SHOWING FAVOR TO IDOLATERS

(א) כִּ֤י יְבִֽיאֲךָ֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה בָא־שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּ֑הּ וְנָשַׁ֣ל גּֽוֹיִם־רַבִּ֣ים ׀ מִפָּנֶ֡יךָ הַֽחִתִּי֩ וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁ֨י וְהָאֱמֹרִ֜י וְהַכְּנַעֲנִ֣י וְהַפְּרִזִּ֗י וְהַֽחִוִּי֙ וְהַיְבוּסִ֔י שִׁבְעָ֣ה גוֹיִ֔ם רַבִּ֥ים וַעֲצוּמִ֖ים מִמֶּֽךָּ׃ (ב) וּנְתָנָ֞ם יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ לְפָנֶ֖יךָ וְהִכִּיתָ֑ם הַחֲרֵ֤ם תַּחֲרִים֙ אֹתָ֔ם לֹא־תִכְרֹ֥ת לָהֶ֛ם בְּרִ֖ית וְלֹ֥א תְחָנֵּֽם׃

(1) When the LORD your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess, and He dislodges many nations before you—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations much larger than you— (2) and the LORD your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must doom them to destruction: YOU SHALL not seal a covenant with them nor show them favor.

דאמר קרא (דברים ז, ב) לא תחנם לא תתן להם חנייה בקרקע האי לא תחנם מיבעי ליה דהכי קאמר רחמנא לא תתן להם חן א"כ לימא קרא לא תחונם מאי לא תחנם שמע מינה תרתי
The source is that the verse states: “You should not show them mercy [lo teḥonnem]” (Deuteronomy 7:2), which is understood as meaning: You should not give them a chance to encamp [ḥanayah] in, i.e., to acquire land in, Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: This phrase: “You should not show them mercy”; isn’t it necessary to teach that this is what the Merciful one is saying: You should not give them favor [ḥen] by praising them? The Gemara answers: If that were so, let the verse say: Lo teḥunnem, with the letter vav, as then it would be evident that this is a form of the root ḥet, vav, nun, which means favor. What is the reason that the verse instead states: Lo teḥonnem, without the letter vav? Conclude two conclusions from it, that one may not praise them and also that one may not allow them to acquire land.
ואכתי מיבעי ליה דהכי אמר רחמנא לא תתן להם מתנת של חנם אם כן לימא קרא לא תחינם מאי לא תחנם שמע מינה כולהו תניא נמי הכי לא תחנם לא תתן להם חנייה בקרקע דבר אחר לא תחנם לא תתן להם חן דבר אחר לא תחנם לא תתן להם מתנת חנם
The Gemara asks: But still, isn’t the phrase “You should not show them mercy” necessary to teach the halakha that this is what the Merciful One states: You should not give them an undeserved [ḥinnam] gift? The Gemara answers: If that were so, let the verse say: Lo teḥinnem. What is the reason that it is spelled without the letter yud, as: Lo teḥonnem? Learn from it all of these three halakhot. This is also taught in a baraita: “You should not show them mercy”; this teaches that you should not give them a chance to encamp in the land of Eretz Yisrael. Another matter: “You should not show them mercy”; this indicates that you should not give them favor. Another matter: “You should not show them mercy”; this teaches that you should not give them an undeserved gift.

(ג) אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים וְשָׂדוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּבְסוּרְיָא מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים אֲבָל לֹא שָׂדוֹת. וּמַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשׂוּ שְׁכוּנָה וְאֵין שְׁכוּנָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם שָׂדוֹת. וּבְסוּרְיָא מַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם שָׂדוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הֶחְמִירוּ בְּשָׂדֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁתַּיִם, מַפְקִיעָהּ מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לָהֶם חֲנִיָּה בַּקַּרְקַע. וּמֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר לָהֶם בָּתִּים וְשָׂדוֹת בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ אַרְצֵנוּ:

