allowed to buy from them a בהמה for a קרבן either. Why? Because we do suspect that they did an immoral act with it. But if so, there would be many קושיות from different פסוקים, because later on we find in the גמרא, the גמרא brings many פסוקים where it comes out that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן. So לכאורה, if there is a place where we are not allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן, what will we do with all those פסוקים? The only answer we will be able to give is that those פסוקים are talking in a case where the מנהג is that you are allowed to sell them בהמה דקה, which means that the פסוקים are talking in a case where these people were not חשוד on doing an immoral act. But that can't be, because if you look at the פסוקים, all these פסוקים talk about מצרים, and about כנען, and about פלשתים, and we know for sure that these people were definitely suspected of doing an immoral act. And then there's another פסוק that speaks about כל צאן קידר, which is concerning the ערביים, they are also definitely suspected for doing an immoral act, as we see in our גמרא here itself later on, where it says that there was this one ערבי that bought a ירך מן השוק, and he made a hole in it, and he did the immoral act, and then he ate it. So we see even to this degree the ערבי goes, so certainly the ערביים are suspected of an immoral act. So what will we say concerning those פסוקים? How will we answer those פסוקים where it says that you are allowed to buy בהמות from a גוי for a קרבן, if we will learn that there is a possibility of a place where you're not allowed to do it? So we'll have to say that these are talking only in a place where we don't suspect the גוים of immoral act, and this can't be. Plus תוספות says, it is hard to say that the פסוקים are talking in a place Where they are suspected. The פסוקים don't make a difference between one place and the other. If you learn the פסוקים, it seems, seems as if the פסוקים are telling us that you're allowed. It is hard to say that the פסוקים are talking only in a מקום שנהגו that we do suspect that they would do the immoral act. And therefore, the גמרא here does not want to answer the תירוץ the גמרא gives there, because here the תירוץ will apply concerning the דין that it says in the ברייתא that you're allowed to buy a בהמה for a קרבן. And if we would answer that תירוץ, we would have all these hardships of the פסוקים, as we mentioned before. And then תוספות even adds, it's possible that this is the reason why רב had חרטה, changed his mind from this תירוץ, because in the גמרא over there, it doesn't say why רב changed his mind. But this could be the reason, תוספות says, because according to רב's תירוץ, we would have to answer that same תירוץ here, too. Now this תירוץ, to answer here, we cannot, because of the פסוקים. So when רב saw that he couldn't answer the תירוץ concerning the ברייתא, he realized that the תירוץ is not a תירוץ, and that's why he had חרטה, and he accepted the other תירוץ. But then תוספות says that we could give another reason: that באמת, our גמרא here, before the גמרא even asked the contradiction between the משנה and the ברייתא, the גמרא knew that we could make a חילוק that a גוי will not do it with his own בהמה. And that's why the גמרא did not ask the question from the other משנה, the contradiction between the two משניות, because the גמרא knew of the תירוץ that that משנה over there is talking about a בהמה that belongs to the גוי, while the משנה here is talking about a בהמה that doesn't belong to the גוי. And nevertheless, the גמרא asked the question from the ברייתא, because the גמרא thought that since in our ברייתא, we're talking about buying a בהמה from a גוי, in other words, the גוי is ready to sell the בהמה, so we thought if he's ready to sell it, then it's as if it's not his, and he would do the immoral act. The whole reason why he doesn't want to do the immoral act is because he doesn't want to ruin the בהמה, but that's only if he plans to keep the בהמה. But in a case where he's selling the בהמה, so we would think maybe here he doesn't mind, and it should have the same דין as if it's not his בהמה. And therefore, the גמרא asked the contradiction between the משנה, where it says that if it's not his בהמה, we do suspect of the immoral act, and in the ברייתא, where it's also as if it's not his בהמה, we don't suspect of the immoral act. That's why the גמרא has the קשיא. And the גמרא's תירוץ was that nevertheless, even though he wants to sell it, as long as he didn't sell it, he would not do it, because he is not sure, sure he will get a customer, and maybe he will change his mind and not sell it, so he will not take a chance, and it's still considered his, and he will not do the immoral act with the בהמה. Then תוספות asks: After all, the משנה did say before that in certain places we do not sell a בהמה to a גוי, because we're afraid that he will do an immoral act even if the בהמה is his. So how could be the דין that you're allowed to buy a בהמה for a קרבן from a גוי all over? As we said before, this applies to all places, as it is derived from the פסוקים. But after all, there are places where we do suspect the גוים of immoral act, as we see from the דין that in certain places you are not allowed to sell a גוי a בהמה דקה. So obviously, there are places where we do suspect them of immoral act. So how could the דין be that in all over, you're allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי, even from those places where you are not allowed to sell him a בהמה דקה? Which means even in the place where we do suspect that he will do an immoral act with a בהמה that is his, nevertheless, you're allowed to buy that בהמה for a קרבן. But the question is, why? And תוספות answers that in those places where the מנהג is not to sell him, it is still only a מנהג, but not an איסור. In other words, it is not because in that place, על פי הלכה we have to suspect he will do the immoral act. There there is more chance that it will happen, and still על פי הלכה it is not enough for us to אסר it, but nevertheless, there is a מנהג that we are afraid of that. So concerning selling, this מנהג is strong enough, but concerning a קרבן, this מנהג doesn't even apply, even as a מנהג. Because if you would have the מנהג not to buy from them a בהמה for a קרבן, then אין לדבר סוף, then there is no end to it, because it is impossible that it shouldn't get mixed up. And if you bought a בהמה for a קרבן in a place where the custom is that you do not sell them בהמות, with a בהמה that was bought in those places where we do not suspect them of the immoral act. Because since business is done with בהמות, so it goes from one place to the other, so we're never sure that this בהמה was not bought in that place. And even though the majority of בהמות would have been bought in a place where we do not suspect that they did the immoral act, and then we should say we should follow the majority, because the דין is we always go בתר רוב, we follow the majority, and that is the reason we are not afraid that this בהמה came from there. But this doesn't help, because the rule is כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי, and only if it's פירש, only if you have a majority and then one moved away from the majority, that's when we say it probably came from the majority. But if it is קבוע, it's a set place, so then we say even if there's a majority of היתר, it is as if it is 50-50, and it is a real ספק, and it should be אסור. So therefore, if we would accept the מנהג concerning the קרבן, and we would say that according to the מנהג we should not take a קרבן from a place where there is a suspicion that maybe the גוי did the immoral act, then we cannot buy a קרבן from any גוי, from anywhere, because we're always afraid, maybe it came from there, and it is קבוע, מחצה מחצה, so there is אין לדבר סוף, there is no end. איי, let's say the דין should be that you should only be able to buy בהמות that were born in the house of a Jew for a קרבן, because there is not enough, because there are so many מומין that occur in בהמות, and it is not enough to buy בהמות only from the homes of Jews. Therefore, we will have to buy from גוים. And if we buy from גוים, there is always a ספק, a complete ספק, because קבוע, מחצה מחצה, that maybe it came from that place. So then we wouldn't be able to buy any בהמה from a גוי. So then we won't be able to buy בהמות for a קרבן. So therefore, concerning קרבן, this מנהג was not accepted, and therefore, all over we are allowed to buy בהמות for a קרבן from גוים.