When an Israelite and a gentile are partners in a piece of land—whether the land belongs to both or they jointly accepted it for labour and both worked it—when the time of harvest arrives, it is prohibited for the Israelite to say to the gentile: "The Sabbath harvest will be yours to reap and sell for yourself, and the weekday harvest will be mine to reap and sell for myself." If he does so, the Israelite is forbidden to benefit from the produce of both Sabbath and weekday, as he shares with the gentile the portion harvested on the Sabbath. This is because, in essence, the gentile acts as the Israelite’s agent, and the Israelite’s share is derived from the Sabbath labour. However, if they agreed at the start of the work that the Sabbath would entirely belong to the gentile, it is permitted, as each week’s Sabbath labour is entirely the gentile’s responsibility. But they must not calculate afterwards—for instance, by accounting the value of the Sabbath’s harvest against the weekday harvest to equalize their shares. If they do, this demonstrates that their initial agreement was insincere and merely a deceptive manoeuvre. Some interpret that the permissibility of such agreements depends on making them before the Sabbath begins. This view, which is the main interpretation, holds that as long as the arrangement was made prior to the Sabbath, it is valid. If no prior agreement was made, and the Israelite did not instruct the gentile to work on the Sabbath but the gentile harvested on his own accord, and the Israelite worked one weekday in return, without any subsequent calculations, even this is prohibited. This is because the gentile has no inherent right to work on the Sabbath without an explicit agreement, and all the harvest becomes mixed. If the exact produce or profits from the Sabbath are identifiable, they should be separated. If not, prominent halachic authorities have ruled that the gentile takes one-seventh of the profits, with the remainder being divided equally. If an Israelite and a gentile are partners in a bakery, the same principles apply. Some authorities permit the gentile to operate the oven on the Sabbath and the Israelite to operate it on weekdays without prior agreement, as the baking oven’s primary value is its operation after heating. This is unlike a field, where the labour improves the land itself. Regarding the Passover holiday, if the gentile bakes chametz (leavened bread) in the oven, it seems that the permissibility depends on whether there was a prior agreement. Similarly, an Israelite may tell the gentile before Passover: "The bakery will be entirely yours for the week of Passover—whether it is productive or not—and I will take an equivalent week afterwards." This is especially permissible if the Israelite secured their share before Passover or sold their rights for that week. The French rabbis (Rabbanim Tzarfat) have ruled accordingly. Additionally, an Israelite who collects a daily tax of bread from a gentile may not take the bread during Passover but may take an equivalent amount after Passover.

If an Israelite and a gentile share ownership of a courtyard and wish to build a dividing wall, it is prohibited for the Israelite to allow the gentile to build on the Sabbath if the Israelite is legally obligated to pay for half the expenses. If, however, they agreed initially that the gentile would build for a specified number of days or half the wall, this is permitted. Even though this is not typically done as part of a fixed tenancy or rental agreement, since the gentile’s partnership is known, it is clear that the labour is not being done on behalf of the Israelite.

If an Israelite and a gentile jointly own an animal, it is prohibited in any circumstance to leave it rented out for labour on the Sabbath. If the animal is rented to the gentile for transport, the Israelite may not take weekday earnings in exchange. Additionally, agreements are ineffective here because the Israelite is commanded to ensure the animal rests on the Sabbath (mitzvat shevitat behemah). However, if the animal is used for riding purposes, the Israelite’s share of the rental income is permitted.

If an Israelite partners with a gentile in a trade or shop, they must initially agree that the profits of the Sabbath will belong entirely to the gentile, while the weekday profits will belong to the Israelite—regardless of the amounts involved. If no such agreement is made, it is forbidden for the Israelite to take any Sabbath earnings or their weekday equivalent. If the profits are mixed and cannot be identified, prominent authorities have ruled that the gentile takes one-seventh of the profits, while the rest is divided equally. Some are lenient, likening this to subcontracted labour or monetary investments.