(ד) אַף בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִתִּירוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר לֹא לְבֵית דִּירָה הִתִּירוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים ז כו) "לֹא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ". אֲבָל מַשְׂכִּיר לָהֶן בָּתִּים לַעֲשׂוֹתָן אוֹצָר. וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן פֵּרוֹת וּתְבוּאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בַּמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע. אֲבָל מוֹכֵר הוּא מִשֶּׁיָקֹץ אוֹ מוֹכֵר לוֹ עַל מְנָת לָקֹץ וְקוֹצֵץ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ב) "וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם" לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם חֲנִיָּה בַּקַּרְקַע שֶׁאִם לֹא יִהְיֶה לָהֶם קַרְקַע יְשִׁיבָתָן יְשִׁיבַת עַרְאַי הִיא. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחָן וַאֲפִלּוּ לוֹמַר כַּמָּה נָאֶה עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים זֶה בְּצוּרָתוֹ. קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁיְּסַפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח מַעֲשָׂיו אוֹ שֶׁיְּחַבֵּב דָּבָר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם לֹא יִהְיֶה לָהֶם חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לְהִדַּבֵּק עִמּוֹ וְלִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים. וְאָסוּר לִתֵּן לָהֶם מַתְּנַת חִנָּם אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) "לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי", בִּמְכִירָה וְלֹא בִּנְתִינָה:

(3) No houses or fields shall be sold to them in Eretz Yisrael, but in Syria houses may be sold to them but not fields. It is permitted to lease houses to them in Eretz Yisrael, provided no idolatrous settlement is established by them, and no settlement is considered such if there are no three houses therein; but it is forbidden to lease fields unto them. In Syria it is permitted to lease to them fields too. Wherefore has a field been considered the major? Because therein are found two reasons: (a) the idolater removes the obligation of tithes therefrom, and (b) the Israelite shows mercy in giving land to an idolater. But an Israelite who owns land without Eretz Yisrael may sell them there both, house and fields, because it is not the Promised Land.3Ibid. 20b–21a. C.

(4) Even in the places where the leasing of houses to them is permitted, it is not for dwelling purposes that the permission was granted, as it would bring the abomination of idolatry into it, against which it is said: "Thou shalt bring no abomination into thy house" (Deut. 7.26); but one may lease houses to them for storage. It is forbidden to sell them fruit on the trees, or grain on the stalk; but he may sell it after it be harvested, or sell to one on condition that he harvest it, and when he does harvest it the purchase is binding. But wherefore is it forbidden to sell it to them? Because it is said: "Nor show mercy unto them" (Ibid. 7.2)—given them no permanency on land, for by having no land their settlement will be but a temporary one.5The Talmud here interprets the word of the root Hano, resting. G. It is also forbidden to speak in praise of idolatry, even to say: "How beautiful is this idol's facial features". From this minor premise the major premise can be deducted that it is forbidden to speak in praise of the performance of idolatry, or to love any of its parts even as it is said: "Nor show mercy unto them" (Ibid.), they should have no grace in thine eyes,6Here the word is interpreted to mean grace, from the noun Hein. G. for it will be a cause to cleave to it and learn its evil deeds. It is, moreover, forbidden to give them a present outright, but it is permitted to give a present outright to an alien sojourner, even as it is said: "Unto the stranger that is in thy gates canst thou give it, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien" (Deut.121.) — to an alien by selling it to him, and not by presenting it to him.7Ibid. 19a–20b. C.

ואי סלקא דעתך חצר משום שליחות איתרבאי אם כן מצינו שליח לדבר עבירה וקיימא לן אין שליח לדבר עבירה
The Gemara explains: And if it enters your mind that a courtyard is included as a valid means of acquisition due to agency, if so, we have found a case where there is agency for a transgression, i.e., theft. But we maintain that there is no agency for transgression. If one sends an agent to violate a transgression on his behalf, the agent is liable for the transgression and is not considered to be acting on behalf of the one who sent him.

