Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 29, 2018 | 讬状讙 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 14

What items are forbidden to sell all year round to idol worshippers? It may depend on how many you sell (large quantities are for resale and therefore allowed), whether you sell them combined with other similar items that are not used for idol worship, or whether the buyer asked specifically for that item or didn’t care if it was that or something similar which isn’t used for idol worship. Whether or not it is forbidden to sell a small animal (like sheep, etc.) to non-Jews depends on the local custom (depending on whether the non聽Jews there engage in bestiality).


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 转讜专谞讬转讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讻住讬谉 讜讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 诪讜讻住住讬谉 讜讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 转讜专谞讬转讗 转讜专谞讬转讗 诪讬 讗讬转讗 讘砖讘讬注讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the terms in the mishna: What is the meaning of itzterubalin? This is the plant known as torenita. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: The Sages added to the list of plants whose use is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year: Alekesin and itzterubalin, mukhsasin, and benot shua岣. And if it would enter your mind to say that itzterubalin is torenita, is there torenita that is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year?

讜讛转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讬拽专 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬拽专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 驻讬专讬 讚讗专讝讗 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讬专讬 讚讗专讝讗

The Gemara explains: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita that this is the principle: Anything that has a root and grows is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, and anything that does not have a root is not subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? If so, torenita, which has no roots, is not subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, and therefore it cannot be identified as itzterubalin. Rather, Rav Safra says: What is itzterubalin? It is the fruit of the cedar tree. And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Elazar says: Itzterubalin is the fruit of the cedar tree.

讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讗讬谞讬 讞讬讜专讗转讗 讜驻讟讜讟专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘驻讟讜讟专讜转讬讛谉 砖谞讜

The mishna includes benot shua岣 among the items one may not sell to a gentile. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: These are white figs. The mishna states: And petotarot. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is not another type of fruit; rather, the mishna here taught that the sale of the various fruits listed in the mishna is prohibited only when they are sold with their stems, not if they have been pruned.

诇讘讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讘讜谞讛 讝讻讛 转谞讗 讜诪讻讜诇谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讘讬诇讛 讜讻诪讛 讞讘讬诇讛 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讬谉 讞讘讬诇讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪砖诇砖讛 诪谞讬谉

The mishna taught that selling frankincense to gentiles is prohibited. Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The mishna is referring specifically to pure frankincense, which is used as incense for objects of idol worship. A Sage taught: And with regard to all of these items whose sale is prohibited, one may sell to gentiles a large bundle of merchandise, as it is clear that the gentile intends to sell the merchandise rather than sacrifice it to his object of idol worship. And how much does such a bundle weigh? Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira explained: For the purposes of this halakha, no bundle is less than the weight of three hundred dinars.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讜诪拽讟专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诇驻谞讬 诪驻拽讚讬谞谉 讗诇驻谞讬 讚诇驻谞讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讚讬谞谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let us be concerned lest the buyer go and sell these items to another gentile, and they sacrifice them. Abaye said in response: This scenario is certainly possible, but we are commanded only not to 鈥減lace a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), i.e., one may not be the direct cause of a gentile鈥檚 idol worship. We are not commanded not to place a stumbling block before one who may subsequently place it before the blind.

讜转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转专谞讙讜诇 诇诪讬 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And it is prohibited to sell a white rooster to a gentile. Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Zevid says the following ruling; and there are those who teach merely that Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says it. If a gentile says: Who has a rooster, without specifying any particular type, it is permitted to sell him a white rooster. But if he says: Who has a white rooster, it is prohibited to sell him a white rooster.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: He may sell a white rooster to a gentile, provided that it is sold along with other types of roosters. What are the circumstances? If we say that the gentile says: Who has a white rooster, who has a white rooster; in that case one may not provide him a white rooster even if it is sold along with other roosters, as the gentile specified that he wants a white rooster.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇 诇诪讬 转专谞讙讜诇 诇诪讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗

Rather, is it not referring to a case where the gentile says: Who has a rooster, who has a rooster; without mentioning a white rooster, and even so, according to Rabbi Yehuda if he sells him a white rooster along with other roosters then yes, it is permitted, but selling only a white rooster by itself is not permitted? And one can infer that according to the first tanna, who prohibits the sale of a white rooster, one may not sell him a white rooster even if it is sold along with other roosters. This does not accord with the statement of Rabbi Yona, who rules that if the gentile says: Who has a rooster, without specifying any particular type, it is permitted to sell him even a white rooster.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The mishna is not discussing the case of a gentile who asks for a rooster without specifying its color, as everyone agrees that in such a situation it is permitted to sell him a white rooster. Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the Jew had several different roosters, and the gentile says, pointing to different roosters: Sell me this one and that one, and one of the roosters he chose was white.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇 讝讛 诇讘谉 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇 讝讛 讙讜讬 砖注砖讛 诪砖转讛 诇讘谞讜 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara notes that this explanation is also taught in a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is selling a white rooster prohibited? It is prohibited when the gentile said: Sell me this white rooster. But if he said: Sell me this one and that one, it is permitted. And even if he said: Sell me this rooster, and he pointed to a white rooster, in the case of a gentile who is preparing a feast for his son or who has a sick person in his house, it is permitted to sell it to him, as it is clear that he wants it for the celebration for his son or for the sick person, not for idol worship.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 砖注砖讛 诪砖转讛 诇讘谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讛讗讬砖 讘诇讘讚 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讛讗讬砖 诪讬讛讗 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘讟讜讜讝讬讙

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (8a): In the case of a gentile who made a feast for his son, engaging in business is prohibited only on that day, and with that man alone? This indicates that in any event, conducting business on that day and with that man is prohibited. Rav Yitz岣k bar Rav Mesharshiyya said: The baraita is speaking about a picnic [betavuzig], i.e., a social gathering rather than a wedding feast. A mere social gathering does not include the sacrifice of offerings to idolatry.

转谞谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 住转诪谉 诪讜转专 讜驻讬专讜砖谉 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 住转诪谉 讜诪讗讬 驻讬专讜砖谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 住转诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 讞讬讟讬 讞讜讜专转讗 驻讬专讜砖谉 讚拽讗诪专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

We learned in the mishna: And with regard to all remaining items, without specification it is permitted to sell them, but with specification it is prohibited to sell them. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Without specification, and what is meant by: With specification? If we say that without specification is referring to a case when the gentile says that he wants white wheat without stating the reason he wants it, and with specification is referring to a case when he says that he will use the wheat for idol worship, why is it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha?

诇讗 住转诪谉 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜砖谉 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诇讗 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讗诇讗 住转诪谉 讚拽讗诪专 讞讬讟讬 驻讬专讜砖谉 讚拽讗诪专 讞讜讜专转讗

It does not need to be said that when he asks for the item without specification one may sell white wheat to him, and it does not need to be said that when he asks for it with specification one may not sell it to him, as he expressly stated that he will use it for idol worship. Rather, when the mishna says that he asks without specification, this is referring to a case where the gentile says that he wishes to buy wheat, in which case it is permitted to sell to him. If so, the case when he asks with specification is one where he says that he wants white wheat, which is an item used in idol worship, and the mishna teaches that it is prohibited to sell this to him.

诪讻诇诇 讚转专谞讙讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 住转诪谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇注讜诇诐 住转诪谉 讚拽讗诪专 讞讬讟讬 讞讜讜专转讗 驻讬专讜砖谉 讚拽讗诪专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

By inference, this means that in the case of a rooster, referred to earlier in the mishna, even if the gentile requests without specification, i.e., without saying that he wants a white one, it is not permitted to sell it to him. This conclusion contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Zeira. The Gemara rejects this argument: Say in response that actually, without specification is referring to a case where the gentile says that he wants to purchase white wheat, and with specification is referring to a case where he says that he needs it for idol worship.

