Avodah Zarah 20
דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תְחׇנֵּם״, לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם חֲנָיָיה בַּקַּרְקַע. הַאי ״לָא תְחׇנֵּם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דְּהָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם חֵן.
The source is that the verse states: “You should not show them mercy [lo teḥonnem]” (Deuteronomy 7:2), which is understood as meaning: You should not give them a chance to encamp [ḥanayah] in, i.e., to acquire land in, Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: This phrase: “You should not show them mercy”; isn’t it necessary to teach that this is what the Merciful one is saying: You should not give them favor [ḥen] by praising them?
אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא תְחוּנֵּם״, מַאי ״לֹא תְחׇנֵּם״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara answers: If that were so, let the verse say: Lo teḥunnem, with the letter vav, as then it would be evident that this is a form of the root ḥet, vav, nun, which means favor. What is the reason that the verse instead states: Lo teḥonnem, without the letter vav? Conclude two conclusions from it, that one may not praise them and also that one may not allow them to acquire land.
וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דְּהָכִי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם מַתְּנַת (שֶׁל) חִנָּם! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא תְחִינֵּם״, מַאי ״לֹא תְחׇנֵּם״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כּוּלְּהוּ.
The Gemara asks: But still, isn’t the phrase “You should not show them mercy” necessary to teach the halakha that this is what the Merciful One states: You should not give them an undeserved [ḥinnam] gift? The Gemara answers: If that were so, let the verse say: Lo teḥinnem. What is the reason that it is spelled without the letter yud, as: Lo teḥonnem? Learn from it all of these three halakhot.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״לֹא תְחׇנֵּם״ — לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם חֲנָיָיה בַּקַּרְקַע, דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לֹא תְחׇנֵּם״ — לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם חֵן, דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לֹא תְחׇנֵּם״ — לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם מַתְּנַת חִנָּם.
This is also taught in a baraita: “You should not show them mercy”; this teaches that you should not give them a chance to encamp in the land of Eretz Yisrael. Another matter: “You should not show them mercy”; this indicates that you should not give them favor. Another matter: “You should not show them mercy”; this teaches that you should not give them an undeserved gift.
וּמַתְּנַת חִנָּם גּוּפַהּ תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇּל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנׇכְרִי״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לְגֵר בִּנְתִינָה וּלְגוֹי בִּמְכִירָה, לְגֵר בִּמְכִירָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּתְּנֶנָּה… אוֹ מָכֹר״.
The Gemara notes: And this issue of an undeserved gift to a gentile is itself a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: “You shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal carcass; you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a sacred people to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:21). I have derived only that it is permitted to a resident alien through giving and to a gentile through selling. From where do I derive that it is permitted to transfer an unslaughtered animal to a resident alien through selling? The verse states: “You may give it…or you may sell it,” meaning that one has the option to do either of these.
לְגוֹי בִּנְתִינָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנׇכְרִי״, נִמְצָא אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד גּוֹי בֵּין בִּנְתִינָה בֵּין בִּמְכִירָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן, לְגֵר בִּנְתִינָה, וּלְגוֹי בִּמְכִירָה.
The baraita continues: From where is it derived that it is permitted to a gentile through giving and one is not required to sell it to him? The verse states: “You may give it…that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner.” Therefore, you may say that he may transfer it to both a resident alien and a gentile, both through giving and through selling. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: These matters are to be understood as they are written; one may transfer an unslaughtered animal carcass to a resident alien only through giving, and to a gentile only through selling, as it is prohibited to give an undeserved gift to a gentile.
שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ ומָכֹר״, ״אוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִדְבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Meir is saying well, as the verse indicates that either method is acceptable. The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: If it enters your mind to understand the verse in accordance with that which Rabbi Meir says, then let the Merciful One write: You may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates that he may eat it, and also you may sell it to a foreigner. Why do I need the word “or” between these two options? Learn from it that it comes to teach that the matters are to be understood as they are written.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר? הָהוּא לְאַקְדּוֹמֵי נְתִינָה דְּגֵר לִמְכִירָה דְּגוֹי. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: כֵּיוָן דְּגֵר אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְהַחְיוֹתוֹ, וְגוֹי אִי אַתָּה מְצוֶּּוה לְהַחֲיוֹתוֹ — לְהַקְדִּים לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir explain the wording of the verse? The Gemara answers: That word, “or,” teaches that one should give precedence to giving to a resident alien over selling to a gentile. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that since you are commanded to sustain a resident alien, as it is stated: “And he shall live with you” (Leviticus 25:35), and you are not commanded to sustain a gentile, there is no need for a verse to teach that one should give precedence to a resident alien.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לֹא תְחׇנֵּם״ — לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם חֵן. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לָאָדָם שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״כַּמָּה נָאָה גּוֹיָה זוֹ״.
