Avodah Zarah Daf 22 עבודה זרח דַף 22

A Jew and an עכו"ם once sharecropped a field of saffron together. The עכו"ם worked on Shabbos, and the Jew worked on Sunday, and when Rava was asked, he permitted the arrangement. Ravina challenged Rava from a Baraisa stating that if a Jew and עכו"ם accepted a field for sharecropping, the Jew cannot tell the idolator: טול חלקך בשבת ואני בחול – “Take your portion of the work and do it on Shabbos, and I will do my work on Sunday.” Since half of each day’s work is incumbent upon each partner, the עכו"ם is performing the Jew’s work for him on Shabbos. ואם התנו מתחלה מותר – If they stipulated from the beginning that the עכו"ם would work on Shabbos and the Jew on Sunday, it is permitted, because the Jew was never responsible for work on Shabbos. ואם באו לחשבון אסור – And if instead they came to a calculation at the end (when dividing profits), and calculated the days of Shabbos worked by the עכו"ם against the weekdays worked by the Jew, it is forbidden, because the Jew is thereby profiting from Shabbos work. How did Rava allow the saffron workers’ arrangement, which the first case of the Baraisa forbids? Rava was embarrassed, but it later emerged that they had stipulated this arrangement from the beginning.

The second Perek begins: אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עובדי כוכבים – we may not leave an animal in the stable of idolators’ inns, מפני שחשודין על הרביעה – because they are suspected of having relations with animals, and the owner would violate לפני עור for facilitating the idolator’s transgression. The Gemara objects that a Baraisa permits buying an עכו"ם’s animal for a korban, and there is no concern that it was disqualified through relations with a person, nor used for avodah zarah. We assume it was not used for idolatry, because otherwise he would not sell it. But why are we not concerned that he had relations with it? Rav answers: עובד כוכבים חס על בהמתו שלא תעקר – an idolator is concerned about his own animal that it should not become sterile and does not have relations with it (but is unconcerned about harming the Jew’s animal). They also do not have relations with their own male animals, whose flesh becomes weakened. Their shepherds, too, avoid relations with the animals, because they are afraid of getting caught and losing their pay, since they know of each other’s activities (in contrast to a Jewish owner, of whom the shepherd is not afraid).

The Gemara asks that it should be permitted to leave one’s female animal with a female idolator, since there is no concern of relations. Mar Ukva bar Chama answers that male idolators commonly have relations with their friends’ wives, and at times may not find her home and instead have relations with the animal left with her. Alternatively, even if he does find her at home, he may have relations with the Jew’s animal, because חביבה עליהן בהמתן של ישראל יותר מנשותיהן – animals of Yisroel are preferable to them over their wives. Rebbe Yochanan explained the reason, because when the נחש had relations with חוה, הטיל בה זוהמא – he cast impurity into her. The Gemara asks why this זוהמא did not impact Jews, and answers: ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן – Yisroel, who stood at Har Sinai and accepted the Torah, their impurity ended, just like all other defects were. Idolators, who did not stand at Har Sinai, retained their זוהמא.