Avodah Zarah, Daf Tet Vav, Part 2

 

Introduction

In yesterday s sugya we learned that when one rents something he technically owns it. Obviously this does not mean that he does not have to give it back. What it means is that while the object is being rented, it technically belongs to him.

 

מתקיף לה רב יצחק ברי’ דרב משרשיא ושכירות מי קניא? והא תנן ישראל ששכר פרה מכהן יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה וכהן ששכר פרה מישראל אע"פ שמזונותיה עליו לא יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה

ואי ס"ד שכירות קניא אמאי לא יאכילנה פרה דידיה היא?

אלא ש"מ שכירות לא קניא

 

R. Yitzchak the son of R. Mesharsheya objected: But does rent really constitute acquisition? Have we not learned: An Israelite who rents a cow from a priest may feed it terumah vetches; but a priest who rents a cow of an Israelite, even though he is obligated to feed it, may not feed it terumah vetches.

Now, were we to hold the opinion that renting constitutes acquisition, why should he not feed it? Surely the cow belongs to him! From here you can deduce that renting does not constitute acquisition.

 

A priest may feed his animal terumah (as long as it is animal food) but an Israelite may not. If an Israelite rents a cow from the priest he may feed it terumah renting does not constitute acquisition so the priest still owns it. Similarly, if a priest rents a cow from a priest, he may not feed it terumah. Again, renting does not constitute acquisition.

 

והשתא דאמרת שכירו’ לא קניא גזירה משום שכירות וגזירה משום שאלה וגזירה משום נסיוני

 

Now, since you have declared that renting does not constitute acquisition, the prohibition is both because of renting, and because of lending and because of trying.

 

We now have more reasons as to why it is prohibited to sell a large animal to an idolater. This might lead one to rent or lend an animal or it might to letting the idolater try out the animal on erev Shabbat. Since the Jew still owns the animal, when it works on Shabbat the Jew is violating Shabbat.

 

רב אדא שרא לזבוני חמרא אידא דספסירא. אי משום נסיוני הא לא ידעה לקליה דאזלא מחמתיה. ואי משום שאלה ושכירות כיון דלא דידיה היא לא מושיל ולא מוגר

ועוד משום דלא ניגלי ביה מומא

 

R. Adda permitted selling a donkey [to an idolater] through an agent: If we are concerned about trying, it is not familiar with his voice that it should walk because of him. And as to lending or renting since it is not his own he will neither lend nor rent it; Also, lest some fault be discovered in it.

 

R. Adda finds a way of allowing a Jew to sell an animal to an idolater. As long as he uses an agent, all of the concerns we might have are removed. Even if the agent lets the idolater try it out on erev Shabbat, the animal will not come to the unfamiliar voice of the agent. And the agent will not lend or rent the animal out because it is not his. Furthermore, he would fear that the idolater would find a fault in the animal and then not buy it.