Avodah Zarah 14

גמ׳ מאי איצטרובלין תורניתא ורמינהו הוסיפו עליהן אלכסין ואיצטרובלין מוכססין ובנות שוח ואי סלקא דעתך איצטרובלין תורניתא תורניתא מי איתא בשביעית

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 shuaḥ. 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?

והתנן זה הכלל כל שיש לו עיקר יש לו שביעית וכל שאין לו עיקר אין לו שביעית אלא אמר רב ספרא פירי דארזא וכן כי אתא רבין אמר רבי אלעזר פירי דארזא

The Gemara explains: But didn’t 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.

בנות שוח אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן תאיני חיוראתא ופטוטרות אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן בפטוטרותיהן שנו

The mishna includes benot shuaḥ among the items one may not sell to a gentile. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These are white figs. The mishna states: And petotarot. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

לבונה אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש לבונה זכה תנא ומכולן מוכרין להן חבילה וכמה חבילה פירש רבי יהודה בן בתירא אין חבילה פחותה משלשה מנין

The mishna taught that selling frankincense to gentiles is prohibited. Rabbi Yitzḥak 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.

וליחוש דלמא אזיל ומזבין לאחריני ומקטרי אמר אביי אלפני מפקדינן אלפני דלפני לא מפקדינן

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 “place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), i.e., one may not be the direct cause of a gentile’s idol worship. We are not commanded not to place a stumbling block before one who may subsequently place it before the blind.

ותרנגול לבן אמר רבי יונה אמר רבי זירא אמר רב זביד ואיכא דמתני אמר רבי יונה אמר רבי זירא תרנגול למי מותר למכור לו תרנגול לבן תרנגול לבן למי אסור למכור לו תרנגול לבן

§ 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.

תנן רבי יהודה אומר מוכר הוא לו תרנגול לבן בין התרנגולין היכי דמי אילימא דקאמר תרנגול לבן למי תרנגול לבן למי אפילו בין התרנגולין נמי לא

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.

אלא לאו דקא אמר תרנגול למי תרנגול למי ואפילו הכי לרבי יהודה בין התרנגולין אין בפני עצמו לא ולתנא קמא אפילו בין התרנגולין נמי לא

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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאמר זה וזה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.

תניא נמי הכי אמר רבי יהודה אימתי בזמן שאמר תרנגול זה לבן אבל אם אמר זה וזה מותר ואפילו אמר תרנגול זה גוי שעשה משתה לבנו או שהיה לו חולה בתוך ביתו מותר

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.

והתניא גוי שעשה משתה לבנו אינו אסור אלא אותו היום ואותו האיש בלבד אותו היום ואותו האיש מיהא אסור אמר רב יצחק בר רב משרשיא בטווזיג

The Gemara asks: But isn’t 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 Yitzḥak 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.

תנן ושאר כל הדברים סתמן מותר ופירושן אסור מאי סתמן ומאי פירושן אילימא סתמא דקאמר חיטי חוורתא פירושן דקאמר לעבודה זרה

§ 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?

לא סתמן צריכא למימר דמזבנינן ולא פירושן צריכא למימר דלא מזבנינן אלא סתמן דקאמר חיטי פירושן דקאמר חוורתא

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.

מכלל דתרנגול אפילו סתמן נמי לא אמרי לעולם סתמן דקאמר חיטי חוורתא פירושן דקאמר לעבודה זרה

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.

ופירושן אצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא האי גברא לאו לעבודה זרה קא בעי אלא מיבק הוא דאביק בעבודה זרה וסבר כי היכי דההוא גברא אביק ביה כולי עלמא נמי אביקו אימא הכי כי היכי דליתבו לי קא משמע לן

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.

בעי רב אשי תרנגול לבן קטוע למי מהו למכור לו תרנגול לבן שלם מי אמרינן מדקאמר קטוע לא לעבודה זרה קבעי או דלמא איערומי קא מערים

§ 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.

אם תימצי לומר האי איערומי הוא דקא מערים תרנגול לבן למי תרנגול לבן למי ויהבו ליה שחור ושקל ויהבו ליה אדום ושקל מהו למכור לו לבן מי אמרינן כיון דיהבו שחור ושקל אדום ושקל לאו לעבודה זרה קא בעי או דלמא איערומי קא מערים תיקו

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.

רבי מאיר אומר אף דקל וכו׳ אמר ליה רב חסדא לאבימי גמירי דעבודה זרה דאברהם אבינו ארבע מאה פירקי הויין ואנן חמשה תנן ולא ידעינן מאי קאמרינן

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: It is prohibited to sell even a good palm tree and ḥatzav to gentiles. Rav Ḥisda 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.

ומאי קשיא דקתני רבי מאיר אומר אף דקל טב חצב ונקלס אסור למכור לגוים דקל טב הוא דלא מזבנינן הא דקל ביש מזבנינן והתנן אין מוכרין להם במחובר לקרקע אמר ליה מאי דקל טב פירות דקל טב וכן אמר רב הונא פירות דקל טב

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, ḥatzav, 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’t 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.

חצב קשבא נקלס כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי חמא בר יוסף קורייטי אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי תנן נקלס ולא ידעינן מהו ואת אמרת קורייטי ולא ידעינן מאי אהנית לן אמר ליה אהנאי לכו דכי אזלת התם אמרת להו נקלס ולא ידעי אמרת להו קורייטי וידעי וקא מחוו לך

The Gemara explains the meaning of other terms that appear in the mishna. Ḥatzav 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 Ḥama 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.

מתני׳ מקום שנהגו למכור בהמה דקה לגוים מוכרין מקום שנהגו שלא למכור אין מוכרין ובכל מקום אין מוכרין להם בהמה גסה עגלים וסייחים שלמין ושבורין רבי יהודה מתיר בשבורה ובן בתירא מתיר בסוס

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’s 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.

גמ׳ למימרא דאיסורא ליכא מנהגא הוא דאיכא היכא דנהיג איסור נהוג היכא דנהיג היתר נהוג

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.

ורמינהי אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של גוים מפני שחשודין על הרביעה אמר רב מקום שהתירו למכור התירו לייחד מקום שאסרו לייחד אסרו למכור

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.