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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 31, 2018 | 讟状讜 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 16

Can one sell weapons or dangerous lions to non-Jews? Are large non-domesticated animals (chayot) considered the same as large domesticated animals in terms of forbidding selling them to non-Jews? What types of buildings is one allowed or not allowed to aid in the building process for non-Jews? The story of Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanus is brought where he is captured by the Romans on suspicion of being a heretic (presumably a Christian).

讗讬 讗驻砖专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

If it were possible to avoid selling produce to gentiles without incurring their animosity, indeed it would be prohibited to sell them. Since limiting sales to gentiles to such an extent would cause great harm, it is only prohibited to sell them shields.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讬住讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讚讻讬 砖诇讬诐 讝讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讟诇讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专讬诐 诇讛诐 转专讬住讬谉 讚讻讬 砖诇讬诐 讝讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪注专拽 注专拽讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诇讻讛 讻讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐

There are those who say: With regard to shields, this is the reason that one is not allowed to sell them to gentiles: As when their use of their weapon is finished in battle, they kill with these shields. And accordingly, the reason that some say in the baraita that one may sell shields to them is because they maintain that this is not a concern, as when their weapon is finished they flee, rather than use their shield as a weapon. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion cited as: Some say.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 注砖砖讬讜转 砖诇 讘专讝诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诇砖讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讬 讜讞爪讬谞讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘驻专讝诇讗 讛讬谞讚讜讗讛 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇驻专住讗讬 讚诪讙谞讜 注讬诇讜讜谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: One may not sell blocks [ashashiot] of iron to gentiles. What is the reason? It is because they forge weapons from them. The Gemara asks: If so, then even hoes and axes should not be sold to them, as they too can be used to forge weapons. Rav Zevid said in response: The ruling of Rav Adda bar Ahava was stated with regard to Indian iron, which is of a superior quality and used only for crafting weapons. The Gemara clarifies: And as for the fact that nowadays we do sell all weapons, Rav Ashi said: We sell the weapons to the Persians, who protect us.

注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬诐 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讜诇讞讬讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讗转讜 诇砖讛讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻砖转诇讚 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讘诇转 讝讻专

搂 The mishna teaches: One may not sell to gentiles calves or foals. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of being cured and living normally. The Sages said to him: But if one mates her, does she not bear offspring? And since one can mate her and she will bear offspring, the gentile will come to leave her in his possession, and Jews who see the animal in the possession of the gentile will assume that it is permitted to sell large livestock to gentiles. Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: When she bears offspring, I will agree to be concerned about such a possibility. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a damaged animal does not accept a male, i.e., since its legs are broken, it cannot participate in intercourse.

讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 转谞讬讗 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖讜诐 转讜专转 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪砖讜诐 转讜专转 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛

The mishna also teaches that ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse to a gentile. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita: Ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse because the gentile uses it for performing an act for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as riding a horse is not prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit its sale due to the concern that the gentile might use it for a prohibited action. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits its sale due to two reasons: One is because it has the status of a weapon, as horses are used in battle, and the other one is because it has the status of large livestock.

讘砖诇诪讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讚拽讟讬诇 讘住讞讜驻讬讛 讗诇讗 转讜专转 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讻砖讬讝拽讬谉 诪讟讞讬谞讜 讘专讞讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讘谉 讘转讬专讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, there is a reason to say that a horse has the status of a weapon, as a horse is taught to kill by striking down enemy troops. But what is the relevance of the observation that it has the status of large livestock? It has already been explained that a horse is used for riding, not for performing acts that are prohibited on Shabbat. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: When it becomes elderly and is no longer suitable for use in battle, one makes it grind with a millstone, and therefore it will in fact be used to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of ben Beteira, and it is permitted to sell a horse to gentiles.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讜专 砖诇 驻讟诐 诪讛讜 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to an ox of a fattener, which has been fattened for slaughter, what is the halakha? Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits the sale of a damaged animal, and let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute that ruling.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 砖专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜专讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讚讻讬 诪砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as follows: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda permits only the sale of a damaged animal, which will never come to be included in the category of an animal that is fit for labor. But with regard to this fattened ox, which if kept for a sufficient amount of time without fattening will come to be included in the category of an animal that is fit for labor, the sale is prohibited.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗住专讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚住转诪讬讛 诇讗讜 诇砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讚住转诪讬讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 砖专讜