II. DON'T LAUD OR PRAISE THEM

וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״רֹאשׁ הַמְדַבְּרִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם״? דְּיָתְבִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְיָתֵיב יְהוּדָה בֶּן גֵּרִים גַּבַּיְיהוּ. פָּתַח רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְאָמַר: כַּמָּה נָאִים מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן שֶׁל אוּמָּה זוֹ: תִּקְּנוּ שְׁווֹקִים, תִּקְּנוּ גְּשָׁרִים, תִּקְנוּ מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי שָׁתַק. נַעֲנָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי וְאָמַר: כׇּל מַה שֶּׁתִּקְּנוּ, לֹא תִּקְּנוּ אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ עַצְמָן. תִּקְּנוּ שְׁווֹקִין — לְהוֹשִׁיב בָּהֶן זוֹנוֹת, מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת — לְעַדֵּן בָּהֶן עַצְמָן, גְּשָׁרִים — לִיטּוֹל מֵהֶן מֶכֶס. הָלַךְ יְהוּדָה בֶּן גֵּרִים וְסִיפֵּר דִּבְרֵיהֶם, וְנִשְׁמְעוּ לַמַּלְכוּת. אָמְרוּ: יְהוּדָה שֶׁעִילָּה — יִתְעַלֶּה. יוֹסֵי שֶׁשָּׁתַק — יִגְלֶה לְצִיפּוֹרִי. שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁגִּינָּה — יֵהָרֵג.
In this baraita Rabbi Yehuda is described as head of the speakers in every place. The Gemara asks: And why did they call him head of the speakers in every place? The Gemara relates that this resulted due to an incident that took place when Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon were sitting, and Yehuda, son of converts, sat beside them. Rabbi Yehuda opened and said: How pleasant are the actions of this nation, the Romans, as they established marketplaces, established bridges, and established bathhouses. Rabbi Yosei was silent. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai responded and said: Everything that they established, they established only for their own purposes. They established marketplaces, to place prostitutes in them; bathhouses, to pamper themselves; and bridges, to collect taxes from all who pass over them. Yehuda, son of converts, went and related their statements to his household, and those statements continued to spread until they were heard by the monarchy. They ruled and said: Yehuda, who elevated the Roman regime, shall be elevated and appointed as head of the Sages, the head of the speakers in every place. Yosei, who remained silent, shall be exiled from his home in Judea as punishment, and sent to the city of Tzippori in the Galilee. And Shimon, who denounced the government, shall be killed.

THE SFAT EMET

R. Yehuda expressed himself only as being surprised. Was he saying that he didn't believe it?

וְדֶרֶךְ מִיל מְפִיגָה הַיַּיִן?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ מֵעַכּוֹ לִכְזִיב, וְהָיָה רַבִּי אִילְעַאי מְהַלֵּךְ אַחֲרָיו. מָצָא גְּלוּסְקִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ: אִילְעַאי, טוֹל גְּלוּסְקִין מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ. מָצָא גּוֹי אֶחָד, אָמַר לוֹ: מַבְגַּאי, טוֹל גְּלוּסְקִין הַלָּלוּ מֵאִילְעַאי. נִיטַּפֵּל לוֹ רַבִּי אִילְעַאי, אָמַר לוֹ: מֵהֵיכָן אַתָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: מֵעֲיָירוֹת שֶׁל בּוּרְגָּנִין. וּמָה שִׁמְךָ? מַבְגַּאי שְׁמֵנִי. כְּלוּם הִיכִּירְךָ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מֵעוֹלָם? אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו.
The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, and his student Rabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: Elai, take the loaves from the road. Further along the way, Rabban Gamliel encountered a certain gentile and said to him: Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai. Elai joined the gentile and said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From the nearby towns of guardsmen. He asked: And what is your name? The gentile replied: My name is Mavgai. He then inquired: Has Rabban Gamliel ever met you before, seeing as he knows your name? He said to him: No.
בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁכִּוֵּון רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים לָמַדְנוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה: לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוֹלְכִין אַחֲרֵי רוֹב עוֹבְרֵי דְּרָכִים. וְלָמַדְנוּ שֶׁחֲמֵצוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי אַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
The Gemara interrupts the story in order to comment: At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined the gentile’s name by way of divine inspiration that rested upon him. And at that time we also learned three matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s behavior: We learned that one may not pass by food, i.e., if a person sees food lying on the ground, he must stop and pick it up. We also learned that we follow the majority of travelers. Since the area was populated mostly by gentiles, Rabban Gamliel assumed that the loaf belonged to a gentile, and was consequently prohibited to be eaten by a Jew. Therefore, he ordered that it be given to a gentile. And we further learned that with regard to leavened bread belonging to a gentile, it is permitted to benefit from this food after Passover. The incident recounted above occurred not long after the festival of Passover. By giving the loaf to the gentile instead of burning it in accordance with the halakhot of leavened bread that remains after Passover, Rabban Gamliel gained a certain benefit from it in the form of the gentile’s gratitude. This benefit is regarded as having monetary value.

TOSAFOT ON ERUVIN 64b

How could Rabban Gamliel give a free gift (the cake) to a non-Jew? Perhaps he disagreed with this rule.