Gemara Masechet (tractate) Avodah Zarah, Daf Samech Bet (page 62), is being studied le'iluy nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Avraham ben Esther u'Bat Sheva, Hashem yikom damo, Gan Eden (Garden of Eden). Today's daf (page) is being studied l'refuah sheleimah (for a complete recovery) Miki ben Jamie, u'refuat hanefesh u'refuat haguf (healing of the soul and body), refuah krovah lavo v'chen yehi ratzon amen (may a speedy recovery come, and so may it be God's will, amen). We start perek (chapter) Socher et haPoel (Hiring the worker), perek chamishi (fifth chapter); we're starting from the Mishnah.
Socher et haPoel la'asot imo b'yayin nesech. So you hire the worker to work with yayin nesech, as Rashi says: socher oved kochavim she'sachar et Yisrael. So the goy hired a Yehudi la'asot imo melacha b'yayin nesech, leharikot mikli el kli, to empty from one kli to another kli, o le'havir chavit mikom l'mikom, or to move barrels from one place to another. B'yayin nesech mamash kai, we're talking about mamash yayin nesech she'nitnasech l'avodat kochavim, and about stam yeinam we'll inquire from the Gemara. We're not talking about stam yeinam; we're talking about mamash yayin nesech. The guy used it to pour for avodah zarah. Now you're working for the goy, dealing with this stuff.
So the Mishnah says: asur sacharo. The wages are forbidden; you cannot get hana'ah from working with yayin nesech. Sacharo la'asot imo melacha acheret: but let's say the goy hired him to do other work outside of the wine. Af al pi she'amar lo: even though in the interim of the work he told him, “He'avir li chavit shel yayin nesech mikom l'mikom,” take the wine from here to there, “sacharo mutar,” because that's his primary job. He wasn't hired for that; he was hired for other work and he's getting paid anyway for the other work, so in the other work he threw in this job as well.
Rashi says: “sacharo la'asot imo melacha acheret kol sacharo mutar, af al pi d'agra dehiyom l'melacha acheret hi, u've'Gemara mefareish la,” as the Gemara will explain. He was always getting paid for the other work.
HaSocher et haChamor (One who hires the donkey) is a similar case: a guy hires a donkey lehavi aleha yayin nesech. Again, the donkey is going to be a carrier to carry the yayin. Sacharo asur; you cannot benefit from the sachar. Renting out your donkey for yayin nesech is asur. Same point: sachara lashevet aleha—you hired the donkey to sit on it. Af al pi she'oved kochavim: you hire for something else, to sit on it, to ride it, to put something else on it. Even though the goy put lagino aleha, the wine jugs, on it, sachara mutar. Same concept: you're not paying him for that; you're paying him for other stuff. He did it for this; it's okay. The Gemara will explain the cases.
Okay, Gemara starts. You told me yayin nesech is asur behana'ah, and sachar is asur behana'ah. Mai ta'ama (what's the reason)? What's the reason sacharo is asur? Ileima (maybe you'll say) mishum d'yayin nesech asur behana'ah, sacharo nami asur. Maybe it's because since yayin nesech is asur behana'ah, anything that comes from yayin nesech is also asur, so the payment is also going to be asur.
The Gemara says: harei orlah v'kilei hakerem, asurin behana'ah. Orlah is the first three years of the fruit of the tree, and kilei hakerem is a mixture, let's say grapes and wheat in the field. These items are asur behana'ah. U'tenan (and we learned in a Mishnah) in Kiddushin: “mecharan v'kidesh b'demeihen mekudeshet.” You sold the orlah and you sold the fruit for ten bucks; you got the ten dollars, and you take the ten dollars and mekadesh a lady with it. So we don't say the ten dollars is asur behana'ah. If a guy is mekadesh, it's considered his money to make a Kiddushin. So therefore, same item: why should the money that you got paid for moving yayin nesech become asur behana'ah?
Sacharo asur—why is it asur? It should be like orlah. If a guy is mekadesh b'orlah atzmah, it's lo mekudeshet; with the fruit itself, it's lo mekudeshet. But if you sold orlah, the money—hi mekudeshet with it. It's hana'ah, so you see it's not asur behana'ah. Hana'ah: what you did is asur, but the money is not asur behana'ah. So same thing over here: why is sacharo asur? Sacharo is not asur behana'ah; it should be mutar, meaning it's not asur behana'ah.
Look at Rashi: “mekudeshet alma isurei hana'ah d'mehem mutarin.” That's the point: anything that's asur behana'ah, d'mehem mutarin—the money is mutar. “V'kol sheken sachar pe'ulato.” This is better; this is not—I'm not trading the issur for money. This is, I'm getting paid for doing work. It's better if my issur hana'ah—why are you telling me the sachar is mutar? V'kol sheken, this case. The Gemara's question.
Asur mashma even b'di'avad. If the Mishnah says sacharo asur, mashma even b'di'avad. Ella, the Gemara says: mai ta'ama d'isur, ho'il v'tofes et damav k'avodat kochavim. Okay, chiddush (a novel point). Yayin nesech is different. Yayin nesech is tofes et damav; it goes on the money like avodat kochavim. Avodah zarah: just like if you sell avodah zarah, the money is asur too. So too, the Rabbis said yayin nesech is tofes et damav. Therefore, the work that you did with it, the issur goes on the money. It's different from orlah. It has a din like avodah zarah. Just like avodah zarah goes on the money, so too this goes on the money as well.
Rashi: “ella ho'il v'tofes et damav k'avodat kochavim, d'keivan d'nitnasech la'avodat kochavim,” they used them mamash as avodah zarah, “harei hu k'avodat kochavim.” That's a din of avodah zarah, “d'dameha asurin,” as it says, “Vehayita cherem kamoho.” Rashi says “Vehayita cherem kamoho,” meaning whatever comes from the avodah zarah becomes like it. “D'chol she'ata mehaye mimeno harei hu kamoho.” V'chi heichi d'dameha asurin, sachar pe'ulato nami asur. So just like if you would sell the avodah zarah, the money is asur, anything that comes from the result of the avodah zarah—in this case, his payment for his work—becomes asur. So there's a difference: orlah is stam issur hana'ah, but avodah zarah is issur. But by avodah zarah, damav nitpas, and therefore this is like avodah zarah, and therefore damav nitpas.
V'harei shevi'it, d'tofes et dameha. A guy sells perot shevi'it, which is asur behana'ah, so the money now has a din of kedushat shevi'it. You have to treat the money like kedushat shevi'it, but still, u'tenan ha'omer la'poel: a guy tells a worker during the shemita year, “Heilach dinar zeh lilkot li yarak hayom.” Here's a dollar, here's a dinar; go pick vegetables for me today. Sacharo asur. So what is the din? The sachar is asur because it's sachar shevi'it. However, lilkot li yarak hayom—and he didn't say bo, which, in the first case, lilkot li bo yarak hayom, the bo is the key—then sacharo is asur. But if he says lilkot li yarak hayom, without the word bo, sacharo mutar. Which means that even though d'mehem nitpas by shevi'it—just as shevi'it is asur, the money that you get from shevi'it is also asur—the sachar, the payment that you get for working in the shemita, does not become asur.
Od pa'am (once again), there's a difference between selling shevi'it. I say the sale: the shevi'it remains kadosh and the money also gets nitpas. No problem. But in the same case, if I'm working for somebody during shemita and I'm getting paid a dinar, the money doesn't become asur. So similarly by avodah zarah, just because if I sell the avodah zarah, hachi nami, the money is nitpas, who says that working for avodah zarah, where I'm getting paid, means that the payment is nitpas? Just because it's asur behana'ah and damav nitpas doesn't necessarily mean that sacharo is going to be asur. You see shevi'it is like that.
