Before us is mishnah 8 in the first chapter of Maseches Avodah Zarah. The first ruling in the mishnah is subject to doubt as to whether it truly belongs here at all.
The mishnah opens: "V'ein osin tachshitin la'avodah zarah" - one may not manufacture ornaments intended to adorn an idol: katla'os (neck chains), nose rings and finger rings. All of these are decorative elements placed on the idol. Rabbi Eliezer says: "B'sachar mutar" - in his view a Jewish craftsman, such as a silversmith, may make these ornaments in order to earn a living, since this is not the worship of the idol and the ornament is not brought to it as an offering; it merely beautifies it.
However, most of the Rishonim - among them Rashi, apparently - did not have this reading before them in the text of the mishnah, and it likewise does not appear in ancient versions of the mishnah. Tosafos argues that it is hard to imagine that Rabbi Eliezer would permit making ornaments for an idol under any circumstances, even if it is done for a Jew's livelihood. For these reasons it seems that this ruling does not belong in our mishnah at all.
From here on the mishnah moves to a new and complex ruling with many moving parts. This is one of those mishnayos built like a table of columns and rows: different opinions in different scenarios. Before we enter the details, let us identify the factors at work here, which will make the mishnah far more intuitive. Even someone who will not remember the precise details will understand why there are varying degrees of severity.
The first factor: the prohibition of "lo techanem":
The starting point is that there is a Torah prohibition against selling land in Eretz Yisrael to idolaters. Its source is the verse: "And Hashem your G-d will deliver them before you and you shall smite them" - the Holy One will place in your hand the seven Canaanite nations who serve idols, and you must wipe them out. The Tosafos Yom Tov notes that there is no reason the law should not apply equally to any idol-worshipping nation in Eretz Yisrael. The verse continues: "You shall not make a covenant with them" - one may not make a deal with them or conclude a pact of survival with them; "v'lo techanem".
The word "techanem" is difficult to understand, and various explanations have been offered for it. Chazal expound it from the root ches-nun, and from this three separate understandings emerge, all of which are accepted as halachah. In other words, the Torah is giving us here three separate categories of prohibition against extending 'chein' to idolaters in Eretz Yisrael:
From the word chaniyah (encampment): like "chanyon" (parking lot) or "chan" - a resting place and inn. One may not give an idolater a foothold, not even a toehold, of ownership in Eretz Yisrael, a place where he can encamp and rest. From here we learn that it is forbidden to sell him land in Eretz Yisrael. This is the derashah that stands at the center of our mishnah, and several rabbinic laws will be added onto it.
From the word chein, meaning grace and kindness: as in "with grace, kindness and mercy" - chein in the sense of pleasantness and goodheartedness. One may not act toward them with kindness, and likewise one may not find grace in them: one may not praise an idolater, and certainly not his deeds. One may not say "look how handsome he is," or "look how well he washes the dishes," and the like.
From the word chinam (free of charge): one may not give them anything for free, and this prohibition forbids giving a gift to an idolater without good reason. There is a discussion in halachah that if one has a relationship with them it is permitted, since in the end the giving comes back to the giver - he finds favor in their eyes and they repay him with a favor. This is not, therefore, about giving a gift to the housekeeper, but about giving something for free with no good reason.
The last two prohibitions fall outside the scope of our mishnah. Here the operative factor is "lo techanem" in the first sense: one may not give them a grip and ownership, a foothold in the soil of Eretz Yisrael.
The second factor: nullifying Terumah and maasros:
Beyond that Torah law, there is a separate issue: one who sells to any gentile - even one who is not an idolater - or even one who rents him a grain field in Eretz Yisrael, causes the agricultural produce of that field to become exempt from Terumah and maaser. The mitzvah of the gifts of the Land, giving the gifts to the kohen and the Levi, no longer applies to land rented to a gentile or owned by him, and for that reason one should not do so. Here we have a second reason, independent of "lo techanem", why one may not sell and may not even rent land in Eretz Yisrael to a gentile - since by doing so a person cancels in advance any obligation of Terumah and maaser. It emerges that with a field there are two reasons, whereas with a storage warehouse and the like there is only one.
The three regions:
The second factor is the question of where these prohibitions apply, and which rabbinic extensions were made regarding them. For our Mishnah, there are three regions. The far region is outside the Land of Israel - the Diaspora in general. Australia and Miami are not the Land of Israel; there is no obligation of "lo techanem" there and no prohibitions of Terumah and maaser there, and therefore the law in those places is far more lenient.
