לֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂר וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ,

neither with regard to the prohibitions concerning Sabbatical -Year produce, nor with regard to restrictions on the consumption of tithe, nor with regard to the prohibition against consumption of wine used for a libation. This is because whatever food or drink that they acquire, they acquire it of their own volition, and the employer does not bear responsibility for their actions.

וְאִם אָמַר לָהֶם: ״צְאוּ וְאִכְלוּ וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ״, ״צְאוּ וּשְׁתוּ וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ״ – חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וּמִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂר וּמִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ;

But if he said to them: Go and eat and I will reimburse you, or: Go and drink and I will reimburse you, he must be concerned with regard to the possibility that his workers will transgress a prohibition with the money, whether with regard to prohibitions concerning Sabbatical- Year produce, or with regard to restrictions on the consumption of tithe, or with regard to the prohibition against consuming wine used for a libation. This is because if they acquire forbidden food or drink, it is tantamount to his acquiring these items and giving them to the laborers.

אַלְמָא כִּי קָא פָּרַע – דְּמֵי אִיסּוּר קָא פָּרַע. הָכָא נַמִי, כִּי קָא פָּרַע – דְּמֵי אִיסּוּרָא קָא פָּרַע!

Rav Sheshet infers: Apparently, when he pays his laborers after some time has elapsed, it is considered as though he is paying money for forbidden items, even though the forbidden items no longer exist. Here too, when people borrow Sabbatical-Year produce with the intent of paying for it afterward, when one pays, he is paying for a forbidden purchase.

תִּרְגְּמָהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּחֶנְוָנִי הַמַּקִּיפוֹ, דְּמִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לֵיהּ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ לְאַקּוּפֵי – קָנֵי לֵיהּ דִּינָר גַּבֵּיהּ.

Rav Ḥisda interpreted this baraita with regard to a storekeeper who regularly gives credit to the employer, so that the employer incurs the debt to him at the moment the storekeeper gives the food or drink to the laborers. This is because, since it is his custom to give him credit, it is considered as though the storekeeper acquires the dinar from him at that moment. Therefore, if the laborers bought from him Sabbatical-Year produce, it is considered as though the employer paid his laborers with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited. Therefore, this case is not comparable to the case of the Sages who borrowed Sabbatical-Year produce.

אֲבָל חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁאֵין מַקִּיפוֹ מַאי, מוּתָּר? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי: ״צְאוּ וְאִכְלוּ בְּדִינָר זֶה״, ״צְאוּ וּשְׁתוּ בְּדִינָר זֶה״ – לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידָהּ.

The Gemara asks: But in the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, what is the halakha ? Is it permitted for the employer to send his laborers to buy food, committing to reimburse them afterward? If so, rather than the tanna teaching that if the employer says: Go and eat with this dinar, or: Go and drink with this dinar, he does need to be concerned that they will buy forbidden food, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself where he says: Go and eat and I will reimburse you.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּחֶנְוָנִי הַמַּקִּיפוֹ, דְּמִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לֵיהּ, אֲבָל חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁאֵין מַקִּיפוֹ – מוּתָּר!

The tanna could teach as follows: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that if the employer says: I will reimburse you, he cannot allow his laborer to buy forbidden food? It is stated with regard to the case of a storekeeper who regularly gives credit to the employer, such that the employer incurs the debt to him at the moment the storekeeper gives the food or drink to the laborers. But in the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, it is permitted for the employer to instruct his laborers in this manner.

וְעוֹד, חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁאֵין מַקִּיפוֹ מִי לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״תֵּן מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי וְיִקָּנוּ כָּל נְכָסַאי לָךְ״ – קָנָה מִדִּין עָרֵב!

And furthermore, there is another difficulty with this interpretation: In the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, does he not incur the debt to him? But doesn’t Rava say that in the case of one who says to another: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so and all of my property will be transferred to you, he acquires it by the halakha of a guarantor? Just as a guarantor for another person’s loan renders himself liable to pay for someone else’s debt, so too, the owner of the property renders himself liable to give the property in exchange for the one hundred dinars that the acquiring party gives that so-and-so. Here too, the employer renders himself liable to pay the storekeeper when the storekeeper gives food to his laborers at his request.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לָא שְׁנָא מַקִּיפוֹ וְלָא שְׁנָא שֶׁאֵין מַקִּיפוֹ, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְשַׁעְבַּד לֵיהּ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מִיַּיחַד שִׁיעְבּוּדֵיהּ לָא מִיתְסַר.