Rashi says: “lilkot li bo, lashon mecher hu, d'mashma lilkot li sham yarak.” Ah, when he says bo, it's like he's selling, which means: pluck, give me a dinar, and you could pluck a dinar's worth of vegetables. That's why it's asur, because he's selling it. When I tell the guy in the field of shemita stuff, “Pluck for yourself a dinar's worth,” that's a sale. But if I just say, “Pluck yarak and I'll give you a dinar,” that's—you’re working for me. So you're working for me, and what do we say? Damav mutar, even though shemita is asur behana'ah and damav nitpas.
The Gemara says: No answer. Amar Rav Abahu amar Rabbi Yochanan: “knas shekanshu chachamim bachamarin u'veyayin nesech.” Knas (penalty). You're right. Really, according to the rules, the money you earn working with yayin nesech, your salary, should not be asur. But the Rabbis put a knas on it. Chumra (stringency) d'yayin nesech. They not only imposed this on yayin nesech, but also on chamarin. So the Gemara says: yayin nesech, amran—we told you the case of yayin nesech. Chamarin mai hi? What's the case of chamarin? What's the case of donkeys? Detanya (as it was taught): “hachamarin shehayu osin melacha b'perot shevi'it.” I guess they hired donkey drivers to carry shevi'it produce from one place to another. “Secharan shevi'it.” So the payment they get has a din of shevi'it.
So the Gemara says: mai secharan shevi'it? What does it mean that their payment is shevi'it? Ileima d'yahavinan lehu sechar b'perot shevi'it? Ha kula. Secharan shevi'it: when you have a guy, that chamar, who takes your produce from one place to another, you pay him in shemita produce. Hachi Gemara akshi alah: “nimtza zeh porea chovo b'perot shevi'it.” You're paying a debt that you owe in perot shevi'it. V'haTorah amrah: “le'ochlah velo sechora.” The Torah says that at a certain point during the year of shemita, you can eat the fruit, but you can never do business with the fruit. And this guy's doing business; he's paying his workers with it. So for sure, when it says perot shevi'it, it doesn't mean that you can pay him with shevi'it, or that secharo shevi'it means you can pay him with shevi'it.
Ella, what does it mean? “Ella d'kadosh sech'ram bi'kedushat shevi'it.” Ah, the guys' wages have the kedushat shevi'it, and now you have to treat them with all the chumrot of shevi'it. So the Gemara says, “u'mi kadosh?” Ha, we just learned. U'mi kadosh? V'ha'tanya: “ha'omer la'poel, ‘Heilach dinar zeh u'lekot li yarak hayom,’ secharo mutar; ‘l'lekot li yarak bo hayom,’ secharo asur.” What do we say? A guy tells his worker, “Heilach dinar zeh”—here's a dinar—“u'lekot li yarak hayom,” and work for me, work for me. Secharo mutar. Why? So you see that the wages for shemita work are mutar. However, if he says, “u'lekot li yarak bo hayom,” that's—you’re selling him. You're telling him, “Listen, for the value of the dinar, take a dinar's worth of yarak.” That's asur because you're selling perot shevi'it. So what do you see clearly? If you're working for somebody during shemita, the kesef is mutar. Just as that kesef is mutar when the guy's plucking yarak, why are you telling me that the chamarin's wages should be asur?
Amar Abaye: “le'olam d'yahav lehu sechar mi'perot shevi'it.” Like we learned earlier. When it says secharo shevi'it, it means you pay the donkey guys in perot shevi'it. V'de'ka kashya lach, le'ochlah velo sechora: you had a question—you can't use perot shevi'it that way; you're using it for business. “D'yahavinan leih b'tzad heter.” Which means you gave it to him in a heter way, as a gift. K'detnan (as we learned) in the Mishnah in Masechet Ma'aser Sheni: “Lo yomar adam la'chavero.” You're not allowed to tell your friend, “Ha'aleh li perot hallalu li'Yerushalayim le'chalek.” You cannot tell your friend, “Take these perot up to Yerushalayim,” Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim, “le'chalek,” and you'll take a portion with it. You can't pay a guy from Ma'aser Sheni to do you a favor. I mean, take it to Jerusalem and you'll take a portion from it as your payment. That's asur over there, because you're not allowed to pay somebody from perot shevi'it.
