Avodah Zarah 63B

לא משום שביעית, ולא משום מעשר, ולא משום יין נסך.

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.

ואם אמר להם: ״צאו ואכלו ואני פורע״, ״צאו ושתו ואני פורע״⁠ — חושש משום שביעית, ומשום מעשר, ומשום יין נסך.

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.

אלמא, כי קא פרע ⁠— דמי איסור קא פרע; הכא נמי, כי קא פרע ⁠— דמי איסורא קא פרע.

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.

תרגמה רב חסדא בחנוני המקיפו, דמשתעבד ליה, דכיון דאורחיה לאקופי ⁠— קני ליה דינר גביה.

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 rabbis who borrowed Sabbatical-Year produce.