Previous daf

1)

(a) We just concluded that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar forbids renting a Kuti a field over Chol ha'Moed, because he will work it on Chol ha'Mo'ed. The problem with this from the reason given by Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar himself 'Mipnei she'Nikreis al Sh'mo ... ' is - that, irrespective of that suspicion, it is forbidden because of the La'av of "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" (and that is what the Tana ought to have said).

(b) In fact, we answer - the Tana holds of both reasons, and what he is saying is that besides the obvious reason of "Lifnei Iver", there is another reason ('Mipnei she'Nikreis al Sh'mo ... ').

(a) In the case of a syndicate of gardeners of safran consisting of Jews and Nochrim, the latter worked on Shabbos, the latter, on Sunday. When they came before Rava - he condoned that arrangement.

(b) Ravina queried Rava from a Beraisa - which forbids a Yisrael and a Nochri who received a field in partnership ba'Arisus, and who ultimately want to come to an arrangement that the Nochri takes his due from the work that he did on Shabbos, and the Yisrael, on Sunday.

(c) 've'Im Ba'u be'Cheshbon, Asur', means that - if the Nochri went of his own accord, and worked on Shabbos, and the Yisrael comes later and wants to work the equivalent amount of weekdays as the amount of Shabbasos that the Nochri worked, that would be forbidden.

(a) An arrangement by which the Nochri receives his due from the produce of Shabbos, and the Yisrael, from the produce of Sunday would be permitted - if they made this condition at the outset.

(b) Initially, when Ravina asked Rava this Kashya, he was embarrassed. But his mind was put at ease, when he discovered - that the gardeners had in fact, made that condition at the outset.

(a) According to Rav Gevihah from Bei Kasil, the case of the syndicate of gardeners did was not a question of Shabbos and Sunday at all, but rather - one of Orlah (during which time the Nochri worked and took his due) and subsequent years (during which time the Yisrael did so).

(b) The problem with this version - is Ravina's Kashya from the Beraisa, which is not difficult once we switch to Orlah, since there is no Isur to send a Nochri to work on Orlah in one's place, like there is on Shabbos.

(c) In fact, Ravina cited the Beraisa to Rava (not in the form of a Kashya, but rather) - in the form of a proof, because we learn from 'Hisnu Lechatchilah Mutar' that whenever there is no Isur Shelichus, it is permitted.

(d) Rava's embarrassment however - never occurred, and was erroneously quoted.

(a) We ask what the Din will be in a case where the Yisrael and the Nochri did not make any conditions. We ...

1. ... try to resolve the She'eilah from the Reisha 'Im Hisnu mi'Techilah Mutar' - which implies 'Ha S'tama Asur'.
2. ... counter this proof however, from the Seifa 'Im Ba'u le'Cheshbon, Asur' - which implies 'Ha S'tama, Mutar'.

(b) So we conclude - 'Ela me'Ha Leka le'Mishma Mineih' (meaning that we cannot infer anything from our Mishnah).

6)

(a) We have already discussed our Mishnah 'Ein Ma'amidin Beheimah be'Pundeka'os shel Ovdei-Kochavim ... ' - because they are suspected of bestiality.

(b) The Tana forbids ...

1. ... a woman to be alone with a Nochri - for fear that he will rape her.
2. ... a man to be alone with a Nochri - for fear that he will murder him.

7)

(a) The Beraisa - permits buying an animal from a Nochri to bring as a Korban?

(b) We are not afraid that it was ...

1. ... a Muktzah (designated to be brought as a sacrifice) or that it had actually been worshipped - because a Nochri would not sell either of them.
2. ... a Rovei'a or a Nirva - because he does not want his animal to become barren.

(c) This reason explains why one may buy a female animal from them. Buying a male animal is permitted, explains Rav Kahana - because an animal that has been raped by a human becomes weak.

(a) We ask why another Beraisa then permits purchasing an animal from a Nochri shepherd - who is not concerned about the animal becoming barren or weak (like the owner is), seeing as it is not his animal.

(b) We answer that it is nevertheless permitted - because he would a shepherd is afraid of losing his wages, in the event that his perversions are discovered.

(c) Nevertheless, another Beraisa forbids handing a Nochri shepherd an animal to look after - because he might rape it.

(d) This, in spite of the previous Beraisa which explained how the shepherd was afraid that he would lose his wages, because whereas there, he is afraid of being discovered by his Nochri employed (with whom he has social contact, or because he might even walk in and catch him in the act), here he is not afraid of the Yisrael (with whom he has no other contact) finding out.

(a) This is the source, says Rabah, of a famous folk-saying ...

1. ... 'Micht'va Gelala Baza' - the marble (for all its strength, is afraid of the style that carves on it (because it recognizes it), and likewise ...
2. ... 'Rigla be'Chavreih Yada' - the roguish peddler is afraid of other peddlers (because he knows them [see also Tosfos DH 'Rigla ... ').

(b) We think that purchasing a male animal from a Nochris might be forbidden - because bringing the animal on herself, as we suspect, will not cause the animal to become weak (and barrenness is of course, not applicable either).

(c) We conclude however, that it is permitted - because an animal that has been rapes a human tends to constantly trail him/her, and her perversions would soon become known.

(a) Rav Yosef quoting a Beraisa, rules - that an Almanah may not keep a dog or board a Talmid-Chacham ...

(b) ... because we are afraid of the ensuing perversions - posing a Kashya on what we just said (that even a Nochris would not indulge in bestiality ... ).

(c) The problem is confined to the case of the dog, but does not pertain to that of the Talmid-Chacham - who will prefer to keep quiet about his dealings with his hostess.

(d) We answer the Kashya - by differentiating between a Beheimah and a dog, which will also keep trailing her if she throws it a bone (and that is what she will rely on people saying).

(a) We cited a Beraisa in the first Perek that even forbids leaving female animals with Nochri women. Mar Ukva bar Chama explains that this is - because Nochrim tend to visit their friends' wives, and sometimes, not finding them at home, they give vent to their desires on their animals instead.

(b) This fear might even apply, he adds, if the visiting 'friend' does find the hostess at home - because, Mar explains, they even prefer a Yisrael's animal to their own wives.

(c) Mar's statement is based on a statement by Rebbi Yochanan, who said - that when the snake had relations with Chavah, he injected a filth into her. When Yisrael stood at Har Sinai, they were cleansed of this filth, he says, (and this apparently affects their animals too), whereas Nochrim still retain it.

(a) The above prohibition also extends to the animal of a Ger - whose 'Mazel' stood at Har Sinai, even if he didn't (see Tosfos DH 'Ovdei-Kochavim' and Maharam).

(b) We ask whether it applies to leaving birds with a Nochri, and we answer with a couple of stories. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel quotes Rebbi Chanina, who saw a Nochri purchase a goose from the market - rape it, strangle it and fry it.

(c) And Rebbi Yirmiyah from Difti attest at having seen a Nochri take a vegetable that he purchased from the market - carve a hole in it and 'rape' it, before frying it and eating it.