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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 30, 2018 | 讬状讚 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 15

What is the reason the mishna forbids selling large animals to non-Jews? On what basis did they make allowances for this halacha?

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗住专讜 诇讬讬讞讚 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜讬 讞住 注诇 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇讗 转注拽专 讜讗祝 专讘 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讙讜讬 讞住 注诇 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇讗 转注拽专

And Rabbi Elazar says: Even in a place where they prohibited leaving an animal in seclusion with a gentile, it is permitted to sell it to a gentile. What is the reason? Once the animal is sold to the gentile, there is no concern that he will engage in bestiality. This is because a gentile spares his own animal from bestiality, as he does not want it to become sterile through this practice. By contrast, it is prohibited to leave one鈥檚 animal in seclusion with a gentile, as he would have no such compunction with regard to an animal belonging to others. The Gemara notes: And even Rav retracted his opinion; as Rav Ta岣ifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avimi says in the name of Rav: A gentile spares his animal, as he does not want it to become sterile.

讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 谞讛讬 讚诇专讘讬注讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诪注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: But in every place one may not sell to gentiles large livestock, calves, or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason? The Gemara explains: Granted, we are not concerned about the gentile engaging in bestiality with the animal, but we are concerned about him putting the animal to work on Shabbat.

讜谞讬注讘讬讚 讻讬讜谉 讚讝讘谞讛 拽谞讬讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讗诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 砖讻讬专讜转

The Gemara expresses puzzlement: And let the gentile put it to work. Why should one be concerned about this possibility? Since he bought it, he acquires it and may put it to work on Shabbat, as it no longer belongs to the Jew. The Gemara answers: Selling it is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the concern of lending and due to the concern of leasing the animal to the gentile, as in those cases the animal would be performing work on Shabbat when it is owned by a Jew.

砖讗诇讛 拽谞讬讬讛 讜讗讙专讗 拽谞讬讬讛

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: But during that time period, the act of borrowing the animal causes the gentile to temporarily acquire it, and likewise, by leasing the animal, he temporarily acquires it. Why, then, is it a problem if the gentile puts the animal to work on Shabbat?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 谞住讬讜谞讬 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚讝讘谞讛 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讚诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讗 谞住讬讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜砖诪注讛 诇讬讛 诇拽诇讬讛 讜讗讝诇讗 诪讞诪转讬讛 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬讝诇 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讞诪专 讗讞专 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘转 讜讛诪讞诪专 讗讞专 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said: Selling is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the concern with regard to testing. As at times, one sells an animal to a gentile when it is close to sunset of Shabbat eve, and one says to him: Go and test the animal, and it hears the voice of its Jewish owner and walks because of his command. And it is beneficial to the Jewish seller that the animal should walk, as he wants to demonstrate to the gentile that it is fit for labor. And in this manner, he is considered one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat. And one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讜砖讻讬专讜转 诪讬 拽谞讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 诇讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讗诪专讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻谞讬住 诇转讜讻讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讻讬专讜转 拽谞讬讗 讛讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to the Gemara鈥檚 assumption that leasing confers ownership. And by leasing an item, does one actually acquire it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna (21a): Even in a place with regard to which the Sages said that it is permitted for a Jew to rent a house to a gentile, they did not say that one may rent it for use as a residence, because the gentiles will bring objects of idol worship into it? The objection is as follows: And if it enters your mind to say that through leasing one acquires an item or property, then when this gentile brings the idols into the house he brings them into his own house. Why, then, is it prohibited for a Jew to rent a residence to a gentile?

砖讗谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讞诪讬专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 转讘讬讗 转讜注讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转讱

The Gemara answers: Idol worship is different, as it is a particularly severe prohibition, and therefore even an item that does not entirely belong to a Jew is treated with great stringency. As it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not bring an abomination into your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26), and this house still retains the name of its Jewish owner.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讜砖讻讬专讜转 诪讬 拽谞讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖讻专 驻专讛 诪讻讛谉 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讻讛谉 砖砖讻专 驻专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 注诇讬讜 诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛

Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, also objects to the Gemara鈥檚 assumption that leasing confers ownership. And by leasing an item, does one actually acquire it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Terumot 11:9): An Israelite who rented a cow from a priest may feed it vetches of teruma, as the animal belongs to a priest; and conversely, a priest who rented a cow from an Israelite, although the responsibility to feed it is incumbent upon him, he may not feed it vetches of teruma, as it does not belong to him.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讻讬专讜转 拽谞讬讗 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 驻专讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讻讬专讜转 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 砖讻讬专讜转 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻讬专讜转 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讗诇讛 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 谞住讬讜谞讬

And if it enters your mind to say that through leasing one acquires the item, why can鈥檛 the priest feed it vetches of teruma? After all, it is currently his own cow. Rather, learn from here that one does not acquire an item through leasing. The Gemara comments: And now that you have said that one does not acquire an item through leasing, and therefore an animal that was leased to a gentile still belongs to the Jew, the original proposal can be accepted: The reason that one cannot sell large livestock to gentiles is a rabbinic decree due to the concern of leasing, and a decree due to the concern of lending the animal to the gentile, and also a decree due to the concern of testing.

专讘 讗讚讗 砖专讗 诇讝讘讜谞讬 讞诪专讗 讗讬讚讗 讚住驻住讬专讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 谞住讬讜谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇拽诇讬讛 讚讗讝诇讗 诪讞诪转讬讛 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 砖讗诇讛 讜砖讻讬专讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讜砖讬诇 讜诇讗 诪讜讙专 讜注讜讚 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞讬讙诇讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav Adda permitted the owners of a donkey to sell their donkey to gentiles by means of a Jewish middleman [desafseira]. He reasoned as follows: If the concern is due to testing, in this case the animal does not recognize the voice of the middleman so that it would walk because of him. And if the concern is due to lending and leasing, since the donkey is not his, that middleman would neither lend nor lease it. Additionally, the middleman would not lease or lend the animal because he wants to sell it and does not want any blemish to be revealed in it.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讘讬谉 讛讛讬讗 驻专讛 诇讙讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讝讘谞讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Huna sold a certain cow to a gentile. Rav 岣sda said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in that manner? Rav Huna said to him: I can say that he purchased it in order to slaughter it, not to use it for labor.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 驻专讛 讛讞讜专砖转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜讞讟讛

Rav Huna added: And from where do you say that in a case like this we say that the animal will be slaughtered, and one is not concerned about placing a stumbling block before the blind, despite the fact that the animal could be used to violate a prohibition? As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 5:8) that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell a cow that plows in the Sabbatical Year, as it is prohibited to plow during the Sabbatical Year and the buyer presumably wants it for this purpose. And Beit Hillel permit selling the cow, since the buyer can slaughter it rather than use it for plowing. This shows that according to Beit Hillel, whose opinion is accepted as halakha, one may assume that an animal will be used for a permitted purpose, rather than for a prohibited action.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 砖讘讬转转 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讛讻讗 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 砖讘讬转转 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘转

Rabba said: Are these matters comparable? There, with regard to the Sabbatical Year, a person is not commanded to let his animal rest during the Sabbatical Year, as there is no prohibition against his animal performing labor. Therefore, there is no reason to decree that the sale is prohibited lest he lend, lease, or test the animal. As for the concern that he is misleading the buyer and encouraging him to sin, he may rely on the fact that the buyer probably intends to slaughter the animal. But here, with regard to selling an animal to a gentile, a person is commanded to let his animal rest on Shabbat, and therefore the Sages decreed the sale prohibited in case he comes to lend, lease, or test the animal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 讗住讜专 讜讛专讬 砖讚讛 讚讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 砖讘讬转转 砖讚讛讜 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 砖讚讛 谞讬专 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜讘讬专讛

Abaye said to Rabba: And does this mean that wherever a person is commanded to allow his possessions to rest it is prohibited to sell an item to one who might use it to perform labor, even if he might also use it for an innocent purpose? But there is the case of a field, as a person is commanded to let his field rest during the Sabbatical Year, and yet we learned in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell a plowed field during the Sabbatical Year, as it is presumed that the buyer will sow it, and Beit Hillel permit this sale, since the buyer can let it lie fallow during the Sabbatical Year. In this case, although one is commanded to let his field rest during the Sabbatical Year, he may still sell it under the assumption that the buyer will use the field in a permitted manner.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 砖专讬 讜讛专讬 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜转谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 讻诇讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讜讻诇 讻诇讬讛 讛注讜诇 讜讛诪讝专讛 讜讛讚拽专

Rav Ashi also objects to Rabba鈥檚 statement: And conversely, is it true that wherever a person is not commanded to allow his possessions to rest it is permitted to sell the item? But there is the case of vessels, as a person is not commanded to let his vessels rest during the Sabbatical Year, and yet we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 5:6): These are the implements that a person is not allowed to sell during the Sabbatical Year: The plow and all of its appurtenances, the yoke that is used to hitch the cow to the plow, and the winnowing fork, and the stake.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬转诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪爪讜讜讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬转诇讬 诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谞讜 诪爪讜讜讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Anywhere that it is possible to assign an innocent motive, one assigns such a motive, and this applies even though one is commanded to allow the item to rest. And anywhere that it is not possible to assign an innocent motive, one does not assign an innocent motive, even though one is not commanded to allow the item to rest.

专讘讛 讝讘讬谉 讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讞砖讬讚 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讝讘讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诇讙讜讬 诇讙讜讬 拽讗 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 拽讗 诪讝讘讬谉

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabba sold a certain donkey to a Jew who was suspected of selling large livestock to a gentile. Abaye said to Rabba: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner? Rabba said to him: I sold the donkey to a Jew. Abaye said to him: But he will go and sell it to a gentile. Rabba responded: Is the only possibility that he will sell to a gentile, and he will not sell it to a Jew? Since there is no reason to assume that he will sell specifically to a gentile rather than to a Jew, there is no problem in selling to him.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讻讜转讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 砖诇讗 诇诪讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讗专讘讬注讛 讜诪讬 讞砖讬讚讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 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 讝讻专讬诐 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐 讜讝讻专讬诐 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: In a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to Samaritans, one may sell the animals to them; in a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them one may not sell the animals to them. What is the reason that the sale of small livestock to Samaritans is prohibited? If we say that it is because Samaritans are suspected of engaging in bestiality, are they suspected of this practice? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may not keep an animal in the inns of gentiles. Male animals may not be placed with men, as they are suspected of engaging in bestiality, and female animals may not be left with women, despite the fact that there is no concern that they may engage in bestiality. And needless to say, it is prohibited to leave female animals with men, and male animals with women.

讜讗讬谉 诪讜住专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讬讬讞讚讬谉 注诪讛诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住专讬谉 诇讛诐 转讬谞讜拽 诇诇诪讚讜 住驻专 讜诇诇诪讚讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讗讘诇 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讘驻讜谞讚拽讗讜转 砖诇 讻讜转讬诐 讝讻专讬诐 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讻专讬诐 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转

The baraita continues: And one may not entrust an animal to a gentile shepherd, and one may not seclude oneself with gentiles, due to the danger that this entails. And one may not entrust a child to them to teach him how to read books or to teach him a craft. But one may keep an animal in the inns of Samaritans, as they are not suspected of violating a Torah prohibition and engaging in bestiality. Male animals may be placed with women and female animals may be left with men, and needless to say, it is permitted to leave male animals with men and female animals with women.

讜诪讜住专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 讜诪讬讬讞讚讬谉 注诪讛诐 讜诪讜住专讬谉 诇讛诐 转讬谞讜拽 诇诇诪讚讜 住驻专 讜诇诇诪讚讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讚讬

The baraita concludes: And one may entrust an animal to a Samaritan shepherd, and one may seclude oneself with Samaritans, and one may entrust a child to them to teach him how to read books and to teach him a craft. The Gemara infers from the baraita: Evidently, Samaritans are not suspected of engaging in bestiality, yet livestock may not be sold to them, as they are suspected of selling it to gentiles.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 诇讗 讝讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讞讬讝讬谉 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讝讬讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 住讚谉 讜诇讗 拽讜诇专讬谉 讜诇讗 讻讘诇讬诐 讜诇讗 砖诇砖诇讗讜转 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讜讗讞讚 讻讜转讬

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: One may not sell weapons to gentiles or the auxiliary equipment of weapons, and one may not sharpen weapons for them. And one may not sell them stocks used for fastening the feet of prisoners, or iron neck chains [kolarin], or foot chains, or iron chains. This prohibition applies equally to both a gentile and a Samaritan.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜诪讬 讞砖讬讚讬 讛讗诪专转 讜诪讬讬讞讚讬谉 注诪讛谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讛 诇讙讜讬

Abaye analyzes this baraita: What is the reason for the prohibition against selling these items to Samaritans? If we say that they are suspected of bloodshed, that is difficult: But are they suspected of this? Didn鈥檛 you say that one may seclude oneself with them, which indicates that they are not suspected of bloodshed? Rather, it is prohibited to sell these items to Samaritans because they will come to sell them to a gentile. According to this reasoning, it should likewise be prohibited to sell a donkey to a Jew who is suspected of selling animals to gentiles.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讜转讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 转砖讜讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讬讚 转砖讜讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻讚专讱 砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 讻讱 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讞砖讜讚 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 专讛讬讟 讘转专讬讛 转诇转讗 驻专住讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 驻专住讗 讘讞诇讗 讜诇讗 讗讚专讻讬讛

And if you would say that there is a difference between a Jew and a Samaritan, as a Samaritan will likely not repent and will sell to a gentile, whereas a Jew will likely repent and not sell these items, this reasoning is incorrect. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say explicitly that Rabba bar Avuh says: Just as the Sages said that it is prohibited to sell to a gentile, so too it is prohibited to sell to a Jew who is suspected of selling to a gentile? When Rabba heard this and realized that Abaye was correct, he ran three parasangs after the buyer who purchased his donkey to revoke the sale, as the Jew was suspected of selling to gentiles; and some say that he ran one parasang through sand. But he did not succeed in overtaking him.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讻讚专讱 砖讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇诇住讟讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讞砖讬讚 讚拽讟讬诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜讬

Apropos the baraita that discusses the prohibition against selling weapons, the Gemara relates that Rav Dimi bar Abba says: Just as it is prohibited to sell to a gentile, it is prohibited to sell to an armed bandit who is a Jew. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this prohibition? If the thief is suspected of killing, isn鈥檛 it obvious that it is prohibited? After all, he is the same as a gentile. Providing a Jew who might kill with weapons is no different from giving a weapon to a gentile, as in both cases one violates the prohibition: Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.

讜讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讟讬诇 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 拽讟讬诇 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪砖诪讜讟讗 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚注讘讬讚 诇讗爪讜诇讬 谞驻砖讬讛

And if he is a bandit who does not kill, why not sell to him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Dimi bar Abba is referring to a bandit who does not kill, and here we are dealing with a bandit who steals, as sometimes he makes use of his weapon to save himself when he is caught. Consequently, it is prohibited to sell him weapons in case he kills with them in self-defense.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 转专讬住讬谉 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 转专讬住讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讙谞讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘

The Sages taught: One may not sell shields [terisin] to gentiles, despite the fact that they are used for protection, not to attack others. And some say: One may sell shields to them. The Gemara asks: What is the reason behind the opinion that prohibits selling shields to gentiles? If we say it is because they protect them in wartime, if so, then even wheat and barley should not be sold to them. Rav said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 15

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗住专讜 诇讬讬讞讚 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜讬 讞住 注诇 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇讗 转注拽专 讜讗祝 专讘 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讙讜讬 讞住 注诇 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇讗 转注拽专

And Rabbi Elazar says: Even in a place where they prohibited leaving an animal in seclusion with a gentile, it is permitted to sell it to a gentile. What is the reason? Once the animal is sold to the gentile, there is no concern that he will engage in bestiality. This is because a gentile spares his own animal from bestiality, as he does not want it to become sterile through this practice. By contrast, it is prohibited to leave one鈥檚 animal in seclusion with a gentile, as he would have no such compunction with regard to an animal belonging to others. The Gemara notes: And even Rav retracted his opinion; as Rav Ta岣ifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avimi says in the name of Rav: A gentile spares his animal, as he does not want it to become sterile.

讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 谞讛讬 讚诇专讘讬注讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诪注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: But in every place one may not sell to gentiles large livestock, calves, or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason? The Gemara explains: Granted, we are not concerned about the gentile engaging in bestiality with the animal, but we are concerned about him putting the animal to work on Shabbat.

讜谞讬注讘讬讚 讻讬讜谉 讚讝讘谞讛 拽谞讬讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讗诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 砖讻讬专讜转

The Gemara expresses puzzlement: And let the gentile put it to work. Why should one be concerned about this possibility? Since he bought it, he acquires it and may put it to work on Shabbat, as it no longer belongs to the Jew. The Gemara answers: Selling it is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the concern of lending and due to the concern of leasing the animal to the gentile, as in those cases the animal would be performing work on Shabbat when it is owned by a Jew.

砖讗诇讛 拽谞讬讬讛 讜讗讙专讗 拽谞讬讬讛

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: But during that time period, the act of borrowing the animal causes the gentile to temporarily acquire it, and likewise, by leasing the animal, he temporarily acquires it. Why, then, is it a problem if the gentile puts the animal to work on Shabbat?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 谞住讬讜谞讬 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚讝讘谞讛 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讚诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讗 谞住讬讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜砖诪注讛 诇讬讛 诇拽诇讬讛 讜讗讝诇讗 诪讞诪转讬讛 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬讝诇 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讞诪专 讗讞专 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘转 讜讛诪讞诪专 讗讞专 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said: Selling is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the concern with regard to testing. As at times, one sells an animal to a gentile when it is close to sunset of Shabbat eve, and one says to him: Go and test the animal, and it hears the voice of its Jewish owner and walks because of his command. And it is beneficial to the Jewish seller that the animal should walk, as he wants to demonstrate to the gentile that it is fit for labor. And in this manner, he is considered one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat. And one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讜砖讻讬专讜转 诪讬 拽谞讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 诇讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讗诪专讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻谞讬住 诇转讜讻讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讻讬专讜转 拽谞讬讗 讛讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to the Gemara鈥檚 assumption that leasing confers ownership. And by leasing an item, does one actually acquire it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna (21a): Even in a place with regard to which the Sages said that it is permitted for a Jew to rent a house to a gentile, they did not say that one may rent it for use as a residence, because the gentiles will bring objects of idol worship into it? The objection is as follows: And if it enters your mind to say that through leasing one acquires an item or property, then when this gentile brings the idols into the house he brings them into his own house. Why, then, is it prohibited for a Jew to rent a residence to a gentile?

砖讗谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讞诪讬专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 转讘讬讗 转讜注讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转讱

The Gemara answers: Idol worship is different, as it is a particularly severe prohibition, and therefore even an item that does not entirely belong to a Jew is treated with great stringency. As it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not bring an abomination into your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26), and this house still retains the name of its Jewish owner.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讜砖讻讬专讜转 诪讬 拽谞讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖讻专 驻专讛 诪讻讛谉 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讻讛谉 砖砖讻专 驻专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 注诇讬讜 诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛

Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, also objects to the Gemara鈥檚 assumption that leasing confers ownership. And by leasing an item, does one actually acquire it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Terumot 11:9): An Israelite who rented a cow from a priest may feed it vetches of teruma, as the animal belongs to a priest; and conversely, a priest who rented a cow from an Israelite, although the responsibility to feed it is incumbent upon him, he may not feed it vetches of teruma, as it does not belong to him.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讻讬专讜转 拽谞讬讗 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 驻专讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讻讬专讜转 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 砖讻讬专讜转 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻讬专讜转 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讗诇讛 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 谞住讬讜谞讬

And if it enters your mind to say that through leasing one acquires the item, why can鈥檛 the priest feed it vetches of teruma? After all, it is currently his own cow. Rather, learn from here that one does not acquire an item through leasing. The Gemara comments: And now that you have said that one does not acquire an item through leasing, and therefore an animal that was leased to a gentile still belongs to the Jew, the original proposal can be accepted: The reason that one cannot sell large livestock to gentiles is a rabbinic decree due to the concern of leasing, and a decree due to the concern of lending the animal to the gentile, and also a decree due to the concern of testing.

专讘 讗讚讗 砖专讗 诇讝讘讜谞讬 讞诪专讗 讗讬讚讗 讚住驻住讬专讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 谞住讬讜谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇拽诇讬讛 讚讗讝诇讗 诪讞诪转讬讛 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 砖讗诇讛 讜砖讻讬专讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讜砖讬诇 讜诇讗 诪讜讙专 讜注讜讚 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞讬讙诇讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav Adda permitted the owners of a donkey to sell their donkey to gentiles by means of a Jewish middleman [desafseira]. He reasoned as follows: If the concern is due to testing, in this case the animal does not recognize the voice of the middleman so that it would walk because of him. And if the concern is due to lending and leasing, since the donkey is not his, that middleman would neither lend nor lease it. Additionally, the middleman would not lease or lend the animal because he wants to sell it and does not want any blemish to be revealed in it.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讘讬谉 讛讛讬讗 驻专讛 诇讙讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讝讘谞讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Huna sold a certain cow to a gentile. Rav 岣sda said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in that manner? Rav Huna said to him: I can say that he purchased it in order to slaughter it, not to use it for labor.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 驻专讛 讛讞讜专砖转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜讞讟讛

Rav Huna added: And from where do you say that in a case like this we say that the animal will be slaughtered, and one is not concerned about placing a stumbling block before the blind, despite the fact that the animal could be used to violate a prohibition? As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 5:8) that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell a cow that plows in the Sabbatical Year, as it is prohibited to plow during the Sabbatical Year and the buyer presumably wants it for this purpose. And Beit Hillel permit selling the cow, since the buyer can slaughter it rather than use it for plowing. This shows that according to Beit Hillel, whose opinion is accepted as halakha, one may assume that an animal will be used for a permitted purpose, rather than for a prohibited action.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 砖讘讬转转 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讛讻讗 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 砖讘讬转转 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘转

Rabba said: Are these matters comparable? There, with regard to the Sabbatical Year, a person is not commanded to let his animal rest during the Sabbatical Year, as there is no prohibition against his animal performing labor. Therefore, there is no reason to decree that the sale is prohibited lest he lend, lease, or test the animal. As for the concern that he is misleading the buyer and encouraging him to sin, he may rely on the fact that the buyer probably intends to slaughter the animal. But here, with regard to selling an animal to a gentile, a person is commanded to let his animal rest on Shabbat, and therefore the Sages decreed the sale prohibited in case he comes to lend, lease, or test the animal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 讗住讜专 讜讛专讬 砖讚讛 讚讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 砖讘讬转转 砖讚讛讜 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 砖讚讛 谞讬专 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜讘讬专讛

Abaye said to Rabba: And does this mean that wherever a person is commanded to allow his possessions to rest it is prohibited to sell an item to one who might use it to perform labor, even if he might also use it for an innocent purpose? But there is the case of a field, as a person is commanded to let his field rest during the Sabbatical Year, and yet we learned in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell a plowed field during the Sabbatical Year, as it is presumed that the buyer will sow it, and Beit Hillel permit this sale, since the buyer can let it lie fallow during the Sabbatical Year. In this case, although one is commanded to let his field rest during the Sabbatical Year, he may still sell it under the assumption that the buyer will use the field in a permitted manner.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 砖专讬 讜讛专讬 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜转谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 讻诇讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讜讻诇 讻诇讬讛 讛注讜诇 讜讛诪讝专讛 讜讛讚拽专

Rav Ashi also objects to Rabba鈥檚 statement: And conversely, is it true that wherever a person is not commanded to allow his possessions to rest it is permitted to sell the item? But there is the case of vessels, as a person is not commanded to let his vessels rest during the Sabbatical Year, and yet we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 5:6): These are the implements that a person is not allowed to sell during the Sabbatical Year: The plow and all of its appurtenances, the yoke that is used to hitch the cow to the plow, and the winnowing fork, and the stake.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬转诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪爪讜讜讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬转诇讬 诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谞讜 诪爪讜讜讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Anywhere that it is possible to assign an innocent motive, one assigns such a motive, and this applies even though one is commanded to allow the item to rest. And anywhere that it is not possible to assign an innocent motive, one does not assign an innocent motive, even though one is not commanded to allow the item to rest.

专讘讛 讝讘讬谉 讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讞砖讬讚 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讝讘讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诇讙讜讬 诇讙讜讬 拽讗 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 拽讗 诪讝讘讬谉

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabba sold a certain donkey to a Jew who was suspected of selling large livestock to a gentile. Abaye said to Rabba: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner? Rabba said to him: I sold the donkey to a Jew. Abaye said to him: But he will go and sell it to a gentile. Rabba responded: Is the only possibility that he will sell to a gentile, and he will not sell it to a Jew? Since there is no reason to assume that he will sell specifically to a gentile rather than to a Jew, there is no problem in selling to him.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讻讜转讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 砖诇讗 诇诪讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讗专讘讬注讛 讜诪讬 讞砖讬讚讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 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 讝讻专讬诐 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐 讜讝讻专讬诐 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: In a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to Samaritans, one may sell the animals to them; in a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them one may not sell the animals to them. What is the reason that the sale of small livestock to Samaritans is prohibited? If we say that it is because Samaritans are suspected of engaging in bestiality, are they suspected of this practice? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may not keep an animal in the inns of gentiles. Male animals may not be placed with men, as they are suspected of engaging in bestiality, and female animals may not be left with women, despite the fact that there is no concern that they may engage in bestiality. And needless to say, it is prohibited to leave female animals with men, and male animals with women.

讜讗讬谉 诪讜住专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讬讬讞讚讬谉 注诪讛诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住专讬谉 诇讛诐 转讬谞讜拽 诇诇诪讚讜 住驻专 讜诇诇诪讚讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讗讘诇 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讘驻讜谞讚拽讗讜转 砖诇 讻讜转讬诐 讝讻专讬诐 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讻专讬诐 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讜转 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转

The baraita continues: And one may not entrust an animal to a gentile shepherd, and one may not seclude oneself with gentiles, due to the danger that this entails. And one may not entrust a child to them to teach him how to read books or to teach him a craft. But one may keep an animal in the inns of Samaritans, as they are not suspected of violating a Torah prohibition and engaging in bestiality. Male animals may be placed with women and female animals may be left with men, and needless to say, it is permitted to leave male animals with men and female animals with women.

讜诪讜住专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇专讜注讛 砖诇讛谉 讜诪讬讬讞讚讬谉 注诪讛诐 讜诪讜住专讬谉 诇讛诐 转讬谞讜拽 诇诇诪讚讜 住驻专 讜诇诇诪讚讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讚讬

The baraita concludes: And one may entrust an animal to a Samaritan shepherd, and one may seclude oneself with Samaritans, and one may entrust a child to them to teach him how to read books and to teach him a craft. The Gemara infers from the baraita: Evidently, Samaritans are not suspected of engaging in bestiality, yet livestock may not be sold to them, as they are suspected of selling it to gentiles.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 诇讗 讝讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讞讬讝讬谉 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讝讬讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 住讚谉 讜诇讗 拽讜诇专讬谉 讜诇讗 讻讘诇讬诐 讜诇讗 砖诇砖诇讗讜转 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讜讗讞讚 讻讜转讬

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: One may not sell weapons to gentiles or the auxiliary equipment of weapons, and one may not sharpen weapons for them. And one may not sell them stocks used for fastening the feet of prisoners, or iron neck chains [kolarin], or foot chains, or iron chains. This prohibition applies equally to both a gentile and a Samaritan.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜诪讬 讞砖讬讚讬 讛讗诪专转 讜诪讬讬讞讚讬谉 注诪讛谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讛 诇讙讜讬

Abaye analyzes this baraita: What is the reason for the prohibition against selling these items to Samaritans? If we say that they are suspected of bloodshed, that is difficult: But are they suspected of this? Didn鈥檛 you say that one may seclude oneself with them, which indicates that they are not suspected of bloodshed? Rather, it is prohibited to sell these items to Samaritans because they will come to sell them to a gentile. According to this reasoning, it should likewise be prohibited to sell a donkey to a Jew who is suspected of selling animals to gentiles.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讜转讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 转砖讜讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讬讚 转砖讜讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻讚专讱 砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 讻讱 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讞砖讜讚 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 专讛讬讟 讘转专讬讛 转诇转讗 驻专住讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 驻专住讗 讘讞诇讗 讜诇讗 讗讚专讻讬讛

And if you would say that there is a difference between a Jew and a Samaritan, as a Samaritan will likely not repent and will sell to a gentile, whereas a Jew will likely repent and not sell these items, this reasoning is incorrect. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say explicitly that Rabba bar Avuh says: Just as the Sages said that it is prohibited to sell to a gentile, so too it is prohibited to sell to a Jew who is suspected of selling to a gentile? When Rabba heard this and realized that Abaye was correct, he ran three parasangs after the buyer who purchased his donkey to revoke the sale, as the Jew was suspected of selling to gentiles; and some say that he ran one parasang through sand. But he did not succeed in overtaking him.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讻讚专讱 砖讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇诇住讟讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讞砖讬讚 讚拽讟讬诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜讬

Apropos the baraita that discusses the prohibition against selling weapons, the Gemara relates that Rav Dimi bar Abba says: Just as it is prohibited to sell to a gentile, it is prohibited to sell to an armed bandit who is a Jew. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this prohibition? If the thief is suspected of killing, isn鈥檛 it obvious that it is prohibited? After all, he is the same as a gentile. Providing a Jew who might kill with weapons is no different from giving a weapon to a gentile, as in both cases one violates the prohibition: Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.

讜讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讟讬诇 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 拽讟讬诇 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪砖诪讜讟讗 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚注讘讬讚 诇讗爪讜诇讬 谞驻砖讬讛

And if he is a bandit who does not kill, why not sell to him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Dimi bar Abba is referring to a bandit who does not kill, and here we are dealing with a bandit who steals, as sometimes he makes use of his weapon to save himself when he is caught. Consequently, it is prohibited to sell him weapons in case he kills with them in self-defense.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 转专讬住讬谉 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 转专讬住讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讙谞讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘

The Sages taught: One may not sell shields [terisin] to gentiles, despite the fact that they are used for protection, not to attack others. And some say: One may sell shields to them. The Gemara asks: What is the reason behind the opinion that prohibits selling shields to gentiles? If we say it is because they protect them in wartime, if so, then even wheat and barley should not be sold to them. Rav said:

Scroll To Top