§ It is taught in the baraita cited earlier: Another matter: “You should not show them favor”; this teaches that you should not give them favor by praising them. The Gemara notes that this supports the opinion of Rav. As Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to say: How beautiful is this gentile woman!
מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה עַל גַּבֵּי מַעֲלָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, וְרָאָה גּוֹיָה אַחַת נָאָה בְּיוֹתֵר, אָמַר: ״מַה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה׳״. וְאַף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רָאָה אֵשֶׁת טוֹרָנוּסְרוּפוּס הָרָשָׁע, רָק, שָׂחַק וּבָכָה. רָק — שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּאָה מִטִּיפָּה סְרוּחָה, שָׂחַק — דַּעֲתִידָה דְּמִגַּיְירָא וְנָסֵיב לַהּ, בָּכָה — דְּהַאי שׁוּפְרָא בָּלֵי עַפְרָא.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was on a step on the Temple mount, and he saw a certain gentile woman who was exceptionally beautiful and said: “How great are Your works, O Lord!” (Psalms 104:24). And Rabbi Akiva too, when he saw the wife of the wicked Turnus Rufus he spat, laughed, and cried. He spat, as she was created from a putrid drop; he laughed, as he foresaw that she was destined to convert and he would marry her; he cried, as this beauty would ultimately be consumed by dirt.
וְרַב, אוֹדוֹיֵי הוּא דְּקָא מוֹדֵה, דְּאָמַר מָר: הָרוֹאֶה בְּרִיּוֹת טוֹבוֹת אוֹמֵר ״בָּרוּךְ שֶׁכָּכָה בָּרָא בְּעוֹלָמוֹ״.
And how would Rav explain the incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who praised the beauty of a gentile? The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was giving thanks to God for creating such beautiful people rather than praising the gentile herself. As the Master said: One who sees beautiful or otherwise outstanding creatures recites: Blessed be He, Who has created such in His world.
וּלְאִסְתַּכּוֹלֵי מִי שְׁרֵי? מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְנִשְׁמַרְתָּ מִכֹּל דָּבָר רָע״ — שֶׁלֹּא יִסְתַּכֵּל אָדָם בְּאִשָּׁה נָאָה וַאֲפִילּוּ פְּנוּיָה, בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וַאֲפִילּוּ מְכוֹעֶרֶת,
But is it permitted to gaze upon a woman? The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. The verse states: “And you shall keep yourself from every evil thing” (Deuteronomy 23:10); this teaches that a person should not gaze upon a beautiful woman, even if she is unmarried; and a person should not gaze upon a married woman, even if she is ugly;
וְלֹא בְּבִגְדֵי צֶבַע [שֶׁל] אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא בַּחֲמוֹר וְלֹא בַּחֲמוֹרָה, וְלֹא בַּחֲזִיר וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָה, וְלֹא בְּעוֹפוֹת בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּזְקָקִין זֶה לָזֶה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מָלֵא עֵינַיִם כְּמַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת.
and a person should not gaze upon the colored garments of a woman; and a person should not gaze at a male donkey, at a female donkey, at a pig, at a sow, or at fowl, when they are mating; and even if one were full of eyes like the Angel of Death and saw from every direction, it is not permitted to look.
אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת, שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ מָלֵא עֵינַיִם, בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתוֹ שֶׁל חוֹלֶה עוֹמֵד מֵעַל מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו, וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ, וְטִיפָּה שֶׁל מָרָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁחוֹלֶה רוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ מִזְדַּעְזֵעַ וּפוֹתֵחַ פִּיו, וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו, מִמֶּנָּה מֵת, מִמֶּנָּה מַסְרִיחַ, מִמֶּנָּה פָּנָיו מוֹרִיקוֹת!
They said about the Angel of Death that he is entirely full of eyes. When a sick person is about to die, the Angel of Death stands above his head, with his sword drawn in his hand, and a drop of poison hanging on the edge of the sword. Once the sick person sees him, he trembles and thereby opens his mouth; and the Angel of Death throws the drop of poison into his mouth. From this drop of poison the sick person dies, from it he putrefies, from it his face becomes green.
קֶרֶן זָוִית הֲוַאי.
The Gemara answers: Rabban Gamliel did not intentionally look at the woman; rather, he was walking around a corner and he saw her unexpectedly as they each turned.
וְלֹא בְּבִגְדֵי צֶבַע [שֶׁל] אִשָּׁה. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁטוּחִין עַל גַּבֵּי כּוֹתֶל. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּבְמַכִּיר בַּעֲלֵיהֶן. אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְלֹא בְּבִגְדֵי צֶבַע אִשָּׁה״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״וְלֹא בְּבִגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
With regard to the statement in the baraita: Nor may one gaze at the colored garments of a woman, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the halakha even if they are spread on a wall, not only when they are being worn. Rav Pappa says: And the prohibition applies only when one knows their owner. Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: Nor may one gaze at the colored garments of a woman, and it does not teach: Nor may one gaze at colored garments. Learn from it that the prohibition applies only to the garments of one he knows.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּעַתִּיקֵי, אֲבָל בְּחַדְתֵי לֵית לַן בַּהּ, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, אֲנַן מָנָא לְאַשְׁפּוֹרֵי הֵיכִי יָהֲבִינַן? הָא קָא מִסְתַּכֵּל!
Rav Ḥisda said: That statement applies only in the case of old garments, i.e., garments that have been worn; but in the case of new garments, we have no problem with it. The reason is that if you do not say so, how can we give a woman’s garment before it is worn to a launderer, i.e., one who prepares new garments for use, knowing that the launderer must look at the garments?
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מִין בְּמִינוֹ מוּתָּר לְהַכְנִיס כְּמִכְחוֹל בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת, הָא קָא מִסְתַּכַּל! אֶלָּא בַּעֲבִידְתֵּיהּ טְרִיד, הָכִי נָמֵי בַּעֲבִידְתֵּיהּ טְרִיד.
The Gemara refutes this proof: But according to your reasoning, i.e., your assumption that a launderer is no different from all other men, there is a similar difficulty with that which Rav Yehuda says: If one wishes to mate an animal of one species with an animal of its own species, it is permitted to insert the male organ into the female like a brush into a tube. One could ask here as well: But isn’t he looking at the animals as they mate? Rather, he is occupied with his work, and therefore his mind will not entertain sinful thoughts. So too with regard to a launderer, he is occupied with his work, and therefore a launderer differs from other men.
אָמַר מָר: מִמֶּנָּה מֵת. נֵימָא פְּלִיגָא דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אָמַר לִי מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת ״אִי לָא דְּחָיֵישְׁנָא לִיקָרָא דִּבְרִיָּיתָא, הֲוָה פָּרַעְנָא בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה כִּבְהֵמָה״. דִּלְמָא הָהִיא טִיפָּה מְחַתְּכָה לְהוּ לְסִימָנִין.
§ The Master said above in the baraita: From this drop of poison on the Angel of Death’s sword, the sick person dies. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this opinion disagrees with a statement of Shmuel’s father? As Shmuel’s father says: The Angel of Death said to me: Were I not concerned for human dignity, I would uncover the place of the incision of the slaughter, as one does to an animal that is slaughtered. This indicates that the Angel of Death kills by slaughtering his victims with his sword, not by poisoning them. The Gemara answers: Perhaps that drop of poison cuts the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the trachea and the esophagus, and thereby slaughters people.
מִמֶּנָּה מַסְרִיחַ. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא: אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁלֹּא יַסְרִיחַ מֵתוֹ, יְהַפְּכֶנּוּ עַל פָּנָיו.
The Gemara notes that the continuation of the baraita, which states that from this drop of poison a corpse putrefies, supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana. As Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana says that they say in the school of Rav: One who wishes that his dead relative will not putrefy should turn it on its face immediately, as the drop of poison enters through the mouth, and this causes the putrefaction of the corpse.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנִשְׁמַרְתָּ מִכֹּל דָּבָר רָע״, שֶׁלֹּא יְהַרְהֵר אָדָם בַּיּוֹם וְיָבוֹא לִידֵי טוּמְאָה בַּלַּיְלָה.
§ The Gemara cites another source that interprets the verse cited above. The Sages taught a baraita explaining the verse: “And you shall keep yourself from every evil thing” (Deuteronomy 23:10), which is immediately followed by the verse: “If there be among you any man who is not ritually pure by reason of that which happened to him by night” (Deuteronomy 23:11). This teaches that a person should not think impure thoughts by day and thereby come to the impurity of an emission by night.
מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר: תּוֹרָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זְהִירוּת, זְהִירוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זְרִיזוּת, זְרִיזוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי נְקִיּוּת, נְקִיּוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי פְּרִישׁוּת, פְּרִישׁוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי טׇהֳרָה, טׇהֳרָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי חֲסִידוּת, חֲסִידוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי עֲנָוָה, עֲנָוָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי יִרְאַת חֵטְא, יִרְאַת חֵטְא מְבִיאָה לִידֵי קְדוּשָּׁה, קְדוּשָּׁה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים, וַחֲסִידוּת גְּדוֹלָה מִכּוּלָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָז דִּבַּרְתָּ בְחָזוֹן לַחֲסִידֶיךָ״.
From here Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir would say: Torah study leads to care in the performance of mitzvot. Care in the performance of mitzvot leads to diligence in their observance. Diligence leads to cleanliness of the soul. Cleanliness of the soul leads to abstention from all evil. Abstention from evil leads to purity and the elimination of all base desires. Purity leads to piety. Piety leads to humility. Humility leads to fear of sin. Fear of sin leads to holiness. Holiness leads to the Divine Spirit. The Divine Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead. And piety is greater than all of them, as it is stated: “Then You did speak in a vision to Your pious ones” (Psalms 89:20).