Or perhaps it may be claimed that even according to the Rabbis, they prohibit the sale only there, in the case of a damaged animal that ordinarily does not stand ready for slaughter. But in this case of a fattened ox, which ordinarily stands ready for slaughter, even the Rabbis permit the sale.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 讛讬讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 砖讜专 砖诇 驻讟诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 讞住专 讗专讘注 专讬讘讘谉 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讞专 讞住专 讗专讘注 专讬讘讘谉 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讞讬 讗诇讗 砖讞讜讟 讞住专 讗专讘注 专讬讘讘谉 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 注讬拽专

The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The members of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi were required to bring as a present for the authorities an ox of a fattener on their festival day. They deprived themselves of forty-thousand dinars, i.e., they paid this sum as a bribe, to ensure that they would not have to bring it on the actual day of their festival, but rather on the next day. They deprived themselves again, i.e., they paid a further bribe, of another forty-thousand dinars, to ensure that they would not have to bring it alive but rather slaughtered. They deprived themselves again and paid yet another bribe of forty-thousand dinars to ensure that they would not have to bring it at all.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇砖讛讜讬讬 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讞专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讬注拽专 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讬 讜住讘专 讬注拽专 讜讗转讬 驻讜专转讗 驻讜专转讗

What is the reason that they paid a bribe to evade the responsibility of bringing a fattened ox to the authorities? Is it not due to the concern that perhaps they will come to keep the animal until it is fit for labor? The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, what is the reason that they paid a bribe to ensure that they would not have to bring it on the day of the festival, but rather the next day? Rather, it must be explained that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to abolish the matter entirely, and he reasoned: It is best to abolish it gradually, little by little, and in this manner they ultimately had no obligation to bring the animal at all. Therefore, no proof can be brought from this incident with regard to the halakha of the sale of a fattened ox.

讜讻讬 诪砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讘专讬讗 讜注讘讬讚 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讝讘讬讚讗 讘专 转讜专讗 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜注讘讬讚 注诇 讞讚 转专讬谉

It was stated that if a fattened ox is kept for a sufficient amount of time without fattening it will come to be included in the category of an animal that is fit for labor. Concerning this, the Gemara asks: But even when a fattened ox is kept until it is slim, does it become healthy and able to perform labor? Rav Ashi said that the expert in this matter, Zevida, said to me: We keep a young ox that has been fattened until it is slim, and it performs twice the work of other oxen.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讚讜讘讬谉 讜讗专讬讜转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜谞讬谉 注诪讛诐 讘住讬诇拽讬 讙专讚讜诐 讗讬爪讟讚讬讬讗 讜讘讬诪讛 讗讘诇 讘讜谞讬谉 注诪讛诐 讘讬诪讜住讬讗讜转 讜讘讬转 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讛讙讬注 诇讻讬驻讛 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专 诇讘谞讜转

MISHNA: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. One may not build with them a basilica [basileki], a tribunal [gardom], a stadium [itztadeyya], or a platform. But one may build with them small platforms [bimmusiot] and bathhouses. Even in this case, once he reaches the arched chamber in the bath where the gentiles put up objects of idol worship, it is prohibited to build it.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讻讬专讛

GEMARA: Rav 岣nin bar Rav 岣sda says, and some say Rav 岣nan bar Rava says that Rav says: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm [lefirkus], i.e., the symptoms of vitality required at the time of slaughtering. If an animal in danger of dying was slaughtered but did not display any spasmodic movement when it was slaughtered, it is not kosher. If it did spasm after being slaughtered, its meat is kosher But its status is not the same as that of small livestock with regard to its sale. Rather it is considered like large livestock, and therefore its sale to gentiles is always prohibited.

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇诪讻讬专讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 诪讜讻专讬谉 砖诇讗 诇诪讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉

Rav 岣nan bar Rava added: This is the statement of Rav, but I say that even with regard to its sale a large beast is akin to small livestock. Therefore, in a place where the people were accustomed to sell large beasts, one may sell them, and in a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them, one may not sell them.

转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讚讜讘讬谉 讜讗专讬讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讘讗专讬 砖讘讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement. We learned in the mishna: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: The reason that these beasts cannot be sold to gentiles is because they can cause injury to the public. It may be inferred from here that another beast, which does not cause injury to the public, is permitted to be sold to gentiles. Rabba bar Ulla says in response: This mishna does not pose a problem for Rav, as he holds that it is referring to a damaged lion, which is not fit for labor;

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 住转诐 讗专讬 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪诇讗讻讛

and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna on 14b, that it is permitted to sell to a gentile large livestock that are damaged. Yet, it is prohibited to sell large undamaged beasts, just as one may not sell large undamaged livestock. Rav Ashi says: It is not necessary to explain that the mishna is referring to such a specific case. Rather, an ordinary lion is considered damaged with regard to labor, as lions are not generally used to perform labor. Therefore there is no concern that a lion will be used to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Just as one may not sell large livestock to gentiles, so too one may not sell large beasts to them. And even in a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles; nevertheless, one may not sell large beasts to them. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣nan bar Rava is a conclusive refutation.

专讘讬谞讗 专诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪砖谞讬 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讚讜讘讬谉 讜讗专讬讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 诪讜讻专讬谉

The Gemara presents a different version of this discussion. Ravina raises a contradiction between the mishna here and a baraita and resolves the contradiction. We learned in the mishna: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. Ravina analyzes the mishna: The reason a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is that it can cause injury to the public, from which it may be inferred that with regard to another beast, which does not cause injury to the public, one may sell it to gentiles.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜讻专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讜诪砖谞讬 讘讗专讬 砖讘讜专 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 住转诐 讗专讬 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪诇讗讻讛

And Ravina raises a contradiction from a baraita: Just as one may not sell large livestock to gentiles, so too, one may not sell large beasts to them. And even in a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles, one may not sell large beasts to them. The baraita indicates that one may never sell large beasts to gentiles, even if it poses no danger to the public. And Ravina resolves the contradiction between the mishna and the baraita: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a damaged lion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Ashi says there is a different explanation: An ordinary lion is considered damaged with regard to labor.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗专讬 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讞讬讛 讚拽讛 讛讬讗

Rav Na岣an objects to the inference drawn from the mishna: Who will tell us that a lion is considered a large beast? Perhaps it is considered a small beast, in which case it cannot be inferred that the mishna permits the sale of large beasts.

专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜诪讜转讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讚讜讘讬诐 讜讗专讬讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 诪讜讻专讬谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi examined the mishna here carefully, and from it he raises a refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣nan bar Rava, who permitted the sale of large beasts. We learned in the mishna: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. Rav Ashi inferred two conclusions from here. First, the reason a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is because it can cause injury to the public, whereas with regard to a beast that does not cause injury to the public, one may sell it to gentiles. This inference was cited in contradiction of the opinion of Rav, as explained before.

讜讟注诪讗 讗专讬 讚住转诐 讗专讬 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚注讘讬讚 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

And Rav Ashi then inferred, in resolution of Rav鈥檚 opinion, that the reason the mishna specifies that one may sell a lion if it does not pose a danger to the public is that an ordinary lion is considered damaged with regard to labor. But a different animal that performs labor may not be sold. This presents a difficulty to the opinion of Rav 岣nan bar Rava. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣nan bar Rava is a conclusive refutation.

讜讞讬讛 讙住讛 诪讬讛转 诪讗讬 诪诇讗讻讛 注讘讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬 诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘讬 诪专 讬讜讞谞讬 讟讞谞讬 专讬讞讬诐 讘注专讜讚讬

The Gemara asks: But in any event, what labor can a large beast perform? Why is it necessary to prohibit the sale of large beasts if they are not trained to perform any labor? Abaye said: Mar Yehuda said to me that in the house of Mar Yo岣ni, they grind the mill with wild asses, which are considered large beasts.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇谉 讙诪讬专讜 诪讬谞讗讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪讙讘专讗 专讘讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪专讘 讗讬 诪砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住

Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Yehuda, he said to us: Learn from me this matter, which I heard from a great man, but I do not know if I heard it from Rav or from Shmuel: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm, i.e., the symptoms of vitality required at the time of slaughtering.

讻讬 讗转讗讬 诇拽讜专拽讜谞讬讗 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬转诪专 讻讬 讗转讗讬 诇住讜专讗 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

Rabbi Zeira continued: When I came to the city of Korkoneya, I found Rav 岣yya bar Ashi sitting and saying in the name of Shmuel: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said to myself: One can conclude from here that this was stated in the name of Shmuel. When I came to Sura, I found Rabba bar Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rav: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said to myself: One can conclude from here that this was stated in the name of Rav, and it was also stated in the name of Shmuel.

讻讬 住诇讬拽转 诇讛转诐 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 讚诪讗谉 诪专讗 讚砖诪注转转讗 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬 驻转讬讗 讗讜讻诪讗 诪讬谞讗讬 讜诪讬谞讱 转住转讬讬诐 砖诪注转讗

When I ascended to there, Eretz Yisrael, I found Rav Asi sitting and saying that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya says in the name of Rav: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said to him: And doesn鈥檛 the Master hold that the Master who is responsible for dissemination of this halakha is Rabba bar Yirmeya? Why don鈥檛 you attribute the statement to him? Rav Asi said to me: Black pot [patya], a term of endearment for a scholar who works hard studying Torah: From me and from you this halakha may be concluded. In other words, our two statements should be combined to form one accurate attribution of the halakha.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住

The Gemara notes that in fact this ruling was also stated: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Asi says that Rabba bar Yirmeya says that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya says that Rav says: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm.

讗讬谉 讘讜谞讬谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖 讘住讬诇拽讗讜转 讛谉 砖诇 诪诇讻讬诐 讜砖诇 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜砖诇 讗讜爪专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬诐 诇讛讬转专 讜讗讞讚 诇讗讬住讜专 讜住讬诪谉 诇讗住专 诪诇讻讬讛诐 讘讝拽讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that one may not build a basilica in conjunction with gentiles. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There are three types of basilicas: Those of kings, and those of bathhouses, and those of storehouses. Rava says: Two of these types are permitted, as they are not used for inflicting the death penalty, and one is prohibited [le鈥檌sor]. And a mnemonic device for this ruling, that the basilica of kings is prohibited, is the verse: 鈥淭o bind [le鈥檈sor] their kings with chains鈥 (Psalms 149:8).

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜诇诐 诇讛讬转专 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讜谞讬谉 注诪讛谉 讘住讬诇拽讬 讙专讚讜诐 讗讬爪讟讚讬讬讗 讜讘讬诪讛 讗讬诪讗 砖诇 讙专讚讜诐 讜砖诇 讗讬爪讟讚讬讬讗 讜砖诇 讘讬诪讛

And there are those who say that this is what Rava says: All these types of basilica are permitted. The Gemara asks: How can it be permitted to build any type of basilica; but didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One may not build with them a basilica, a tribunal, a stadium, or a platform? The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means the following: One may not build in conjunction with gentiles a basilica of a tribunal, or of a stadium, or of a platform. But it is permitted to build a basilica that is not used for sentencing and inflicting the death penalty.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖谞转驻住 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬谞讜转 讛注诇讛讜 诇讙专讚讜诐 诇讬讚讜谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讜转讜 讛讙诪讜谉 讝拽谉 砖讻诪讜转讱 讬注住讜拽 讘讚讘专讬诐 讘讟诇讬诐 讛诇诇讜

搂 Apropos the above discussion, the Gemara relates incidents involving Sages who were sentenced by the ruling authorities. The Sages taught: When Rabbi Eliezer was arrested and charged with heresy by the authorities, they brought him up to a tribunal to be judged. A certain judicial officer [hegemon] said to him: Why should an elder like you engage in these frivolous matters of heresy?

讗诪专 诇讜 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬 讛讚讬讬谉 讻住讘讜专 讗讜转讜 讛讙诪讜谉 注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讗讘讬讜 砖讘砖诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗诪谞转讬 注诇讬讱 讚讬诪讜住 驻讟讜专 讗转讛

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The Judge is trusted by me to rule correctly. That officer thought that Rabbi Eliezer was speaking about him; but in fact he said this only in reference to his Father in Heaven. Rabbi Eliezer meant that he accepted God鈥檚 judgment, i.e., if he was charged he must have sinned to God in some manner. The officer said to him: Since you put your trust in me, you are acquitted [dimos]; you are exempt.

讻砖讘讗 诇讘讬转讜 谞讻谞住讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗爪诇讜 诇谞讞诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 转谞讞讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 转专砖讬谞讬 诇讜诪专 讚讘专 讗讞讚 诪诪讛 砖诇讬诪讚转谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诪讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪讗 诪讬谞讜转 讘讗 诇讬讚讱

When Rabbi Eliezer came home, his students entered to console him for being accused of heresy, which he took as a sign of sin, and he did not accept their words of consolation. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, allow me to say one matter from all of that which you taught me. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Speak. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, perhaps some statement of heresy came before you

  • 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 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 16

讗讬 讗驻砖专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

If it were possible to avoid selling produce to gentiles without incurring their animosity, indeed it would be prohibited to sell them. Since limiting sales to gentiles to such an extent would cause great harm, it is only prohibited to sell them shields.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讬住讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讚讻讬 砖诇讬诐 讝讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讟诇讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专讬诐 诇讛诐 转专讬住讬谉 讚讻讬 砖诇讬诐 讝讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪注专拽 注专拽讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诇讻讛 讻讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐

There are those who say: With regard to shields, this is the reason that one is not allowed to sell them to gentiles: As when their use of their weapon is finished in battle, they kill with these shields. And accordingly, the reason that some say in the baraita that one may sell shields to them is because they maintain that this is not a concern, as when their weapon is finished they flee, rather than use their shield as a weapon. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion cited as: Some say.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 注砖砖讬讜转 砖诇 讘专讝诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诇砖讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讬 讜讞爪讬谞讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘驻专讝诇讗 讛讬谞讚讜讗讛 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇驻专住讗讬 讚诪讙谞讜 注讬诇讜讜谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: One may not sell blocks [ashashiot] of iron to gentiles. What is the reason? It is because they forge weapons from them. The Gemara asks: If so, then even hoes and axes should not be sold to them, as they too can be used to forge weapons. Rav Zevid said in response: The ruling of Rav Adda bar Ahava was stated with regard to Indian iron, which is of a superior quality and used only for crafting weapons. The Gemara clarifies: And as for the fact that nowadays we do sell all weapons, Rav Ashi said: We sell the weapons to the Persians, who protect us.

注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬诐 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讜诇讞讬讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讗转讜 诇砖讛讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻砖转诇讚 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讘诇转 讝讻专

搂 The mishna teaches: One may not sell to gentiles calves or foals. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of being cured and living normally. The Sages said to him: But if one mates her, does she not bear offspring? And since one can mate her and she will bear offspring, the gentile will come to leave her in his possession, and Jews who see the animal in the possession of the gentile will assume that it is permitted to sell large livestock to gentiles. Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: When she bears offspring, I will agree to be concerned about such a possibility. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a damaged animal does not accept a male, i.e., since its legs are broken, it cannot participate in intercourse.

讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 转谞讬讗 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖讜诐 转讜专转 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪砖讜诐 转讜专转 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛

The mishna also teaches that ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse to a gentile. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita: Ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse because the gentile uses it for performing an act for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as riding a horse is not prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit its sale due to the concern that the gentile might use it for a prohibited action. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits its sale due to two reasons: One is because it has the status of a weapon, as horses are used in battle, and the other one is because it has the status of large livestock.

讘砖诇诪讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讚拽讟讬诇 讘住讞讜驻讬讛 讗诇讗 转讜专转 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讻砖讬讝拽讬谉 诪讟讞讬谞讜 讘专讞讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讘谉 讘转讬专讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, there is a reason to say that a horse has the status of a weapon, as a horse is taught to kill by striking down enemy troops. But what is the relevance of the observation that it has the status of large livestock? It has already been explained that a horse is used for riding, not for performing acts that are prohibited on Shabbat. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: When it becomes elderly and is no longer suitable for use in battle, one makes it grind with a millstone, and therefore it will in fact be used to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of ben Beteira, and it is permitted to sell a horse to gentiles.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讜专 砖诇 驻讟诐 诪讛讜 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to an ox of a fattener, which has been fattened for slaughter, what is the halakha? Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits the sale of a damaged animal, and let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute that ruling.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 砖专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜专讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讚讻讬 诪砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as follows: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda permits only the sale of a damaged animal, which will never come to be included in the category of an animal that is fit for labor. But with regard to this fattened ox, which if kept for a sufficient amount of time without fattening will come to be included in the category of an animal that is fit for labor, the sale is prohibited.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗住专讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚住转诪讬讛 诇讗讜 诇砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讚住转诪讬讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 砖专讜