讜驻讬专讜砖谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讗 讘注讬 讗诇讗 诪讬讘拽 讛讜讗 讚讗讘讬拽 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜住讘专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗讘讬拽 讘讬讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 讗讘讬拽讜 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬转讘讜 诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And as for the objection that this ruling is superfluous, in fact it is necessary for the mishna to state the halakha in a case where he specified that he would use the item for idol worship. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that this man does not really need the wheat for his idol worship. Rather, he is deeply attached to idol worship, and he thought that just as that man, i.e., he himself, is so attached to it, everyone else is also attached to idol worship. Therefore, he reasoned: I will say this, that I intend to use the item for idol worship, so that they will give it to me. Consequently, it is necessary for the mishna to teach us that if he says that he intends to use the item for idol worship it is prohibited to sell it to him, as he might be telling the truth.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 拽讟讜注 诇诪讬 诪讛讜 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 砖诇诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讚拽讗诪专 拽讟讜注 诇讗 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讘注讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬注专讜诪讬 拽讗 诪注专讬诐

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: If a gentile asks the merchants: Who has a damaged white rooster, what is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to sell him an unblemished white rooster? Do we say that from the fact that he says that he wants a damaged rooster, it may be inferred that he does not need it for idol worship, as gentiles do not sacrifice defective animals, and therefore it is permitted? Or perhaps he is only employing artifice. In other words, he knows that a Jew will not sell him an undamaged white rooster upon request, and as it is unlikely that someone has a damaged white rooster to sell him, he hopes that he will receive an undamaged one. If so, it is prohibited to sell him a white rooster.

讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讗讬 讗讬注专讜诪讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪注专讬诐 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 砖讞讜专 讜砖拽诇 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗讚讜诐 讜砖拽诇 诪讛讜 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 诇讘谉 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讘讜 砖讞讜专 讜砖拽诇 讗讚讜诐 讜砖拽诇 诇讗讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讗 讘注讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬注专讜诪讬 拽讗 诪注专讬诐 转讬拽讜

If you say that this gentile is employing artifice, and it is prohibited, in a case where he said: Who has a white rooster, who has a white rooster; and they brought him a black rooster and he took it, or in a case where they bought him a red one and he took it, what is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to sell him a white rooster? Do we say: Since they brought him a black rooster and he took it, or they bought him a red one and he took it, evidently he does not need the rooster for idol worship? Or perhaps, here too he is employing artifice? The Gemara comments: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讚拽诇 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗讘讬诪讬 讙诪讬专讬 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 驻讬专拽讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讜讗谞谉 讞诪砖讛 转谞谉 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: It is prohibited to sell even a good palm tree and 岣tzav to gentiles. Rav 岣sda said to Avimei: It is learned as a tradition that the tractate Avoda Zara of our forefather Abraham contained four hundred chapters, and we have learned only five chapters in our tractate Avoda Zara, and we do not even know the meaning of what we are saying.

讜诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讚拽诇 讟讘 讞爪讘 讜谞拽诇住 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬诐 讚拽诇 讟讘 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讛讗 讚拽诇 讘讬砖 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚拽诇 讟讘 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讟讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讟讘

Avimei asked him: And what in the mishna here poses a difficulty for you? He replied: I do not understand the mishna which teaches the following: Rabbi Meir says: It is prohibited to sell even a good palm tree, 岣tzav, and naklas to gentiles. It may be inferred from here that it is a good palm tree that one does not sell to gentiles, but one may sell a bad palm tree. But didn鈥檛 we learn in another mishna (19b) that one may not sell to gentiles anything that is attached to the ground? Avimei said to him: What is the meaning of: A good palm tree? It means the detached fruit of a good palm tree. And similarly, Rav Huna says: The mishna means the fruit of a good palm tree.

讞爪讘 拽砖讘讗 谞拽诇住 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽讜专讬讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 转谞谉 谞拽诇住 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讛讜 讜讗转 讗诪专转 拽讜专讬讬讟讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬转 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讛谞讗讬 诇讻讜 讚讻讬 讗讝诇转 讛转诐 讗诪专转 诇讛讜 谞拽诇住 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 讗诪专转 诇讛讜 拽讜专讬讬讟讬 讜讬讚注讬 讜拽讗 诪讞讜讜 诇讱

The Gemara explains the meaning of other terms that appear in the mishna. 岣tzav is a type of date known as kashba. With regard to the meaning of naklas, the Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi 岣ma bar Yosef said that it is referring to koreyatei. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: We learned in the mishna naklas, and we did not know what it is, and now you have said that it means koreyatei, and we do not know what that is either. How have you helped us? Rav Dimi said to him: I have in fact helped you, as when you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, and say to them naklas, and they do not know what it means, say to them koreyatei, and they will know what it is, and they will show it to you.