Rather, Rava says: There is no difference whether the storekeeper gives him credit, and there is no difference whether he does not give him credit. Any commitment to pay causes a liability. But although he incurs a debt to him, since he does not designate specific coins as payment for his debt the employer’s conduct is not prohibited. Therefore, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai acted in a permitted manner.

אֶלָּא הָכָא אַמַּאי חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית? הָא לָא מִיַּיחַד שִׁיעְבּוּדֵיהּ הָכָא! אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּים לוֹ דִּינָר.

The Gemara asks: But here, in the baraita , why does the employer need to be concerned with regard to the prohibitions concerning Sabbatical- Year produce? He does not designate specific money as payment for his debt here. Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a case where the employer first paid the storekeeper a dinar for the food he would provide to the laborers, before they actually purchased food. Therefore, the employer is considered to have acquired forbidden items and paid his laborers’ wages with them.

אֲמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אֲמַרִיתָהּ לִשְׁמַעֲתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, אֲמַר לִי: אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי: ״צְאוּ וְאִכְלוּ, צְאוּ וּשְׁתוּ, וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ״ – ״צְאוּ וְאִכְלוּ, צְאוּ וּשְׁתוּ, וַאֲנִי מְחַשֵּׁב״ מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵי: ״צְאוּ, וַאֲנִי מְחַשֵּׁב״.

Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a. He said to me: If so, if the latter clause of the baraita is understood as referring to a case where the employer paid the storekeeper a dinar in advance, rather than teaching a case where the employer said to his laborers: Go and eat, go and drink, and I will reimburse you, the tanna should have taught a case where he said: Go and eat, go and drink, and I will calculate the amount that should be deducted from the dinar I gave him. Rav Kahana said to him: That is not difficult; teach the baraita as stating: Go, and I will calculate the amount that should be deducted from the dinar I gave him.

רַב אַשִׁי אֲמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימָר לְרַב אַשִׁי: אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי: ״צְאוּ וְאִכְלוּ, צְאוּ וּשְׁתוּ״ – ״טְלוּ וְאִכְלוּ, טְלוּ וּשְׁתוּ״ מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵי: ״טְלוּ וְאִכְלוּ, טְלוּ וּשְׁתוּ״.

Rav Ashi said: The baraita is referring to a case where the employer took the food and drink from the storekeeper and gave it to the laborers with his own hand. Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, rather than teaching that the employer said: Go and eat, go and drink, the tanna should have taught a case where he said: Take and eat, take and drink. Rav Ashi said to him: Teach the baraita as stating: Take and eat, take and drink.

יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן וְעוּלָּא וַאֲבִימִי בַּר פַּפִּי, וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַמִי גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְיָתְבִי וְקָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לְהוּ: שְׂכָרוֹ לִשְׁבּוֹר בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּרוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ – אָסוּר, אוֹ דִּלְמָא כָּל לְמַעוּטֵי תִּיפְלָה שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי?

§ Rav Naḥman and Ulla and Avimi bar Pappi were sitting, and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami, who was studying with them, was sitting among them, and they were sitting and a dilemma was raised before them: If one hired a person to break barrels of wine used for a libation so the wine will spill out, what is the halakha ? Do we say that since he has an interest in the preservation of the barrels until he breaks them, so that he can be paid for breaking them, his wage is forbidden, or perhaps should it be reasoned that any action that one performs to reduce impropriety [ tifela ] is permitted, even if he is paid for the actual breaking?

אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: יִשְׁבּוֹר וְתָבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: אֵין עוֹדְרִין עִם הַגּוֹי בְּכִלְאַיִם,

Rav Naḥman said: He may break them, and let a blessing come upon him. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports his opinion: One may not hoe together with a gentile in a field that contains a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds,