Avodah Zarah 13
אֲבָל מְהַנֶּה שְׁרֵי. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מְעוּטָּרוֹת בְּפֵירוֹת נָמֵי אָסוּר, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: נֶהֱנֶה — אָסוּר, מְהַנֶּה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!
but it is permitted to cause benefit. Although by buying from the store one indirectly supports idol worship, as a portion of the sales are given to support idol worship, this is not prohibited by Torah law. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if the stores are adorned only with fruit one is also prohibited from buying from them. This is derived by an a fortiori inference: If it is prohibited to derive benefit from idol worship, is it not all the more so prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship?
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: יוֹם שֶׁעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מַנַּחַת בּוֹ אֶת הַמֶּכֶס, מַכְרִיזִין וְאוֹמְרִים: כׇּל מִי שֶׁנּוֹטֵל עֲטָרָה וְיַנִּיחַ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וּבְרֹאשׁ חֲמוֹרוֹ לִכְבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — יַנִּיחַ לוֹ אֶת הַמֶּכֶס, וְאִם לָאו — אַל יַנִּיחַ לוֹ אֶת הַמֶּכֶס.
The Gemara raises an objection to Reish Lakish’s opinion from a baraita. Rabbi Natan says: On the day in which a reduction is made from the tax in honor of idol worship, they announce and say: Anyone who takes a wreath of roses and places it on his head and on the head of his donkey in honor of the object of idol worship, his tax will be reduced. And if one does not place a wreath on one’s head, his tax will not be reduced.
יְהוּדִי שֶׁנִּמְצָא שָׁם מָה יַעֲשֶׂה? יַנִּיחַ — נִמְצָא נֶהֱנֶה, לֹא יַנִּיחַ — נִמְצָא מְהַנֶּה.
What should a Jew who is present there do? If he places the wreath on his head and on the head of his donkey, he will be found to derive benefit from idol worship. And if he does not place the wreath on his head, he will be found to cause benefit to idol worship, through the tax that he pays.
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, בְּהֵמָה תֵּיעָקֵר, פֵּירוֹת כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים יֵרָקְבוּ, מָעוֹת וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת יוֹלִיכֵם לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, וְאֵיזֶהוּ עִיקּוּר? הַמְנַשֵּׁר פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה.
From here the Sages stated: One who conducts business in a market of idol worship will be forced either to benefit from or cause benefit to idol worship. Therefore, any animal he bought there should be destroyed, any produce, clothing or vessels should be left to decompose, and with regard to any money or metal vessels, which would not decompose on their own, one should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. And what constitutes destroying the animal? One cuts off the hooves of the animal from the knee and below.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: יַנִּיחַ — נִמְצָא נֶהֱנֶה, לֹא יַנִּיחַ — נִמְצָא מְהַנֶּה!
The Gemara explains the objection to Reish Lakish’s statement. In any event, the baraita teaches that it is prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship, as it states: If he places the wreath on his head then he will be found to derive benefit from idol worship, and if he does not place the wreath on his head, he will be found to cause benefit to idol worship. How, then, can Reish Lakish claim that it is permitted to cause benefit to idol worship?
אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: קָסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי נָתָן, וַאֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי כְּרַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: לָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Idi, said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds as follows: The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Natan, whose opinion is cited in the baraita, and I spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Natan. The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, who rules in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan, holds that the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Natan; rather, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship.
וְלָא פְּלִיגִי? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: הוֹלְכִין לְיָרִיד שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, וְלוֹקְחִין מֵהֶם בְּהֵמָה, עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת, בָּתִּים וְשָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים, וְכוֹתֵב וּמַעֲלֶה בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמַצִּיל מִיָּדָם.
The Gemara asks: And is it so that they do not disagree? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One may go to a fair of gentiles, whose purpose is to honor idol worship, and buy from the gentiles animals, and slaves, and maidservants, as the purchase raises the items to a more sanctified state; and he may buy houses, fields, and vineyards from them, due to the mitzva to settle Eretz Yisrael. And one may write the necessary deeds and confirm them in their gentile courts [be’arkaot], although this involves an acknowledgement of their authority, because it is as though he is rescuing his property from their hands, as the court’s confirmation and stamp of approval prevents the seller from denying the sale and claiming that the property still belongs to him.
וְאִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן — מִטַּמֵּא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, לָדוּן וּלְעַרְעֵר עִמָּהֶם. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמִּטַּמֵּא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, כָּךְ מִטַּמֵּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת.
