6:
We now turn our attention to the second part of our present mishnah. This part is concerned with the role that a Jewish woman may play in the accouchement of a non-Jewish woman and vice versa.

7:
Our mishnah states quite candidly that a Jewish woman should not act as midwife to a non-Jewish woman (in usual circumstances) because she would thus be assisting in bringing yet another idolater into the world. However the Gemara [AZ 26a] clarifies that this prohibition applies only when the Jewish woman volunteers to perform this task. If she receives payment she is permitted to act as the midwife attending the birth of a non-Jewish child.

8:
With our modern outlook we could ask what difference if could possibly make whether the midwife acts gratuitously or in exchange for payment: the task is the same task! The Gemara explains that the difference is "because of resentment". A Jewish woman could find all sorts of reasons why she cannot help her non-Jewish neighbour in the delivery of her child; but the moment she is offered payment she can hardly refuse without it becoming quite clear that her refusal is connected with the other woman's religion.

9:
With regards to a non-Jewish woman acting as midwife for a Jewish woman we find conflicting views among the Tannaïm. Rabbi Me'ir would not permit a non-Jewish woman to act as midwife for the birth of a Jewish child "because she might kill the child". However, the rest of the sages, while agreeing with his concern, object to his teaching. Their teaching is according to our mishnah, that a non-Jewish woman may attend the birth of a Jewish child, but they add a rider: she may only do so when other Jewish women are also in attendance.

10:
The reason why a Jewish woman should not nurse the child of a non-Jewish woman is the same as the reason why she should not deliver such a child: she would be nurturing another idolater. (The sages are silent concerning the possibility of this being permitted for payment. Logic would suggest that the same reasoning applies.) The sages permit a non-Jewish woman to nurse (i.e. breast feed) a Jewish child with the proviso once again that Jewish women are also in attendance. The reasoning is the same as before: she might kill the child. Rabbi Me'ir will not even accept the possibility of Jewish women supervising the nursing "because they [the idolaters] smear their breasts with poison" and thus kill the child.

11:
The Talmud of Eretz-Israel [AZ 9b] offers a different rationale why our mishnah permits a non-Jewish woman to nurse a Jewish child: the prophet permits it! The Talmud of Eretz-Israel quotes Isaiah:

12:
The end of our mishnah states that "a non-Jewish woman may nurse the child of a Jewish woman on her premises." As long as the Jewish mother is present, in her own home, it is supposed that no harm can be done: the non-Jewish woman may nurse a Jewish child in the biological mother's home but she may not take the child to her own home to nurse it.

13:
What a sad commentary the latter part of this mishnah is on the relationships between Jews and non-Jews in Eretz-Israel in Talmudic times (and for quite some time thereafter, well into the Byzantine era).

In AZ 017 we learned that "we may not rent to idolaters houses in Eretz-Israel nor, needless to say, may we rent them fields."

Ronen Lautman writes:

What are the halakhic consequences concerning the leasing of the ground of Eretz-Israel to a non-Jew during the Shemittah year?

I respond:

Ronen is referring to the the 'solution' advocated by Chief Rabbi Avraham Kuk nearly a century ago. The Torah prohibits Jews from working the land of Eretz-Israel during a Sabbatical year when the land must lie fallow. (The year which will come to an end with the advent of Rosh ha-Shanah in a few days' time was a Sabbatical year according to tradition.) In order to prevent all agricultural work from grinding to a disastrous halt Rabbi Kuk proposed 'selling' the land to a non-Jew because land which is not owned by a Jew is outside the scope of the Shemittah law.

The idea has been attacked on all sides. The Ultra-orthodox do not accept it because they have a 'better' solution - which works for a select few. Zionists reject the very idea of Jews 'selling' the land of Israel. Conservative Jews reject the solution of Rav Kuk because it is completely unnecessary. Rabbi David Golinkin has demonstrated most convincingly that by and large the laws of Shemittah do not apply in this day and age.

After this long introduction we can address Ronen's question. I am sorry to disappoint everybody, but the question is irrelevant (in the context of our mishnah). In his commentary on Mishnah 9 Rambam puts the matter most succinctly:

Well, maybe it was 'well-known to all people' in Rambam's time. So, it turns out that Ronen's very interesting question is a non-starter. Pity.