If an Israelite gives money to a gentile to invest, even if the gentile works with the funds on the Sabbath, the Geonim ruled that the profits may be shared equally, with no concern for wrongdoing. This applies even to trade partnerships without prior stipulations. The reasoning is that since profits do not depend on specific days, the Sabbath does not carry any particular significance. Often, greater profits are made in a single moment than in several days.

If an Israelite and a gentile jointly lease a field, they may agree—even after starting the partnership—that the gentile will work the first two years (when the crops are forbidden as orlah), while the Israelite will work the equivalent afterwards. This does not constitute an exchange of orlah, as it is the norm for fieldworkers to eat the produce they harvest. Furthermore, since the entire produce belongs to the partners, any benefit from forbidden items is indirect and permissible.

The Talmud in Sanhedrin explains that forming partnerships with gentiles is generally prohibited, lest the Israelite compel the gentile to take an oath, and the gentile swears by idolatry. This violates the Torah’s commandment: “And the name of other gods shall not be heard on your lips” (Exodus 23:13).

It is well known that the Samaritans were deemed full gentiles; thus, they are treated like gentiles regarding all these laws. Nonetheless, from what is stated about them in this section regarding labour on Chol HaMoed (intermediate festival days)—where the principle of lifnei iver (placing a stumbling block before the blind) is applied—we learn that this principle applies even to rabbinic prohibitions. Since the Samaritans are converts and are obligated in the same commandments as Israelites, they must be cautious regarding all prohibitions. Labour on Chol HaMoed is a rabbinic prohibition, as it is not explicitly stated with the term shabbaton (“complete rest”), as explained in Chagigah (2:1). However, later sages suggested that labour on Chol HaMoed may have a biblical basis, given the principle of mikra kodesh (“holy convocation”), though it is not on the level of full Torah law. This is comparable to the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, which, though established rabbinically, carries great weight. Thus, we conclude that the principle of lifnei iver applies even to rabbinic prohibitions.

The chapter is complete—praise be to God.

The purpose of this chapter is to complete what was already begun: clarifying matters in which it is prohibited for us to engage with non-Jews, and to explain the second category—those of their items that are forbidden to us. In this context, the chapter is divided into five parts: To complete the explanation of the first category and clarify the matters we must avoid doing with them. To explain their items that are forbidden to us for benefit without any possibility of correction, including which wine becomes yayin nesech (libation wine). To explain their items that are forbidden to us but have a way to be corrected, including the laws of purifying vessels used for yayin nesech. To clarify their items that are forbidden to us for eating but permitted for other forms of benefit. To explain their items that are permitted to us even for eating. This is the general structure of the chapter, though the discussions may diverge into topics not originally intended, as is the way of Talmudic discourse, as will be explained.

The first Mishnah in this chapter seeks to clarify part of the first category, stating: "One may not leave an animal in the inns of non-Jews, because they are suspected of bestiality." We have already explained that non-Jews are prohibited from such acts, and leaving an animal with them would violate the prohibition of placing a stumbling block (lifnei iver). Even if a person himself owns the animal, it is forbidden, as one is concerned for one’s animal—whether female, lest she be made barren, or male, lest he become weakened by engaging with the animals of others. Therefore, even in places where selling an animal to non-Jews is permitted, leaving an animal exclusively in their care is forbidden. It has also been clarified that even in places where non-Jews are not suspected of bestiality, such suspicion applies generally to our animals. However, in any specific case where it is known for certain that such behavior does not occur—even among idolaters—it is permitted. It has already been explained that these rulings applied to those times when the nations were idolaters, defiled in their actions, and corrupt in their character traits, as it says, “Do not act according to the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, nor according to the practices of the land of Canaan” (Leviticus 18:3). However, regarding nations that are disciplined in their religious paths and free of such corrupt character traits—and, on the contrary, punish those who engage in such acts—there is no doubt that these rulings do not apply to them, as we have explained. We have repeated this point often to avoid the need for forced interpretations you might encounter in novel insights (chiddushim) or commentaries (Tosafot) that are unnecessary.

This is the explanation of the Mishnah, and it is the law. The matters discussed in the Gemara connected to this Mishnah are as follows: