Avodah Zarah, Daf Kaf Aleph, Part 2

 

Introduction

The Talmud begins to comment on the Mishnah.

 

גמ׳ מאי אין צריך לומר שדות? אילימא משום דאית בה תרתי חדא חניית קרקע וחדא דקא מפקע לה ממעשר, אי הכי בתים נמי איכא תרתי חדא חניית קרקע וחדא דקא מפקע לה ממזוזה. אמר רב משרשיא מזוזה חובת הדר הוא:

 

GEMARA. What does it mean and it is not necessary to mention fields ? If we say that it is for two reasons, first of all that the non-Jew settles on the soil, and second that the [produce] becomes exempt from tithes? If so, then houses too have two reasons: first, that he settles on the soil, and second they become exempt from having a mezuzah.

R. Mesharsheya said: Mezuzah is an obligation of the resident.

 

The Mishnah assumed that it was more obvious that one cannot sell fields to a non-Jew than it is that one cannot sell them a house. So why is it more obvious? There are two reasons not to sell them a field 1) It gives them a foothold in the land; 2) The produce becomes exempt from tithes. But there are also two reasons not to sell them a house 1) It gives them a foothold in the land; 2) The house becomes exempt from a mezuzah. So why is it more obvious with regard to a field than a house.

R. Mesharsheya answers that there is no obligation for houses in Israel to have mezuzot. The obligation falls on the person, not on the house.

 

בסוריא משכירין בתים כו’: מאי שנא מכירה דלא? משום מכירה דארץ ישראל. אי הכי משכירות נמי נגזור. היא גופה גזרה ואנן ניקום וניגזור גזרה לגזרה

 

In Syria they may rent them houses, but not fields. Why is selling [of houses] different in that it is not allowed? Lest it lead to selling [houses] in the Land of Israel. If so, we should prohibit letting them houses as well?

Letting itself is a decree; shall we then go make a decree on a decree?

 

In Syria, the region outside of Israel, the rules are slightly more lenient, but it is still prohibited to sell them houses. In principle, this should be permitted because this is not the land of Israel. But it is prohibited lest someone come to sell them houses in Israel itself. But the prohibition does not extend to letting them houses, because the prohibition of renting a house in Israel is itself only a safeguard against selling them houses. There is a principle that we do not make a decree not to do something lest someone do something else that is only prohibited by a decree and not by a principle.

 

והא שכירות שדה דבסוריא דגזרה לגזרה היא וקא גזרינן?

התם לאו גזרה הוא קסבר כיבוש יחיד שמיה כיבוש

שדה דאית ביה תרתי גזרו ביה רבנן. בתים דלית בהו תרתי לא גזרו בהו רבנן:

 

But is not the letting of a field in Syria is a decree on another decree, and yet we still make that decree?

That is not a decree, for it follows the opinion that even the annexation by an individual is to be regarded as annexed [to Israel].

For a field for which there are two problems, the rabbis made a decree. But in the case of houses, where there are two problems, the rabbis made no decree.

 

The Talmud raises a problem, that renting a field to a non-Jew is prohibited even in Syria, even though this is a decree made on a decree.

The resolution is that this mishnah considers Syria to be part of Israel even though it was only conquered by an individual (David). Thus the rules concerning selling them land could apply in principle. When it comes to renting them a field, the rabbis ruled strictly because there are two problems (giving them a foothold and tithes), but renting a house, where there is only one problem (giving them a foothold), is permitted.