פירוש על עבודה זרה 41:18

Rabbi Meir holds that one should not even rent houses to non-Jews in the land of Israel, lest he come to sell them as well. This is true of houses and even truer with regard to fields, for with fields there is the added problem of tithes. Once a Jew sells his field to a non-Jew the field’s produce is not liable for tithing. In this way, the sale reduces the holiness of the field. In Syria, which is adjacent to Israel and was conquered by David but is not considered fully a part of Israel, we can be slightly more lenient. Houses may be rented to non-Jews, but fields still may not, because the produce grown in Syria is still subject to tithes. Outside of the land, a Jew may sell houses, but he still may not sell fields, lest by habit he come to sell fields in the land of Israel as well.

In all of these cases, Rabbi Yose is slightly more lenient. Inside of Israel he allows the renting of houses, but not fields. In Syria he allows the sale of houses and the renting of fields and outside of the land, both may be sold. Note that he is still consistent in that the rules are stricter with fields than with houses. The major difference is that he does not rule more strictly in cases that should be permitted (such as selling fields outside of the land) but were forbidden by Rabbi Meir lest one come to sell something that really should not be sold.

Although in the previous mishnah we learned that in certain places it is permitted to let a house to an idolater (in Syria according to Rabbi Meir, and in the land of Israel according to Rabbi Yose), this permission is not granted if the idolater is renting the house as a residence. Since the idolater will bring his idols into the house, this would violate the prohibition of allowing idols into one’s home. The idolater may only rent the house from the Jew to use for storage or other non-residential usage. [The Jerusalem Talmud rules that outside of the land of Israel it is permitted to sell or let houses to idolaters even for the purpose of residence. Although in this case too the idolater will bring idols into the house and seemingly thereby cause the Jew to violate the commandment in Deut. 7:26, the essential meaning of the verse is that it is forbidden for a Jew to bring idols into his own house. The halacha is more strict inside the land of Israel and in bordering areas because it is incumbent upon Jews to cleanse the land of idol worship.]

In no place, even outside the land of Israel, may one let a bath-house to an idolater. Since the bath-house will continue to be called by the name of the Jewish owner, and the idolater will surely bring idols into the warehouse, this is forbidden.

The Mishnah assumed that it was more obvious that one cannot sell fields to a non-Jew than it is that one cannot sell them a house. So why is it more obvious? There are two reasons not to sell them a field—1) It gives them a foothold in the land; 2) The produce becomes exempt from tithes. But there are also two reasons not to sell them a house—1) It gives them a foothold in the land; 2) The house becomes exempt from a mezuzah. So why is it more obvious with regard to a field than a house. R. Mesharsheya answers that there is no obligation for houses in Israel to have mezuzot. The obligation falls on the person, not on the house.

In Syria, the region outside of Israel, the rules are slightly more lenient, but it is still prohibited to sell them houses. In principle, this should be permitted because this is not the land of Israel. But it is prohibited lest someone come to sell them houses in Israel itself. But the prohibition does not extend to letting them houses, because the prohibition of renting a house in Israel is itself only a safeguard against selling them houses. There is a principle that we do not make a decree not to do something lest someone do something else that is only prohibited by a decree and not by a principle.

The Talmud raises a problem, that renting a field to a non-Jew is prohibited even in Syria, even though this is a decree made on a decree. The resolution is that this mishnah considers Syria to be part of Israel even though it was only conquered by an individual (David). Thus the rules concerning selling them land could apply in principle. When it comes to renting them a field, the rabbis ruled strictly because there are two problems (giving them a foothold and tithes), but renting a house, where there is only one problem (giving them a foothold), is permitted.

Once fully outside of Israel, the rules are even more lenient. One may sell them a house, because even in Israel there is only one potential problem with a house (giving them a foothold in the land). But one may only rent them a field because there are two potential problems (foothold and tithes).

R. Yose is more lenient. In Israel they can rent houses to non-Jews because there is only one problem (foothold). But they cannot lend them fields because there are two problems (foothold and tithes).

R. Yose does not consider Syria to be part of the land of Israel. Therefore, one may sell them houses there. But it is prohibited to sell them a field because in the land of Israel there are two problems with the field.

Outside of the land of Israel, fields and houses may be sold to them. Since they are far removed from the land, there is no reason to be strict.

The halakhah follows R. Yose—it is permitted to sell them houses and fields. However, R. Joseph adds that one should not allow them to form a community, which means three residents. There are differences of opinion among commentators as to what this refers to. According to the Rambam, it refers to the permission to rent them houses in Eretz Yisrael. According to the Tosafot, it refers to outside the land, where one can sell anything to them. R. Joseph is concerned lest they form an enemy settlement, but this would only be within Jewish community.
I realize that today many of these laws sound “racist.” But we have to remember that the notion of inter-tribal harmony barely existed back then. These laws simply reflect the ethos of the time. Furthermore, while I think we do not like to admit it, there are cases where we would like the people who live in our immediate community to be similar to us. I hope that this similarity is not based on something superficial such as color of skin. But when it is a preference to live near other people of the same religion, I believe it is still understandable.

Abaye says that the law should not be so strict as to worry that together Jews might sell three properties to non-Jews in one neighborhood, thus allowing them to form a community. One Jew should not sell to three non-Jews. That’s as far as the law needs to go.

The final line in the Mishnah seems to support R. Meir because it hints that there are places where one is not allowed to rent a house to a non-Jew, whereas R. Yose always allows this. Nevertheless, despite this line, the halakhah follows R. Yose, as was ruled above.