Or perhaps it may be claimed that even according to the Rabbis, they prohibit the sale only there, in the case of a damaged animal that ordinarily does not stand ready for slaughter. But in this case of a fattened ox, which ordinarily stands ready for slaughter, even the Rabbis permit the sale.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 讛讬讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 砖讜专 砖诇 驻讟诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 讞住专 讗专讘注 专讬讘讘谉 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讞专 讞住专 讗专讘注 专讬讘讘谉 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讞讬 讗诇讗 砖讞讜讟 讞住专 讗专讘注 专讬讘讘谉 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 注讬拽专

The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The members of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi were required to bring as a present for the authorities an ox of a fattener on their festival day. They deprived themselves of forty-thousand dinars, i.e., they paid this sum as a bribe, to ensure that they would not have to bring it on the actual day of their festival, but rather on the next day. They deprived themselves again, i.e., they paid a further bribe, of another forty-thousand dinars, to ensure that they would not have to bring it alive but rather slaughtered. They deprived themselves again and paid yet another bribe of forty-thousand dinars to ensure that they would not have to bring it at all.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇砖讛讜讬讬 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讞专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讬注拽专 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讬 讜住讘专 讬注拽专 讜讗转讬 驻讜专转讗 驻讜专转讗

What is the reason that they paid a bribe to evade the responsibility of bringing a fattened ox to the authorities? Is it not due to the concern that perhaps they will come to keep the animal until it is fit for labor? The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, what is the reason that they paid a bribe to ensure that they would not have to bring it on the day of the festival, but rather the next day? Rather, it must be explained that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to abolish the matter entirely, and he reasoned: It is best to abolish it gradually, little by little, and in this manner they ultimately had no obligation to bring the animal at all. Therefore, no proof can be brought from this incident with regard to the halakha of the sale of a fattened ox.

讜讻讬 诪砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讘专讬讗 讜注讘讬讚 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讝讘讬讚讗 讘专 转讜专讗 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜注讘讬讚 注诇 讞讚 转专讬谉

It was stated that if a fattened ox is kept for a sufficient amount of time without fattening it will come to be included in the category of an animal that is fit for labor. Concerning this, the Gemara asks: But even when a fattened ox is kept until it is slim, does it become healthy and able to perform labor? Rav Ashi said that the expert in this matter, Zevida, said to me: We keep a young ox that has been fattened until it is slim, and it performs twice the work of other oxen.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讚讜讘讬谉 讜讗专讬讜转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜谞讬谉 注诪讛诐 讘住讬诇拽讬 讙专讚讜诐 讗讬爪讟讚讬讬讗 讜讘讬诪讛 讗讘诇 讘讜谞讬谉 注诪讛诐 讘讬诪讜住讬讗讜转 讜讘讬转 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讛讙讬注 诇讻讬驻讛 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专 诇讘谞讜转

MISHNA: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. One may not build with them a basilica [basileki], a tribunal [gardom], a stadium [itztadeyya], or a platform. But one may build with them small platforms [bimmusiot] and bathhouses. Even in this case, once he reaches the arched chamber in the bath where the gentiles put up objects of idol worship, it is prohibited to build it.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讻讬专讛

GEMARA: Rav 岣nin bar Rav 岣sda says, and some say Rav 岣nan bar Rava says that Rav says: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm [lefirkus], i.e., the symptoms of vitality required at the time of slaughtering. If an animal in danger of dying was slaughtered but did not display any spasmodic movement when it was slaughtered, it is not kosher. If it did spasm after being slaughtered, its meat is kosher But its status is not the same as that of small livestock with regard to its sale. Rather it is considered like large livestock, and therefore its sale to gentiles is always prohibited.

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇诪讻讬专讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 诪讜讻专讬谉 砖诇讗 诇诪讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉

Rav 岣nan bar Rava added: This is the statement of Rav, but I say that even with regard to its sale a large beast is akin to small livestock. Therefore, in a place where the people were accustomed to sell large beasts, one may sell them, and in a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them, one may not sell them.

转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讚讜讘讬谉 讜讗专讬讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讘讗专讬 砖讘讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement. We learned in the mishna: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: The reason that these beasts cannot be sold to gentiles is because they can cause injury to the public. It may be inferred from here that another beast, which does not cause injury to the public, is permitted to be sold to gentiles. Rabba bar Ulla says in response: This mishna does not pose a problem for Rav, as he holds that it is referring to a damaged lion, which is not fit for labor;

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 住转诐 讗专讬 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪诇讗讻讛

and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna on 14b, that it is permitted to sell to a gentile large livestock that are damaged. Yet, it is prohibited to sell large undamaged beasts, just as one may not sell large undamaged livestock. Rav Ashi says: It is not necessary to explain that the mishna is referring to such a specific case. Rather, an ordinary lion is considered damaged with regard to labor, as lions are not generally used to perform labor. Therefore there is no concern that a lion will be used to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Just as one may not sell large livestock to gentiles, so too one may not sell large beasts to them. And even in a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles; nevertheless, one may not sell large beasts to them. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣nan bar Rava is a conclusive refutation.

专讘讬谞讗 专诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪砖谞讬 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讚讜讘讬谉 讜讗专讬讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 诪讜讻专讬谉

The Gemara presents a different version of this discussion. Ravina raises a contradiction between the mishna here and a baraita and resolves the contradiction. We learned in the mishna: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. Ravina analyzes the mishna: The reason a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is that it can cause injury to the public, from which it may be inferred that with regard to another beast, which does not cause injury to the public, one may sell it to gentiles.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜讻专讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讜诪砖谞讬 讘讗专讬 砖讘讜专 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 住转诐 讗专讬 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪诇讗讻讛

And Ravina raises a contradiction from a baraita: Just as one may not sell large livestock to gentiles, so too, one may not sell large beasts to them. And even in a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles, one may not sell large beasts to them. The baraita indicates that one may never sell large beasts to gentiles, even if it poses no danger to the public. And Ravina resolves the contradiction between the mishna and the baraita: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a damaged lion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Ashi says there is a different explanation: An ordinary lion is considered damaged with regard to labor.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗专讬 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讞讬讛 讚拽讛 讛讬讗

Rav Na岣an objects to the inference drawn from the mishna: Who will tell us that a lion is considered a large beast? Perhaps it is considered a small beast, in which case it cannot be inferred that the mishna permits the sale of large beasts.

专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜诪讜转讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 讚讜讘讬诐 讜讗专讬讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讝拽 诇专讘讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 谞讝拽 诪讜讻专讬谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi examined the mishna here carefully, and from it he raises a refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣nan bar Rava, who permitted the sale of large beasts. We learned in the mishna: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. Rav Ashi inferred two conclusions from here. First, the reason a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is because it can cause injury to the public, whereas with regard to a beast that does not cause injury to the public, one may sell it to gentiles. This inference was cited in contradiction of the opinion of Rav, as explained before.

讜讟注诪讗 讗专讬 讚住转诐 讗专讬 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚注讘讬讚 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

And Rav Ashi then inferred, in resolution of Rav鈥檚 opinion, that the reason the mishna specifies that one may sell a lion if it does not pose a danger to the public is that an ordinary lion is considered damaged with regard to labor. But a different animal that performs labor may not be sold. This presents a difficulty to the opinion of Rav 岣nan bar Rava. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣nan bar Rava is a conclusive refutation.

讜讞讬讛 讙住讛 诪讬讛转 诪讗讬 诪诇讗讻讛 注讘讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬 诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘讬 诪专 讬讜讞谞讬 讟讞谞讬 专讬讞讬诐 讘注专讜讚讬

The Gemara asks: But in any event, what labor can a large beast perform? Why is it necessary to prohibit the sale of large beasts if they are not trained to perform any labor? Abaye said: Mar Yehuda said to me that in the house of Mar Yo岣ni, they grind the mill with wild asses, which are considered large beasts.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇谉 讙诪讬专讜 诪讬谞讗讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪讙讘专讗 专讘讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪专讘 讗讬 诪砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住

Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Yehuda, he said to us: Learn from me this matter, which I heard from a great man, but I do not know if I heard it from Rav or from Shmuel: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm, i.e., the symptoms of vitality required at the time of slaughtering.

讻讬 讗转讗讬 诇拽讜专拽讜谞讬讗 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬转诪专 讻讬 讗转讗讬 诇住讜专讗 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

Rabbi Zeira continued: When I came to the city of Korkoneya, I found Rav 岣yya bar Ashi sitting and saying in the name of Shmuel: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said to myself: One can conclude from here that this was stated in the name of Shmuel. When I came to Sura, I found Rabba bar Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rav: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said to myself: One can conclude from here that this was stated in the name of Rav, and it was also stated in the name of Shmuel.