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: עֲנָוָה גְּדוֹלָה מִכּוּלָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רוּחַ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים עָלָי יַעַן מָשַׁח ה׳ אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים״, ״חֲסִידִים״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״עֲנָוִים״, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁעֲנָוָה גְּדוֹלָה מִכּוּלָּן.
And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Humility is greater than all of them, as it is stated: “The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the humble” (Isaiah 61:1). Since the pious is not stated, but rather “the humble,” you learn that humility is greater than all of them.
אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן אִילָן עַל מְנָת לָקוֹץ וְקוֹצֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא קְצוּצָה. שַׁחַת עַל מְנָת לִגְזוֹז וְגוֹזֵז, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא גְּזוּזָה. קָמָה עַל מְנָת לִקְצוֹר וְקוֹצֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹכְרִין אֶלָּא קְצוּרָה.
§ The mishna teaches that one may not sell to a gentile any item that is attached to the ground. The Sages taught: One may sell to them a tree on the condition that he cut it down, and the buyer cuts it down; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may sell to them only a tree that has actually been cut down. Similarly, one may sell to them fodder, i.e., produce that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe, on the condition to cut it down, and he cuts it down; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may sell to them only fodder that has been cut down. So too, one may sell to them standing grain on the condition to harvest it, and he harvests it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may sell to them only harvested grain.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אִילָן, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא פָּסֵיד מְשַׁהֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הַאי דְּכִי מְשַׁהֵי לֵהּ פָּסֵיד, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state the halakha in each of these different scenarios. As, had the baraita taught us the dispute only with regard to a tree, I might have said that it is only in that case that Rabbi Meir says it must be cut down before being sold. The reason is that since the gentile does not lose out by keeping the tree in the soil, he might keep it in the ground. But in this case of standing grain, since if he keeps it in the ground he will lose out, one might say that Rabbi Meir concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that it may be sold before being harvested, on the condition that the gentile will harvest it, because the gentile would not leave the grain in the soil to spoil.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא יְדִיעַ שְׁבָחַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל שַׁחַת דִּידִיעַ שְׁבָחַיְיהוּ — אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
And had the baraita taught us only these two halakhot, one might have said that Rabbi Yehuda permits selling these items on the condition that they be cut down because the improvement to the tree or grain is not recognizable when it is left in the ground. But in the case of fodder, whose improvement is recognizable, as it would continue to grow and ripen if left in the ground, one might say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes to Rabbi Meir that we are concerned that the gentile will not cut down the fodder, and therefore one may sell it only once it has been cut down.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל בְּהָנָךְ אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, צְרִיכָא.
And furthermore, had the baraita taught us only the dispute in this case of fodder, one might have said that it is merely in this case that Rabbi Meir says it must be cut down before being sold, but with regard to those cases of a tree or standing grain, one might say that he concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that one may sell these items before they are harvested on the condition that the gentile will harvest them, as there is no recognizable improvement to them if they are left in the ground. Consequently, it is necessary for the dispute to be stated in all three cases.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּהֵמָה עַל מְנָת לִשְׁחוֹט, מַהוּ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the sale of large livestock, which is forbidden due to the concern that the gentile might use them to perform labor (see 14b), if such livestock are sold on the condition that the gentile will slaughter them, what is the halakha?
הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי שָׁרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּלָאו בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָיְימִי וְלָא מָצֵי מְשַׁהֵי לְהוּ, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה, כֵּיוָן דְּבִרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּגוֹי קָיְימָא, מְשַׁהֵי לָהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
The Gemara explains the aspects of the dilemma: There, in the mishna, what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a tree on the condition that the gentile will cut it down? Is the reason that the trees are not in the gentile’s domain and therefore he is not able to keep them, as the Jew will force him to cut them down? But in the case of large livestock, since the animal stands in the domain of the gentile once it is sold, there is a concern that he might keep it and not slaughter it. Or perhaps there is no difference between the cases, and Rabbi Yehuda would permit one to sell even large livestock to a gentile, on the condition that he will slaughter the animals.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּהֵמָה עַל מְנָת לִשְׁחוֹט וְשׁוֹחֵט, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹכְרִין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁחוּטָה.
The Gemara suggests a resolution: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: One may sell large livestock to a gentile on the condition that he slaughter it, and he slaughters it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may sell to a gentile only a slaughtered animal.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שָׂדוֹת, וּבְסוּרְיָא
MISHNA: One may not rent a house to a gentile in Eretz Yisrael, and needless to say one may not rent fields to them, as explained in the Gemara. And in Syria