诪转谞讬壮 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讙讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇诪讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬诐 砖诇诪讬谉 讜砖讘讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 讜讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住

MISHNA: In a place where the residents were accustomed to sell small domesticated animals to gentiles, one may sell them. In a place where they were not accustomed to sell them, one may not sell them. But in every place, one may not sell them large livestock, calves, or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Sages prohibited these sales lest a Jew鈥檚 animal perform labor for the gentile on Shabbat in violation of an explicit Torah prohibition, as explained in the Gemara. Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of performing labor, and ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse for riding, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讬讻讗 诪谞讛讙讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讛讬讙 讗讬住讜专 谞讛讜讙 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讛讬讙 讛讬转专 谞讛讜讙

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may not sell small domesticated animals to gentiles if it is not the accepted practice. The Gemara infers: That is to say that there is no prohibition involved; rather, there is a custom not to sell small domesticated animals. Therefore, where the practice is to prohibit the sale, that is what is practiced, and where the practice is to permit the sale, that is what is practiced.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讘驻讜谞讚拽讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讛专讘讬注讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪拽讜诐 砖讛转讬专讜 诇诪讻讜专 讛转讬专讜 诇讬讬讞讚 诪拽讜诐 砖讗住专讜 诇讬讬讞讚 讗住专讜 诇诪讻讜专

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna on 22a: One may not keep an animal in the inns of gentiles, because they are suspected of engaging in bestiality. If so, it should be prohibited in all places to sell animals to gentiles, as one is thereby placing a stumbling block before the blind. Rav says: The halakha of the mishna there, with regard to keeping an animal in a gentile inn, is contingent on the halakha of the mishna here. If it is a place where the Sages permitted one to sell animals to gentiles, it must be that the gentiles of that location are not suspected of engaging in bestiality. Therefore, the Sages permitted one to leave the animal in seclusion with the gentile at the inn. Conversely, in a place where the Sages prohibited one from leaving the animal in seclusion with the gentile at the inn, because the gentiles there are suspected of engaging in bestiality, they also prohibited one from selling animals to gentiles there.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 14

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 转讜专谞讬转讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讻住讬谉 讜讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 诪讜讻住住讬谉 讜讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 转讜专谞讬转讗 转讜专谞讬转讗 诪讬 讗讬转讗 讘砖讘讬注讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the terms in the mishna: What is the meaning of itzterubalin? This is the plant known as torenita. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: The Sages added to the list of plants whose use is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year: Alekesin and itzterubalin, mukhsasin, and benot shua岣. And if it would enter your mind to say that itzterubalin is torenita, is there torenita that is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year?

讜讛转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讬拽专 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬拽专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 驻讬专讬 讚讗专讝讗 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讬专讬 讚讗专讝讗

The Gemara explains: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita that this is the principle: Anything that has a root and grows is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, and anything that does not have a root is not subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? If so, torenita, which has no roots, is not subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, and therefore it cannot be identified as itzterubalin. Rather, Rav Safra says: What is itzterubalin? It is the fruit of the cedar tree. And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Elazar says: Itzterubalin is the fruit of the cedar tree.

讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讗讬谞讬 讞讬讜专讗转讗 讜驻讟讜讟专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘驻讟讜讟专讜转讬讛谉 砖谞讜

The mishna includes benot shua岣 among the items one may not sell to a gentile. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: These are white figs. The mishna states: And petotarot. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is not another type of fruit; rather, the mishna here taught that the sale of the various fruits listed in the mishna is prohibited only when they are sold with their stems, not if they have been pruned.