讻讬 住诇讬拽转 诇讛转诐 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 讚诪讗谉 诪专讗 讚砖诪注转转讗 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬 驻转讬讗 讗讜讻诪讗 诪讬谞讗讬 讜诪讬谞讱 转住转讬讬诐 砖诪注转讗

When I ascended to there, Eretz Yisrael, I found Rav Asi sitting and saying that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya says in the name of Rav: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said to him: And doesn鈥檛 the Master hold that the Master who is responsible for dissemination of this halakha is Rabba bar Yirmeya? Why don鈥檛 you attribute the statement to him? Rav Asi said to me: Black pot [patya], a term of endearment for a scholar who works hard studying Torah: From me and from you this halakha may be concluded. In other words, our two statements should be combined to form one accurate attribution of the halakha.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讛 讙住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇驻讬专讻讜住

The Gemara notes that in fact this ruling was also stated: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Asi says that Rabba bar Yirmeya says that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya says that Rav says: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm.

讗讬谉 讘讜谞讬谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖 讘住讬诇拽讗讜转 讛谉 砖诇 诪诇讻讬诐 讜砖诇 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜砖诇 讗讜爪专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬诐 诇讛讬转专 讜讗讞讚 诇讗讬住讜专 讜住讬诪谉 诇讗住专 诪诇讻讬讛诐 讘讝拽讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that one may not build a basilica in conjunction with gentiles. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There are three types of basilicas: Those of kings, and those of bathhouses, and those of storehouses. Rava says: Two of these types are permitted, as they are not used for inflicting the death penalty, and one is prohibited [le鈥檌sor]. And a mnemonic device for this ruling, that the basilica of kings is prohibited, is the verse: 鈥淭o bind [le鈥檈sor] their kings with chains鈥 (Psalms 149:8).

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜诇诐 诇讛讬转专 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讜谞讬谉 注诪讛谉 讘住讬诇拽讬 讙专讚讜诐 讗讬爪讟讚讬讬讗 讜讘讬诪讛 讗讬诪讗 砖诇 讙专讚讜诐 讜砖诇 讗讬爪讟讚讬讬讗 讜砖诇 讘讬诪讛

And there are those who say that this is what Rava says: All these types of basilica are permitted. The Gemara asks: How can it be permitted to build any type of basilica; but didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One may not build with them a basilica, a tribunal, a stadium, or a platform? The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means the following: One may not build in conjunction with gentiles a basilica of a tribunal, or of a stadium, or of a platform. But it is permitted to build a basilica that is not used for sentencing and inflicting the death penalty.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖谞转驻住 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬谞讜转 讛注诇讛讜 诇讙专讚讜诐 诇讬讚讜谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讜转讜 讛讙诪讜谉 讝拽谉 砖讻诪讜转讱 讬注住讜拽 讘讚讘专讬诐 讘讟诇讬诐 讛诇诇讜

搂 Apropos the above discussion, the Gemara relates incidents involving Sages who were sentenced by the ruling authorities. The Sages taught: When Rabbi Eliezer was arrested and charged with heresy by the authorities, they brought him up to a tribunal to be judged. A certain judicial officer [hegemon] said to him: Why should an elder like you engage in these frivolous matters of heresy?

讗诪专 诇讜 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬 讛讚讬讬谉 讻住讘讜专 讗讜转讜 讛讙诪讜谉 注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讗讘讬讜 砖讘砖诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗诪谞转讬 注诇讬讱 讚讬诪讜住 驻讟讜专 讗转讛

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The Judge is trusted by me to rule correctly. That officer thought that Rabbi Eliezer was speaking about him; but in fact he said this only in reference to his Father in Heaven. Rabbi Eliezer meant that he accepted God鈥檚 judgment, i.e., if he was charged he must have sinned to God in some manner. The officer said to him: Since you put your trust in me, you are acquitted [dimos]; you are exempt.

讻砖讘讗 诇讘讬转讜 谞讻谞住讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗爪诇讜 诇谞讞诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 转谞讞讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 转专砖讬谞讬 诇讜诪专 讚讘专 讗讞讚 诪诪讛 砖诇讬诪讚转谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诪讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪讗 诪讬谞讜转 讘讗 诇讬讚讱

When Rabbi Eliezer came home, his students entered to console him for being accused of heresy, which he took as a sign of sin, and he did not accept their words of consolation. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, allow me to say one matter from all of that which you taught me. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Speak. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, perhaps some statement of heresy came before you

Scroll To Top