“Aval omer lo”—it's a way of saying it. It's all in the way you say it. You tell the guy like this: “Ha'alem le'ochlam ve'lishtotam bi'Yerushalayim.” Take them up to Jerusalem, eat them and drink them, which you're allowed to do in Jerusalem; that's what you do with perot Ma'aser Sheni. So then it's “ve'notnin zeh la'zeh matnat chinam.” And then what will they do? Each one gives the other gifts.
What's Rashi's explanation? Top line: “Le'chalek, she'titol sham chelek, v'zeh asur lifroa chovo b'Ma'aser Sheni, ve'af al gav she'gam zeh ochlo bi'Yerushalayim.” Doesn't matter. So what is he telling him in this case over here? “Aval omer: ha'alem le'ochlam ve'lishtotam be'yachad bi'Yerushalayim.” Right, together. In Jerusalem. Look, part of them, like payment for going up there. Right, he's inviting him. He's inviting him to eat with them. He's inviting him: “We'll eat together.” So what does he gain by that? He's eating; one guy does the favor by bringing it. Right. Right, mamash. Right. You're not paying, in fact. So he's getting paid but he's not getting paid, meaning it's not meforash. Meaning you're saying, “Bring them up to Jerusalem and we'll eat them together in Jerusalem.” So you're giving him a gift somehow. It's a gift.
Amar mah (he said, “What?”), without telling him, “Bring them up and take a portion from it.” That's where you're using Ma'aser Sheni to pay the guy. Ella yahiv leh matana. Listen: “Take them up to Jerusalem, and when we get up there, we'll have a seuda (meal) together.” So he's getting a gift from the guy. A gift is okay.
So similarly, what, we're going to do the same thing by the chamarin, in the case of the donkeys. What are we going to say? When the braita said you pay the donkeys with perot shevi'it, you pay them with perot shevi'it. How could you pay them with perot shevi'it? I thought it says, “Le'ochlah velo sechora.” So it says it's talking about over here: “She'mutar latet lo mi'perot shevi'it b'matana, ve'hainu ba'lashon ha'zeh she'mazmino le'echol imo.” Meaning, you take my perot shevi'it to wherever you have to take them, and then come over; we'll have the perot and eat them together. Oh, so that is going to be considered okay.
So then what is the case in which they were machmir (stringent) with them? With chumra. So when it says, “hachamarin ha'osim b'toch perot shevi'it, secharan shevi'it,” there's a knas that we imposed. Normally, sechar shevi'it shouldn't be asur. We have the rule that sechar shevi'it, like we learned, the guy's plucking the fruit, and secharo mutar. But in this case of the chamarin, we don't—why? Because it looks like, if you tell the guy—and for sure if you tell the guy, “Here's your payment,” that's vadai (certainly) asur. Here's your payment from shemita fruit; that's vadai asur.
Ella, the Rabbis said that even if you tell him it's a gift, but it's... going to have kedushat shevi'it on the money that you can only—the guy's wages, no wages, the wages are perot shevi'it. You're paying perot shevi'it. What's the knas? You're paying the guy perot shevi'it. Are you allowed to pay in perot shevi'it? B'derech heter (in a permissible manner), you're allowed. As opposed to what? As opposed to paying him mamash wages; that's asur. You can't. Secharo mutar, like sechar hayarak. So even though perot shevi'it is asur, secharo mutar. So in the chamari case, lechora, secharo should be—secharo should be mutar. Yeah, but it's different. I'm not paying him sachar. I'm paying him perot shevi'it. So when I'm paying him in perot shevi'it, I cannot use perot shevi'it to pay back a loan.
Ah, so the Gemara over here, when you do it b'ha'arama—“Come have dinner with me, come eat the perot together”—what's the knas? How do you pay the chamari technically from the lo sheyehei yachol to pay the chamari with money? Because sechar shevi'it is mutar. No, don't pay with money. Pay him with perot shevi'it and make this whole thing so that you're not paying with shevi'it, but you're telling him matana and all that stuff.