诇讘讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讘讜谞讛 讝讻讛 转谞讗 讜诪讻讜诇谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讘讬诇讛 讜讻诪讛 讞讘讬诇讛 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讬谉 讞讘讬诇讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪砖诇砖讛 诪谞讬谉

The mishna taught that selling frankincense to gentiles is prohibited. Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The mishna is referring specifically to pure frankincense, which is used as incense for objects of idol worship. A Sage taught: And with regard to all of these items whose sale is prohibited, one may sell to gentiles a large bundle of merchandise, as it is clear that the gentile intends to sell the merchandise rather than sacrifice it to his object of idol worship. And how much does such a bundle weigh? Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira explained: For the purposes of this halakha, no bundle is less than the weight of three hundred dinars.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讜诪拽讟专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诇驻谞讬 诪驻拽讚讬谞谉 讗诇驻谞讬 讚诇驻谞讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讚讬谞谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let us be concerned lest the buyer go and sell these items to another gentile, and they sacrifice them. Abaye said in response: This scenario is certainly possible, but we are commanded only not to 鈥減lace a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), i.e., one may not be the direct cause of a gentile鈥檚 idol worship. We are not commanded not to place a stumbling block before one who may subsequently place it before the blind.

讜转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转专谞讙讜诇 诇诪讬 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And it is prohibited to sell a white rooster to a gentile. Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Zevid says the following ruling; and there are those who teach merely that Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says it. If a gentile says: Who has a rooster, without specifying any particular type, it is permitted to sell him a white rooster. But if he says: Who has a white rooster, it is prohibited to sell him a white rooster.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: He may sell a white rooster to a gentile, provided that it is sold along with other types of roosters. What are the circumstances? If we say that the gentile says: Who has a white rooster, who has a white rooster; in that case one may not provide him a white rooster even if it is sold along with other roosters, as the gentile specified that he wants a white rooster.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇 诇诪讬 转专谞讙讜诇 诇诪讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗

Rather, is it not referring to a case where the gentile says: Who has a rooster, who has a rooster; without mentioning a white rooster, and even so, according to Rabbi Yehuda if he sells him a white rooster along with other roosters then yes, it is permitted, but selling only a white rooster by itself is not permitted? And one can infer that according to the first tanna, who prohibits the sale of a white rooster, one may not sell him a white rooster even if it is sold along with other roosters. This does not accord with the statement of Rabbi Yona, who rules that if the gentile says: Who has a rooster, without specifying any particular type, it is permitted to sell him even a white rooster.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The mishna is not discussing the case of a gentile who asks for a rooster without specifying its color, as everyone agrees that in such a situation it is permitted to sell him a white rooster. Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the Jew had several different roosters, and the gentile says, pointing to different roosters: Sell me this one and that one, and one of the roosters he chose was white.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇 讝讛 诇讘谉 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 转专谞讙讜诇 讝讛 讙讜讬 砖注砖讛 诪砖转讛 诇讘谞讜 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara notes that this explanation is also taught in a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is selling a white rooster prohibited? It is prohibited when the gentile said: Sell me this white rooster. But if he said: Sell me this one and that one, it is permitted. And even if he said: Sell me this rooster, and he pointed to a white rooster, in the case of a gentile who is preparing a feast for his son or who has a sick person in his house, it is permitted to sell it to him, as it is clear that he wants it for the celebration for his son or for the sick person, not for idol worship.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 砖注砖讛 诪砖转讛 诇讘谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讛讗讬砖 讘诇讘讚 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讛讗讬砖 诪讬讛讗 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘讟讜讜讝讬讙

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (8a): In the case of a gentile who made a feast for his son, engaging in business is prohibited only on that day, and with that man alone? This indicates that in any event, conducting business on that day and with that man is prohibited. Rav Yitz岣k bar Rav Mesharshiyya said: The baraita is speaking about a picnic [betavuzig], i.e., a social gathering rather than a wedding feast. A mere social gathering does not include the sacrifice of offerings to idolatry.

转谞谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 住转诪谉 诪讜转专 讜驻讬专讜砖谉 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 住转诪谉 讜诪讗讬 驻讬专讜砖谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 住转诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 讞讬讟讬 讞讜讜专转讗 驻讬专讜砖谉 讚拽讗诪专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

We learned in the mishna: And with regard to all remaining items, without specification it is permitted to sell them, but with specification it is prohibited to sell them. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Without specification, and what is meant by: With specification? If we say that without specification is referring to a case when the gentile says that he wants white wheat without stating the reason he wants it, and with specification is referring to a case when he says that he will use the wheat for idol worship, why is it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha?

诇讗 住转诪谉 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜砖谉 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诇讗 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讗诇讗 住转诪谉 讚拽讗诪专 讞讬讟讬 驻讬专讜砖谉 讚拽讗诪专 讞讜讜专转讗

It does not need to be said that when he asks for the item without specification one may sell white wheat to him, and it does not need to be said that when he asks for it with specification one may not sell it to him, as he expressly stated that he will use it for idol worship. Rather, when the mishna says that he asks without specification, this is referring to a case where the gentile says that he wishes to buy wheat, in which case it is permitted to sell to him. If so, the case when he asks with specification is one where he says that he wants white wheat, which is an item used in idol worship, and the mishna teaches that it is prohibited to sell this to him.

诪讻诇诇 讚转专谞讙讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 住转诪谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇注讜诇诐 住转诪谉 讚拽讗诪专 讞讬讟讬 讞讜讜专转讗 驻讬专讜砖谉 讚拽讗诪专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

By inference, this means that in the case of a rooster, referred to earlier in the mishna, even if the gentile requests without specification, i.e., without saying that he wants a white one, it is not permitted to sell it to him. This conclusion contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Zeira. The Gemara rejects this argument: Say in response that actually, without specification is referring to a case where the gentile says that he wants to purchase white wheat, and with specification is referring to a case where he says that he needs it for idol worship.

讜驻讬专讜砖谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讗 讘注讬 讗诇讗 诪讬讘拽 讛讜讗 讚讗讘讬拽 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜住讘专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗讘讬拽 讘讬讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 讗讘讬拽讜 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬转讘讜 诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And as for the objection that this ruling is superfluous, in fact it is necessary for the mishna to state the halakha in a case where he specified that he would use the item for idol worship. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that this man does not really need the wheat for his idol worship. Rather, he is deeply attached to idol worship, and he thought that just as that man, i.e., he himself, is so attached to it, everyone else is also attached to idol worship. Therefore, he reasoned: I will say this, that I intend to use the item for idol worship, so that they will give it to me. Consequently, it is necessary for the mishna to teach us that if he says that he intends to use the item for idol worship it is prohibited to sell it to him, as he might be telling the truth.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 拽讟讜注 诇诪讬 诪讛讜 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 砖诇诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讚拽讗诪专 拽讟讜注 诇讗 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讘注讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬注专讜诪讬 拽讗 诪注专讬诐

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: If a gentile asks the merchants: Who has a damaged white rooster, what is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to sell him an unblemished white rooster? Do we say that from the fact that he says that he wants a damaged rooster, it may be inferred that he does not need it for idol worship, as gentiles do not sacrifice defective animals, and therefore it is permitted? Or perhaps he is only employing artifice. In other words, he knows that a Jew will not sell him an undamaged white rooster upon request, and as it is unlikely that someone has a damaged white rooster to sell him, he hopes that he will receive an undamaged one. If so, it is prohibited to sell him a white rooster.

讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讗讬 讗讬注专讜诪讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪注专讬诐 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 诇诪讬 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 砖讞讜专 讜砖拽诇 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗讚讜诐 讜砖拽诇 诪讛讜 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 诇讘谉 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讘讜 砖讞讜专 讜砖拽诇 讗讚讜诐 讜砖拽诇 诇讗讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讗 讘注讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬注专讜诪讬 拽讗 诪注专讬诐 转讬拽讜

If you say that this gentile is employing artifice, and it is prohibited, in a case where he said: Who has a white rooster, who has a white rooster; and they brought him a black rooster and he took it, or in a case where they bought him a red one and he took it, what is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to sell him a white rooster? Do we say: Since they brought him a black rooster and he took it, or they bought him a red one and he took it, evidently he does not need the rooster for idol worship? Or perhaps, here too he is employing artifice? The Gemara comments: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讚拽诇 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗讘讬诪讬 讙诪讬专讬 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 驻讬专拽讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讜讗谞谉 讞诪砖讛 转谞谉 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: It is prohibited to sell even a good palm tree and 岣tzav to gentiles. Rav 岣sda said to Avimei: It is learned as a tradition that the tractate Avoda Zara of our forefather Abraham contained four hundred chapters, and we have learned only five chapters in our tractate Avoda Zara, and we do not even know the meaning of what we are saying.