And if he is a priest, he may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, even though a priest is usually prohibited from leaving Eretz Yisrael to the impure land outside, in order to litigate with them and to contest their claims. And just as a priest may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, so may he become ritually impure for this purpose by entering a cemetery.
בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! אֶלָּא בֵּית הַפְּרָס דְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to express surprise at this last ruling: Can it enter your mind to say that a priest may become impure by entering a cemetery? The halakha that a cemetery imparts ritual impurity to a priest is by Torah law; how could the Sages override this prohibition? Rather, the baraita is referring to an area where there is uncertainty with regard to the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas], owing to the fact that a grave had been unwittingly plowed over, and the bones may have become scattered throughout the field. Such a field imparts ritual impurity by rabbinic law.
וּמְטַמֵּא לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וְלִישָּׂא אִשָּׁה, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין מוֹצֵא לִלְמוֹד, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁמּוֹצֵא לִלְמוֹד — אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא.
The baraita continues: And a priest may likewise become ritually impure and leave Eretz Yisrael in order to study Torah or in order to marry a woman. Rabbi Yehuda says: When does this allowance apply? It applies when he cannot find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael. But when the priest can find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael, he may not become ritually impure by leaving the country.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁמּוֹצֵא לִלְמוֹד — יִטַּמֵּא, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם זוֹכֶה לִלְמוֹד מִכֹּל.
Rabbi Yosei says: Even when he can find a place to study Torah in Eretz Yisrael, he may leave the country and become ritually impure, because a person does not merit to learn from everyone, and it is possible that the more suitable teacher for him lives outside of Eretz Yisrael.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהָלַךְ אַחַר רַבּוֹ לְצִידוֹן לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
Rabbi Yosei says, in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Yosef the priest, who followed his teacher to the city of Sidon, outside of Eretz Yisrael, to learn Torah even though the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says about this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
אַלְמָא פְּלִיגִי! אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם לָא פְּלִיגִי,
The Gemara returns to the issue at hand. This baraita apparently indicates that the Rabbis do disagree with Rabbi Natan, as they hold that it is permitted to buy items from a gentile fair and cause benefit to idol worship, whereas the ruling of Rabbi Natan is a minority opinion. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: Actually, the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Natan, and even according to this baraita one is prohibited from causing benefit for idol worship.
וְלָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַתַּגָּר, דְּשָׁקְלִי מִיכְסָא מִינֵּיהּ; כָּאן — בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, דְּלָא שָׁקְלִי מִיכְסָא מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara elaborates: And the fact that the baraita permits buying at a gentile fair is not difficult, as here, where Rabbi Natan prohibits buying items from a gentile fair, he states his ruling with regard to one who buys from a merchant, as a tax is taken from him for the benefit of idol worship; whereas there, in the baraita that permits buying items at the fair, it states its ruling with regard to one who buys from a homeowner, i.e., a private individual, where a tax is not taken from him.
אָמַר מָר: בְּהֵמָה תֵּיעָקֵר. וְהָא אִיכָּא צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶת סוּסֵיהֶם תְּעַקֵּר״.
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the baraita that cited the opinion of Rabbi Natan. The Master said above: Any animal that one bought there should be destroyed. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a requirement to prevent suffering to animals? Abaye said: Although there is an enjoinder against causing suffering to a living creature, it is permitted when necessary, as the Merciful One states to Joshua: “You shall destroy their horses” (Joshua 11:6).
אָמַר מָר: וְאֵיזֶהוּ עִיקּוּר? מְנַשֵּׁר פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה. וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין, וְאֵין מַחְרִימִין, וְאֵין מַעֲרִיכִין בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה, וְאִם הִקְדִּישׁ וְהֶחְרִים וְהֶעֱרִיךְ — בְּהֵמָה תֵּיעָקֵר, פֵּירוֹת כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים.
The Master said above: And what constitutes destroying the animal? One cuts the hooves of the animal from the knee and below. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One may neither consecrate objects, nor dedicate items for sacred use, nor valuate an item’s worth based on its appraisal (see Leviticus, chapter 27) and dedicate its monetary worth to the Temple treasury, in the present time, when the Temple no longer exists. And if one did consecrate, or dedicate, or valuate items for sacred use, the presence of these items might lead to the violation of the prohibition against using consecrated property. Therefore, if one dedicated an animal it should be destroyed. If he dedicated produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose,
יֵרָקְבוּ, מָעוֹת וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת — יוֹלִיכֵם לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, וְאֵיזֶהוּ עִיקּוּר? נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בְּפָנֶיהָ, וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ!
he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. And what constitutes destroying? He locks the door before it, and the animal dies on its own from hunger. According to the baraita, the disposal of the animal is carried out by starving it, not by cutting its hooves.