Okay, good. Why then, when it comes to the worker who's working for a dinar, do you tell me, “Work for a dinar,” and give him a dinar's worth? Ah, I thought you don't pay people in shevi'it. You don't pay the chamari with money. Why could you pay this worker?
So the Gemara continues. V'Rava amar, Rava amar: “le'olam b'kedushat shevi'it, kadosh b'kedushat shevi'it.” Really, I'm going to tell you that the money—really, I'll tell you from a different premise. The money of shevi'it is kadosh. That's why when you pay the chamari money, the money's going to be kadosh. Just like the shevi'it is kadosh, it goes on the money.
Ah, if that's the case, u'v'ka kashya lach, po'el? Also, you ask me a case of a po'el who's working for a dinar; that's—we say you can't pay him? The money's mutar. “Po'el d'lo nafish agrei, lo kan'su Rabbanan.” A po'el is only going to get a small amount of money; he's only making a dinar. The Rabbis didn't make it so that his dinar is going to be kadosh, because min haTorah (by Torah law) the money's not kadosh. The Rabbis instituted that the payment you get for working in shemita is going to be kadosh. When did the Rabbis make the gezeira (rabbinic decree)? On substantial money. But a guy's working for a dinar to pluck a couple of vegetables? Achti dinaro mutar. However, chamarin d'nafish agrei, but chamarin get a lot of money, kan'su Rabbanan behu. Okay, that I understand. Now I understand the knas according to Rava.
Od pa'am. Really, sechar shevi'it is mutar min haTorah. Good. The Rabbis came along and said we're making a gezeira, and we're going to say sechar shevi'it is asur d'rabbanan. Now, when did the Rabbis make their law? Only when it's a substantial sechar. For example, chamarin. Chamarin that make a lot of money, so we're going to say the money you got for transporting shevi'it goods is asur. Mah she'ein ken (unlike that), a guy who's working in a field plucking vegetables for a dinar? A dinar's not such a big sechar; we're not going to gozer on it. So that's the chiluk (distinction) between the cases. So now we understand the knas they made by the chamarin. Knas, kan'su: even though sechar shemita is really mutar, the Rabbis made a gezeira when it's a substantial sechar; it is going to be asur. No, it's a lot of money. A lot of money—the Rabbis made a gezeira.
U'matnitin. Oh, right, back to our Mishnah. Ha'mistacher b'yayin nesech. Yayin nesech is a small case. The guy's working for a goy. No chamarin, it's not a big thing. And you told me the money you get for transporting yayin nesech, secharo asur. I thought you told me that by small items the Rabbis didn't make a gezeira, just like by shevi'it. The Gemara says: chumra d'yayin nesech shani. You go back to the chumra of yayin nesech. You're right; the Rabbis made a gezeira even though it's a small amount of money. Secharo is going to be asur. And therefore, the chiddush of the chamarin is teaching us that the knas was secharam kadosh b'kedushat shevi'it. And that's the knas shekansu chachamim bachamarin u'veyayin nesech.
Iba'aya lehu (they raised a question). The Gemara has a question: secharo l'stam yeinam. Okay, the goy hires the Jew to watch stam yeinam. What's stam yeinam? Now the Jew's working in stam yeinam. He's working in the wine factory of the goy. Mahu? What's the din? Mi amrinan, keivan d'issura chamur k'yayin nesech, do we say that stam yeinam is forbidden as well? The Rabbis said stam yeinam, and therefore I'm going to come and tell you secharo nami asur as well? Secharo nami asur. O dilma ho'il v'tum'ato kal, af secharo nami kal? The tum'ah of stam yeinam is kal. Mah zeh tum'ah shel stam yeinam? Mah zeh? Mah perush ha'tum'ah? We said yayin nesech is metamei like avodah zarah. Yayin nesech, avodah zarah is metamei k'met. Met is metamei b'ohel if one had negiah and all that stuff. Mah she'ein ken, stam yeinam doesn't have a din of a met. It's only metamei b'maga as far as actually touching it. Oh, so maybe I'll say that since stam yeinam, l'gabbei tum'ah, is small only in—maybe l'gabbei secharo is also lenient, o dilma ho'il v'tum'ato kal?