The intermediate region is called Suria, essentially the northern part of present day Syria. The Rishonim disagree as to whether it includes only Aram Tzova, or Aram Naharayim as well - Aram Tzova on the western bank of the Euphrates and Aram Naharayim on the eastern bank in northern Syria. This land was conquered by King David in the days of the First Temple, except that his conquest is called a 'private conquest' - the conquest of an individual, David and his personal army, as opposed to a national conquest and a genuine expansion of the Land of Israel. For this reason the status of Suria is lower, and it is possible that it has no sanctity at all relative to the Land of Israel.
Why does a private conquest not constitute a proper annexation that confers upon the land the sanctity of the Land of Israel? Two approaches are found among the Rishonim:
The approach of the Rambam: The problem is that the conquest was carried out before the conquest of the Land of Israel itself, too early. King David jumped ahead before his turn arrived, and the matter was not done with the permission of one who had already expanded the borders, and therefore this conquest does not have the status of the Land of Israel.
The approach of Rashi: The problem is the absence of proper Divine permission. There is an orderly procedure of receiving approval from the Holy One, Blessed is He, and His agents before one begins expanding the borders, as we saw in Maseches Sanhedrin. King David had no such approval, and he acted unilaterally with his private guard. This is not the nation expanding its borders, but rather King David expanding his own private territory, and therefore it is not part of the Land of Israel and its sanctity does not apply to it.
From here the Tannaim disagreed as to whether Suria is invested with the sanctity of the Land of Israel:
According to Rabbi Meir, who is the Tanna Kamma - yes, and therefore mitzvos such as Terumah and maaser apply in Suria.
According to Rabbi Yosi, whose view is the halachah - no, since a private conquest took place here, and this is not the Land of Israel and it has none of its sanctity at all. Nevertheless, Suria is adjacent to and politically connected with the Land of Israel, and so there is reason to be stringent there so that people should not come to be confused.
The matter is similar to the modern State of Israel, which includes the city of Eilat. Eilat is not part of the Biblical Land of Israel and is not invested with sanctity, and the mitzvos of Terumah and maaser do not apply there. But it is understandable that there is reason to worry about confusion: people will say, "If I did so in Eilat, I will do so in Be'er Sheva and in Jerusalem as well." So it is with Suria, where there is reason to be stringent because of its proximity and its political connection to the Land of Israel itself.
It is worth noting that everyone agrees that Suria is not restricted in the same way as the Land of Israel itself. It is entirely possible that even according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that Suria has the sanctity of the Land of Israel, this applies to Terumah and maaser on a rabbinic level, but not to "lo techanem" and the giving of land, whose prohibition may be limited to the original Land of Israel alone and not to the expanded Land of Israel.
Let us therefore summarize the factors: giving land in the Land of Israel is forbidden because of "lo techanem," since by doing so a foothold and a resting place is given to idolaters in the Land of Israel. In a field that produces grain the prohibition is doubled, for in addition to "lo techanem" there is here an uprooting and undermining of the obligation of Terumah and maaser, and its severity is greater. And set against this are the three regions: the Land of Israel itself; Suria, regarding which they disagreed whether it is an expansion of the Land of Israel in terms of sanctity; and outside the Land beyond it, whose law is more lenient still.
"Ein mochrin lahem b'mechubar la'karka":
With all of this in hand we come to the wording of the Mishnah. The Mishnah takes as self evident that the basic prohibition against selling or giving land in the Land of Israel to an idolater is already known, and it does not discuss it at all. Rather, there is an additional rule: something attached to the ground, such as a tree standing and attached to the earth, has the law of the ground itself. Hence the question: is it permitted to sell a tree to an idolater in the Land of Israel, since it is considered like land?
To this the Mishnah says: "Ein mochrin lahem b'mechubar la'karka" - one may not sell them a tree or wheat that has not been harvested, since they are still attached to the ground. "Aval mocher hu mishe'yikatzetz" - according to the Tanna Kamma, once the tree has been cut down and is no longer attached to the ground, it is permitted to sell it to a non Jew, and likewise harvested wheat and the like. There is only a small novelty in this ruling, for it is obvious that once the item has been detached it is permitted; rather, it comes as a contrast to the ruling that follows it.
Rabbi Yehudah says: "mocher hu al menas lakotz" - according to his view, even when the tree or the wheat is still attached to the ground, one may sell it to an idolater in its attached state, provided that he stipulates that the sale is on condition that it be cut down immediately. The reason, apparently, is that although everyone agrees that whatever is attached to the ground has the status of the ground itself, nevertheless the prohibition of "lo sechanem" - not to give them a foothold and a grip in Eretz Yisrael - applies not to the tree but to the ground beneath it. And here, when it is sold on condition that it be cut down at once, it is clear that they have not been given any grip in Eretz Yisrael or any place to settle in, and therefore Rabbi Yehudah sees no problem with it.
