פירוש על עבודה זרה 126:3

The employer here is not paying his employees; he is feeding them while they are working for him. Nevertheless, he does not need to be concerned that they will use this money to buy prohibited food or drink. Once they buy food products, the products are theirs, not his, and they are transgressing, not he.

However, if he first tells them to eat or drink and then pays them back, he is paying for forbidden produce which is prohibited. The same should be true with regard to the House of R. Yannai—when they pay back the poor, they are paying back for forbidden produce. Stay tuned for tomorrow’s exciting resolution.

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 shopkeeper 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

The problem with Rava’s reading of the baraita is that the employer says “and I will pay” which makes it sound like he is actually giving money to the storekeeper for the first time. So R. Kahana emends the baraita such that it reads “Go out and I will reckon with him” thereby implying that the employer already paid.

The employer transgresses only if he actually takes the food from the shopkeeper and gives it directly to his employees. If he pays the shopkeeper back, he is not transgressing.

As the baraita reads, it sounds like the employer is going to pay the shopkeeper back, not take the food from his hand and give it over to the workers. Therefore R. Ashi must, like R. Kahana earlier, emend the baraita to accord with his interpretation.

The Jew is hired to break the jugs, which would end in the destruction of the wine inside. But until that point, he wants the jugs to continue to exist. Are his wages prohibited because he does want the caskets to continue to exist at least until he breaks them? Or are they permitted because ultimately he is causing the wine’s destruction? Nahman allows the Jew to do this work.

The Jew is hired to break the jugs, which would end in the destruction of the wine inside. But until that point, he wants the jugs to continue to exist. Are his wages prohibited because he does want the caskets to continue to exist at least until he breaks them? Or are they permitted because ultimately he is causing the wine’s destruction? Nahman allows the Jew to do this work.

The Talmud cites a baraita concerning working in a field with mixed seeds. A Jew may not work such a field with a non-Jew but he may work together to uproot them, because ultimately this is uprooting what is improper. So too, a Jew may work with a non-Jew to break casks of yayin nesekh.