Avodah Zarah, Daf Samekh Gimmel, Part 4
Introduction
At the end of yesterday s section we read a source that says that if an employer tells his worker to go eat and he will pay him back, the employer has to make sure he doesn t eat prohibited produce. This was a difficulty on the practice of the House of Yannai to buy Sabbatical year produce from poor people and pay them back later. The Talmud will now offer a couple of solutions.
תרגמה רב חסדא בחנוני המקיפו דמשתעבד ליה דכיון דאורחיה לאקופי קני ליה דינר גביה
R. Hisda explained: [The teaching just quoted deals] with a shop-keeper who extends credit so that he is indebted to him, and since it was his custom to give him credit it is as though he had acquired the dinar from him.
R. Hisda explained that this baraita refers to a case where the shop-keeper (who is giving the food to the employees) usually give the employer credit. Therefore, as soon as the shop-keeper gives the food to the workers, the employer incurs a debt to the shop-keeper and it is as if he is simply buying forbidden food straight from the shop-keeper. This is not like the case of the House of Yannai for they have no set relationship with the people they are borrowing from.
אבל חנוני שאין מקיפו מאי מותר אי הכי אדתני צאו ואכלו בדינר זה צאו ושתו בדינר זה ליפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים בחנוני המקיפו דמשתעבד ליה אבל חנוני שאין מקיפו מותר
But a shop-keeper who does not extend credit, what is the rule? It is permitted! If that is so, instead of teaching Go and eat for this dinar, go out and drink for this dinar, it should have drawn a distinction in this very case and taught as follows: When does this apply? [When they buy] from a shopkeeper who gives him credit so that he is indebted to him, but if from shopkeeper who does not give him credit it is permitted!
The Talmud raises a difficulty on R. Hisda s resolution. If R. Hisdah was correct then instead of the distinction taught in the baraita itself, between a case where the employer gave them the dinar first and a case where he paid them back after they had bought the food, the distinction should have been drawn with regard to the shop-keeper s relationship with the employer. If the shop-keeper regularly extends credit to the employer it is forbidden, but if he does not, it is permitted.
ועוד חנוני שאין מקיפו מי לא משתעבד והאמר רבא האומר לחבירו תן מנה לפלוני ויקנו כל נכסאי לך קנה מדין ערב
Furthermore, if the shopkeeper does not give him credit, is [the employer in such a circumstance] not indebted to him? Has Rava not declared: One who says to his fellow, Give so-and-so a maneh and let all my possessions be acquired to you, he has acquired through the halakhah of a guarantor!
The Talmud now notes that even if the shopkeeper does not regularly extend credit, the employer owes him the money as soon as he gives the food to the workers. This is like the case discussed by Rava. Reuven tells Shimon to give Levi a maneh, and all of Reuven s property will be subject to pay back Shimon. The minute that Shimon pays Levi, Reuven is liable to pay back Shimon. This is like the case of a guarantor who is liable to pay back a debt even though he did not receive any benefit. So too in the case at hand the employer (analogous to Reuven) must pay the debt back to the shopkeeper (analogous to Shimon).
אלא אמר רבא לא שנא מקיפו ולא שנא שאין מקיפו אע"ג דמשעבד ליה כיון דלא מייחד שיעבודיה לא מיתסר
Rather Rava said: It does not matter whether he gives him credit or not; even though [the employer] is indebted to him, since he does not specify his indebtedness, it is not prohibited.
Rava says that it does not matter that the employer must pay the shopkeeper back. It is permitted because he did not designate which property he will use to pay him back. The House of Yannai acted in a proper manner because they did not specify which property they would use to pay back the poor people.
אלא הכא אמאי חושש משום שביעית הא לא מייחד שיעבודיה
הכא אמר רב פפא כגון שהקדים לו דינר
Why, then, here should he be concerned [about their eating and drinking the produce of] the Sabbatical year as he does not specify his indebtedness!
R. Papa said: Here is the case where he paid him the dinar in advance.
The problem now is the baraita. If the employer did not designate which property he would use to pay them back, then why should it be prohibited? R. Papa answers that the employer paid the shopkeeper in advance. Thus it is as if he is directly acquiring forbidden produce. But if he did not pay him in advance, the employer would not need to be concerned.