讜诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讚拽诇 讟讘 讞爪讘 讜谞拽诇住 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬诐 讚拽诇 讟讘 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讛讗 讚拽诇 讘讬砖 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚拽诇 讟讘 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讟讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讟讘

Avimei asked him: And what in the mishna here poses a difficulty for you? He replied: I do not understand the mishna which teaches the following: Rabbi Meir says: It is prohibited to sell even a good palm tree, 岣tzav, and naklas to gentiles. It may be inferred from here that it is a good palm tree that one does not sell to gentiles, but one may sell a bad palm tree. But didn鈥檛 we learn in another mishna (19b) that one may not sell to gentiles anything that is attached to the ground? Avimei said to him: What is the meaning of: A good palm tree? It means the detached fruit of a good palm tree. And similarly, Rav Huna says: The mishna means the fruit of a good palm tree.

讞爪讘 拽砖讘讗 谞拽诇住 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽讜专讬讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 转谞谉 谞拽诇住 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讛讜 讜讗转 讗诪专转 拽讜专讬讬讟讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬转 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讛谞讗讬 诇讻讜 讚讻讬 讗讝诇转 讛转诐 讗诪专转 诇讛讜 谞拽诇住 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 讗诪专转 诇讛讜 拽讜专讬讬讟讬 讜讬讚注讬 讜拽讗 诪讞讜讜 诇讱

The Gemara explains the meaning of other terms that appear in the mishna. 岣tzav is a type of date known as kashba. With regard to the meaning of naklas, the Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi 岣ma bar Yosef said that it is referring to koreyatei. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: We learned in the mishna naklas, and we did not know what it is, and now you have said that it means koreyatei, and we do not know what that is either. How have you helped us? Rav Dimi said to him: I have in fact helped you, as when you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, and say to them naklas, and they do not know what it means, say to them koreyatei, and they will know what it is, and they will show it to you.

诪转谞讬壮 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讙讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇诪讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬诐 砖诇诪讬谉 讜砖讘讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 讜讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住

MISHNA: In a place where the residents were accustomed to sell small domesticated animals to gentiles, one may sell them. In a place where they were not accustomed to sell them, one may not sell them. But in every place, one may not sell them large livestock, calves, or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Sages prohibited these sales lest a Jew鈥檚 animal perform labor for the gentile on Shabbat in violation of an explicit Torah prohibition, as explained in the Gemara. Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of performing labor, and ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse for riding, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讬讻讗 诪谞讛讙讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讛讬讙 讗讬住讜专 谞讛讜讙 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讛讬讙 讛讬转专 谞讛讜讙

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may not sell small domesticated animals to gentiles if it is not the accepted practice. The Gemara infers: That is to say that there is no prohibition involved; rather, there is a custom not to sell small domesticated animals. Therefore, where the practice is to prohibit the sale, that is what is practiced, and where the practice is to permit the sale, that is what is practiced.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讘驻讜谞讚拽讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讛专讘讬注讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪拽讜诐 砖讛转讬专讜 诇诪讻讜专 讛转讬专讜 诇讬讬讞讚 诪拽讜诐 砖讗住专讜 诇讬讬讞讚 讗住专讜 诇诪讻讜专

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna on 22a: One may not keep an animal in the inns of gentiles, because they are suspected of engaging in bestiality. If so, it should be prohibited in all places to sell animals to gentiles, as one is thereby placing a stumbling block before the blind. Rav says: The halakha of the mishna there, with regard to keeping an animal in a gentile inn, is contingent on the halakha of the mishna here. If it is a place where the Sages permitted one to sell animals to gentiles, it must be that the gentiles of that location are not suspected of engaging in bestiality. Therefore, the Sages permitted one to leave the animal in seclusion with the gentile at the inn. Conversely, in a place where the Sages prohibited one from leaving the animal in seclusion with the gentile at the inn, because the gentiles there are suspected of engaging in bestiality, they also prohibited one from selling animals to gentiles there.

Scroll To Top