Look at the fourth line in Rashi: “K'demafresh b'Ein Ma'amidin, ... yayin nesech asur b'hana'ah u'metamei tum'ah chamurah k'b'chayit, stam yeinam asur b'hana'ah u'metamei tum'at mashkeh b'revi'it.” Okay, it's less. It’s not tum'at ohel, tum'at mashkeh. That has to be b'negiah. Okay.
The Gemara answers, ta shema (come and hear): “d'hahu gavra d'agar arva l'stam yeinam.” He rented a boat for stam yeinam. “Yehavu leh chitei b'agra.” So they paid the guy—the Jewish guy was a boatman; he transported the stam yeinam of the goy, and they paid him in wheat. That’s our question. He’s benefiting from stam yeinam. Ata l'kamei d'Rav Chisda, amar leh: “Zil kalinhu u'kavrin b'kavre.” Go take the wheat, burn it and bury it in the cemetery, sprinkle it in the cemetery. Why the cemetery? Asur b'hana'ah. So what do you see over here? Even the sechar of stam yeinam, according to this Gemara, a Jew cannot work for a non-Jewish winery. Trucking company, you can't transport. Bidiuk bidiuk. Exactly, exactly. FedEx.
Okay, so the Gemara is continuing with a story we were told about a fellow who hired a boat for stam yeinam. The boat was Jewish-owned, and the guy transported the wine and got paid in wheat. The Rabbis told him, “You gotta take the wheat and burn it and bury it in the cemetery,” because the sechar—the payment for using or dealing with stam yeinam, for working with stam yeinam—is asur b'hana'ah. So the Gemara is going to question the Rabbis’ advice to take the wheat, burn it and then bury it in the cemetery, which sounds a little extreme.
So the Gemara says, “v'leima leh badrinhu.” Why don’t they just say to scatter it? I mean, without burning it. Just scatter the wheat, throw it into the fields. Why do you have to burn it into ashes? The Gemara says, “atu b'hu l'yedei takalah.” They'll come to a problem. People will see the wheat on the floor; they’re not going to know it’s asur b'hana'ah, and they’ll use it. “V'naklinhu v'nivdrinhu.” So the Gemara says, fine, burn it and then just scatter it. Why do you have to bury the ashes? “Dilma mezabbele b'hu,” because you’re worried that they might use it as fertilizer. By saying to bury it in a cemetery, nobody plants in a cemetery, so therefore you don’t have a problem. So there was no option just to burn it and scatter it, because even the ashes can fertilize. Therefore, somebody might plant in the spot where you scattered it, and it’s going to fertilize. By burying it in the cemetery, you’re sure that there’s not going to be any planting in the cemetery, and therefore these ashes of the wheat will not come to fertilize.
So the Gemara says, “v'nikberinhu b'ainaihu.” So why don’t you just bury them as they are? Take the wheat and bury it in the cemetery. What do you have to burn it first? Mi lo tnan (didn't we learn)? As it says, when somebody is chayav mitat beit din, the stone that they used to stone him becomes asur b'hana'ah, and the different items that they use in the process become asur b'hana'ah. What do they do with those items? They bury them in the cemetery next to the guy. And it doesn't say they burn them; they just bury the items even though they're asur b'hana'ah. For example, the Gemara says: “Achad even she'niskal bah, v'achad etz she'nitlah alav, v'achad sayif she'yehareg bo, v'achad sudar she'nechenak bo, kulam nikbarim imo.” You bury the items with the niftar because they're asur b'hana'ah. But it doesn't say to burn them first. So why over here, which is also asur b'hana'ah, do we see that you have to burn it and then bury it? Just bury it straight.