Rabbinic Extensions: Renting and Fields:
From here the Mishnah goes on to discuss the rabbinic extensions of the prohibition against selling land in Eretz Yisrael to an idolater: "ein maskirin lahem batim b'Eretz Yisrael" - not only is it forbidden to sell them land, but even a house - understood here as a warehouse or storage structure - may not be sold to them in Eretz Yisrael, because of "lo sechanem." And it is likewise forbidden to rent or lease it to them, lest through renting to them one come to sell to them. This is the rabbinic law in Eretz Yisrael.
"v'ein tzarich lomar sados" - and all the more so one may not lease agricultural land to them. For if in the case of a warehouse or a house we are concerned about the Torah prohibition of "lo sechanem," in the case of fields there are two Torah prohibitions to be concerned about: the prohibition of "lo sechanem" involved in the sale, and in addition the problem of removing the land from the obligation of Terumah and tithes, which apparently already sets in with the leasing of the land, and certainly with its sale. For this reason we are stricter still with fields, and one may not even lease agricultural land in Eretz Yisrael.
The View of Rabbi Meir (the Tanna Kamma):
Rabbi Meir holds that Syria is indeed invested with the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, to the point of being obligated in Terumah and tithes. These are his rulings:
In Syria - "maskirin lahem batim": one may rent storage warehouses and the like to idolaters, since this is not Eretz Yisrael. "aval lo sados" - one may not lease fields, because in fields the obligation of Terumah and tithes applies.
Outside of Eretz Yisrael - "mochrin lahem batim": one may even sell houses, since there is no concern that because he sold a house in Egypt or in Australia he will come to sell a house in Eretz Yisrael. "u'maskirin sados" - but with fields, and this is astonishing, it is forbidden to sell a field to an idolater even outside of Eretz Yisrael, lest he come to sell a field in Eretz Yisrael or in Syria. The halachah does not follow Rabbi Meir.
The View of Rabbi Yosei:
The halachah follows Rabbi Yosei, although reservations were added over the course of time. His view is a half step more lenient, and it rests on two foundations: first, that one should not make such far-reaching rabbinic extensions of "lo sechanem," and second - as a separate point of dispute with Rabbi Meir - that Syria is not sanctified with the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael at all. These are his rulings:
In Eretz Yisrael - "maskir lahem batim": even though it is forbidden to sell them a warehouse or a storage shed, one may rent these to them, since this does not constitute "lo sechanem," and we are not concerned that he will come to sell. "aval lo sados" - one may not lease or rent agricultural fields, since by that alone he is undermining the obligation of tithes, the matter is more severe, and there is reason to be concerned that he will come to sell.
In Syria - "mocher batim": one may sell warehouses and storage sheds to an idolater, since this is not Eretz Yisrael, and there is no concern that he will come to sell in Eretz Yisrael. "u'maskirin sados" - fields may not be sold to gentiles in Syria, but they may be rented and leased to them. And since Syria is not Eretz Yisrael in terms of sanctity, one must ask why he was stringent there. The simple answer is its proximity to Eretz Yisrael, the equivalent of the southern Negev and Eilat in our day: if people begin selling fields in Syria, they will eventually come to sell a field in Eretz Yisrael itself.
Outside of Eretz Yisrael - "mocher eilu v'eilu": one may sell gentiles fields and anything else he wishes, without any great concern that people will come to sell land in Eretz Yisrael proper.
The halachah, generally speaking, follows Rabbi Yosei, that one may sell anything outside of Eretz Yisrael, and there are limitations involved. There is no practical application regarding Syria nowadays, but the law certainly applies in Eretz Yisrael, that one may not sell land there, and one may not even rent it out under ordinary circumstances, including the reservations regarding agricultural land.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the first law whose very presence in the text is disputed - "v'ein osin tachshitin la'avodah zarah" and Rabbi Eliezer's statement "b'sachar mutar." We then examined the two factors underlying the law: the prohibition of "lo sechanem" with its three derivations (settlement, favor, and free gifts), and the problem of removing a field from the obligation of Terumah and tithes. We distinguished between the three regions - Eretz Yisrael, Syria which was conquered in an individual conquest, and outside of Eretz Yisrael - and on that basis the gradations of severity in the Mishnah became clear: the prohibition of selling something attached to the ground and Rabbi Yehudah's dissenting view regarding one who sells on condition that it be cut down, the rabbinic extension forbidding even renting, and finally the views of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei regarding selling and renting in each of the three regions.