אָמַר אַבַּיֵּי: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם בִּזְיוֹן קָדָשִׁים. וְנִשְׁחֲטֵיהּ מִישְׁחָט! אָתוּ בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה.
Abaye said: There, in the case of a consecrated animal, the method employed is different, because cutting the animal’s hooves would cause the degradation of sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: But why does the baraita require this complicated method of killing the animal? Why not simply state that he should slaughter it? The Gemara answers: If he were to slaughter it, someone might come to experience a mishap through it, by eating the meat and thereby misusing consecrated property.
וְלִישַׁוְּיֵהּ גִּיסְטְרָא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְנִתַּצְתֶּם אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתָם וְגוֹ׳ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״.
The Gemara asks: But why not let him render the animal a shard [gistera], by mutilating it so that it is unfit to be eaten? Why is it necessary to kill it in such a drawn-out fashion, by starving it to death? Abaye said that it is because the verse states: “And you shall break down their altars…you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). It is derived from here that one may not actively destroy any sacred item.
רָבָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמֵטִיל מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים. נִרְאֶה? מוּם מְעַלְּיָא הוּא! הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, דַּחֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה. הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
Rava said there is a different reason a consecrated animal may not be disposed of by cutting its hooves: It is because it appears as though he is inflicting a blemish on a sacrificial animal. The Gemara asks: Why does Rava say that it merely appears as though he is inflicting a blemish, when in actual fact he is inflicting a full-fledged blemish? The Gemara answers: This matter, that one may not inflict a blemish on a sacrificial animal, applies only when the Temple is standing, as the animal is fit for sacrifice and he renders it unfit. By contrast, now, when the animal is not fit for sacrifice, since there is no Temple, we have no problem with it by Torah law. The only problem is that it appears as though one is inflicting a blemish on a sanctified animal.
וְלִיהְוֵי כְּמֵטִיל מוּם בְּבַעַל מוּם, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה — אָסוּר! בַּעַל מוּם, נְהִי דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְגוּפֵיהּ — לִדְמֵי חֲזֵי, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הָכָא, דְּלָא לִדְמֵי חֲזֵי וְלָא לְגוּפֵיהּ חֲזֵי.
The Gemara asks: But this should be considered equivalent to one who inflicts a blemish on an animal that is already blemished, which is prohibited even though that animal is not fit for sacrifice. The Gemara answers: In the case of a blemished animal when the Temple is standing it is prohibited to inflict a blemish upon it, as granted, it itself is not fit to serve as an offering; but it is fit to make use of its monetary value, i.e., another animal may be purchased with the proceeds of its sale and sacrificed in its place. This is to the exclusion of the case here, when there is no Temple, as the animal is not fit for its monetary value and it is not fit to serve as an offering itself.
אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָה לְרַבִּי עִילַּאי דְּקָאֵי אַפִּיתְחָא דְּצוֹר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָתָנֵי ״בְּהֵמָה תֵּיעָקֵר״, עֶבֶד מַאי? עֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי. כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי עֶבֶד גּוֹי, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְךָ? תַּנְיָא: הַגּוֹיִם (והרועי) [וְהָרוֹעִים] בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין.
§ Rabbi Yona found Rabbi Elai, who was standing at the entrance to the city of Tyre. Rabbi Yona said to him: The baraita cited above teaches that if one bought an animal at a pagan fair it should be destroyed. What should be done with a slave purchased at the fair? Rabbi Yona elaborated: I do not raise the dilemma about a Jewish slave, as it is obvious that the master cannot cause him harm. Where it is a dilemma for me is the case of a gentile slave; what is the halakha? Rabbi Elai said to him in response: What is the reason that this is a dilemma for you? It is taught in a baraita: With regard to the gentiles and shepherds of small domesticated animals, we do not raise them from a pit but we do not actively lower them into a pit either. It may be inferred from here that one may not cause the death of a gentile slave.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: קָתָנֵי לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בְּהֵמָה עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת, עֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ עֶבֶד גּוֹי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאִי עֶבֶד גּוֹי לְמַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אֲפִילּוּ עֶבֶד גּוֹי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְנִיסוֹ תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה.
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: The second baraita cited above teaches that one may go to a pagan fair and buy from the gentiles animals, slaves, and maidservants. Does the baraita mean that one may buy a Jewish slave, or perhaps, is it teaching that one may buy even a gentile slave? Rabbi Zeira said to him: It stands to reason that the baraita means specifically a Jewish slave; as, if it is referring to a gentile slave, what is the reason that it is necessary for the Sages to permit this purchase? When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted to purchase even a gentile slave, because he brings him under the wings of the Divine Presence by having him undergo the process of conversion when he becomes the slave of a Jew.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַטּוּ בְּהֵמָה מַאי ״מַכְנִיס תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה״ אִיכָּא? אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם מִעוּטַיְיהוּ, וְהָכָא נָמֵי דִּמְמַעֲטִי — שְׁרֵי.
Rav Ashi said: But with regard to the permission to buy an animal, what is there about this purchase that one can be said to bring the animal under the wings of the Divine Presence? Rather, the reason it is permitted is because through this purchase the Jew reduces the possessions of the gentile. And here too, as he reduces the gentile’s property by purchasing the slave, it is permitted.
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב זְבַן סַנְדָּלָא, רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה זְבַן פִּיתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: יַתְמָא, עֲבַד רַבָּךְ הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: יַתְמָא, עֲבַד רַבָּךְ הָכִי? וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת זְבוּן, וְכׇל חַד וְחַד סָבַר: חַבְרַאי מִתַּגָּר זְבַן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַתַּגָּר, דְּשָׁקְלִי מִיכְסָא מִינֵּיהּ, אֲבָל בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, דְּלָא שָׁקְלִי מִינֵּיהּ מִיכְסָא — מוּתָּר.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ya’akov bought sandals and Rabbi Yirmeya bought bread at a pagan fair. One said to the other: Orphan, i.e., one with no guide, would your teacher act in this manner? The other likewise said to him: Orphan, would your teacher act in this manner? The Gemara explains: Actually, both purchased these items from a homeowner, i.e., a private individual, and each one thought that the other had purchased his item from a merchant. As Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says: The Sages taught that it is prohibited to buy from a gentile at a pagan fair only in the case of one who buys from a merchant, as a tax is taken from him and used for the benefit of idol worship. But with regard to one who buys from a homeowner, when a tax is not taken from him, it is permitted to make the purchase.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: אִילְמָלֵא הָיָה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָא זִימְנָא בְּאַתְרָא דְּקָא שָׁקְלִי מִיכְסָא, אֲפִילּוּ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֲוָה אָסַר. אֶלָּא אִינְהוּ הֵיכִי זְבוּן? מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָבוּעַ זְבוּן.
Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says: If Rabbi Yoḥanan had been present at this time and age, in a place where the tax is taken from all sales, including those conducted with private individuals, he would have prohibited buying items even from a homeowner. The Gemara asks: But if so, how did these Sages, Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Yirmeya, purchase items at the fair? The Gemara answers: They purchased the items from a homeowner who sells solely on a temporary basis.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים אֲסוּרִים לִמְכּוֹר לְגוֹי: אִצְטְרוֹבְלִין, וּבְנוֹת שׁוּחַ, וּפְטוֹטָרוֹת, וּלְבוֹנָה, וְתַרְנְגוֹל הַלָּבָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מוּתָּר לִמְכּוֹר לוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹל לָבָן בֵּין הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ — קוֹטֵעַ אֶת אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמוֹכְרוֹ לוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִים חָסֵר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
MISHNA: These are the items that it is prohibited to sell to a gentile at any time of year, as they are used specifically for idol worship: Itzterubalin, benot shuaḥ, petotarot, frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is permitted to sell a white rooster to a gentile provided that it is sold along with other types of roosters. But when it is sold by itself, one should cut off its toe and sell it to the gentile, because they do not sacrifice a defective animal to their object of idol worship.
וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים, סְתָמָן מוּתָּר, וּפֵירוּשָׁן אָסוּר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף דֶּקֶל טָב וְחָצָב (ונקלב) [וְנִקְלָבֵס] אָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר לַגּוֹיִם.
And with regard to all remaining items, without specification it is permitted to sell them, but with specification it is prohibited to sell them. Rabbi Meir says: Even in the case of a good palm tree, ḥatzav, and naklav, it is prohibited to sell them to gentiles.