“Hatam d'kavri b'vei dina, muchach milta d'harugei beit din ninhu; hacha lo muchach milta.” Which means that over there, the people who died by the hands of Beit Din were buried in a separate cemetery. Therefore, if somebody digs it up and sees the stone, he's going to know that the stone is asur b'hana'ah, because he knows it's buried next to the people who are buried in Beit Din for mitat beit din. So it'll be no problem; nobody's going to mistake these items for things to use personally. Mah she'ein ken, over here, if a person goes to the cemetery, digs, and sees wheat there, “amar inish ganav v'ayti kavrah.” Now what's going to happen? He's going to say, “Must be a ganav stole the wheat and he's hiding it in the cemetery.” Therefore, if you don't burn it, it could still come l'yedei takalah. The Gemara says, “kavrah hacha”—bury it over here. So therefore, that's why the only option the rabbi says is to burn the wheat and put it in the cemetery.
Devei Rabbi Yanai. Now the next daf is discussing this one story. The whole analysis is of this one story. What was the story? Let's look at it outside. Devei Rabbi Yanai is the family of Rabbi Yanai; they were tzadikim, and they wanted to help the poor people. How did they help the poor people? They would borrow fruit from them during the shemita year. Then they would pay them back in the eighth year with eighth-year fruit. By doing that, they would allow them—the fruit's going to be asur b'hana'ah eventually—to lend them the fruit, and then in the eighth year, when nobody has fruit and things like that, they would pay them back so they would still have something for the eighth year.
Devei Rabbi Yanai yazfi peira shevi'ah me'aniyim. They would borrow perot shevi'it even though they didn't have to borrow. They would borrow from the aniyim u'far'u lehu bi'sheminit, and they would pay them with eighth-year produce. Rashi says, “Kodem z'man bi'ur.” Yeah, of course, before the zman bi'ur (time of removal), before the fruit has to be destroyed. After a certain point you have to destroy the fruit. So they would borrow the fruit of the aniyim before, when it was still permissible for them to borrow it.
Rashi: “U'far'u lehu bi'sheminit, ishtakach d'achlei aniyim bi'sheminit achar ha-bi'ur chalifei peirot shevi'it.” It turned out—what happened? The aniyim ended up eating eighth-year fruit, which is not a problem, but the eighth-year fruit was really a chalifin of the seventh-year fruit. Now you can start to argue that maybe something given as an exchange or payment for something from the seventh year takes on the issur of the seventh year. So how could the aniyim eat this eighth-year fruit? That's the whole discussion that the Gemara is going to analyze over here.
So the Gemara says that's what they did; that was their custom. Azlu l'Rabbi Yochanan. So they told on them. They went to Rabbi Yochanan. “How is he doing this? He's giving the aniyim eighth-year fruit; the eighth-year fruit should become asur because it's a payment for the seventh-year item. It should tofes et kedushat shevi'it.” Amar lehu: “Ya'ot hen avdin.” They're doing right. There's nothing wrong with what the Rabbi Yochanan's doing, with what the Devei Rabbi Yanai's doing.
Rashi says, “Keivan d'hahi sha'ata lo havu hanach b'aina.” At the time that they're paying back the eighth-year fruit, the seventh-year fruit is gone. It’s gone. So it’s not considered an exchange. “V'lo achlifu hani behani.” You’re not switching or exchanging this for this. “Lo chalifin ninhu.” “Lo chala kedushat shevi'it aleihu.” When they paid back the eighth-year fruit, the seventh-year fruit was gone. So therefore, it’s not considered that the kedushat shevi'it goes on the payment. That’s only when it’s an exchange: give you the shevi'it for money or whatever it is, for a different item; then the kedushah goes on it. But otherwise, not a problem.
“U'k'negedan b'etnan mutar.” Similarly, the same concept by etnan zonah would be mutar. What’s etnan zonah? A guy pays a zonah for services and gives her an animal. The animal is called etnan, the gift that you give a zonah. She cannot bring it as a korban. The Torah says etnan zonah is asur; it's ma'us. You bring it on a mizbeiach, the payment that she gets.
So the Gemara says like this. Detanya: “Natan lah velo ba'alah.” Let’s say you gave her the animal, but you never ended up having relations with her. “O ba'alah velo natan lah. Etnanah mutar.” So it's mutar—hainu. So the Gemara says, what do you mean, what's hainu? “Natan lah velo ba'alah,” pshita (obvious). The Gemara asks a question: the first case also pshita. You gave her the item and you never end—the guy never had the relation. Pshita, keivan d'lo ba'alah, matana be'alma hu d'yahav lah. That’s pashut. He gave her a gift.
“V'tu ba'alah velo natan lah.” And in the case of ba'alah velo natan lah, “ha lo yahiv lah velo midi.” He didn't give her anything. “V'keivan d'lo natan lah, mai etnanah mutar?” So what does it mean that etnan is mutar? She never got anything in that case. Ella hachi ka'amar: “Natan lah ve'achar kach ba'alah.” The first case is natan lah: first he gave it to her, then he had the bi'ah. “O ba'alah ve'achar kach natan lah.” Or he had the bi'ah and then gave it to her afterward. “Etnanah mutar.” Both these cases are mutar, the Gemara says.
“Natan lah ve'achar kach ba'alah.” What do you mean? Natan lah: you gave it to her first, and then ba'alah is mutar. Because it says he gave—he paid her first. He gave it to her first. He didn't give it to her at the time of the bi'ah. He gave it to her one day, and then subsequently he had the bi'ah. Such a korban, we're saying, is okay.
So the Gemara says: “L'chi ba'alah, leichul aleih issur etnan lemafre'a?” Eventually, when he goes with her, let this etnan become asur retroactively? You tell me he gave her the item. Okay. But then he had a bi'ah right away. Two days later he had a bi'ah. So the etnan is mutar? She wants to bring that item as a korban—is it mutar? We don't connect the gift and call it an etnan? Why not retroactively say that after he has the bi'ah with her, the gift that was given before is called an etnan?
Rashi says: “Sheharei mitechilah al menat bi'ah natnu lah.” Why'd he give it to her? For the bi'ah.
Amar Rabbi Elazar: “K'she'kadmah v'hikrivato.” She sacrificed it before the bi'ah. So she got the korban, she brought the animal as a korban, and then she had the bi'ah.
The Gemara asks: “Heichi dami?” What’s the case? “I d'amar lah, ‘Kni lach me'achshav.’” Wasn’t it her animal? If he told her, “Kni lach me'achshav”—I want you to acquire the animal from now, even before the bi'ah—“pshita d'sharei, d'lo hava b'sha'at bi'ah.” Of course, because the animal wasn’t around at the time of the bi'ah. “U'matana be'alma hu d'yahav lah.” Exactly. If he told her, “Kni lach me'achshav,” and then she brought the korban in the Beit HaMikdash, and then she had the bi'ah, that's pshita, it's mutar, because at the time of the bi'ah the animal wasn't around.
“V'i d'lo amar lah, ‘Kni lach me'achshav’”—and if he didn't say, “Kni lach me'achshav,” acquire the animal now—“heichi matzi makriva?” How could she bring it? It's not her animal. “V'ish ki yakdish et beito kodesh amar Rachmana, ma beito birshuto, af kol birshuto.” The halacha says that when you bring an animal you have to bring it like your house. Just like your house you own, you have to own the korban. So if He didn't tell her, “Kni lach me'hashta,” how could she bring the korban? It's not hers.
Ella d'amar lah: “Lehevei gabach ad she'at bi'ah, ve'im mitztarich lach, kni me'hashta.” He told her like this: “Hold it until the bi'ah. And if you need it, you can acquire it now.” So I would have thought, it's quasi. It's not yours. Hold it until the bi'ah. But if you need it, you can use it. So I would have thought that since he did say, “Hold it until the bi'ah,” this would be considered etnan. Kamashma lan: since he told her, “If you need it, you can acquire it now,” and therefore she brought it, and it wasn't around at the time of the bi'ah, it's mutar.
Similarly, we say in the case of shemita: since when the family of Rabbi Yanai paid back the peirot of sheminit, the shevi'it fruit was not around anymore, we don't consider it a chalifin, and therefore the sheminit fruit is mutar, just like in the etnan case. That was Rabbi Yochanan's proof. Baruch Adonai l'olam amen (Blessed is Adonai forever, amen).