עבודה זרה דף יד ע"ב

It is not the unspecified case that needed to be stated — that we may sell — nor the specified case that needed to be stated — that we may not sell,^[1]

לאו סתמא צריכא למימר דמזבנינן - For we learned the prohibition only of a white rooster, but white wheat is permitted.

rather, “unspecified” is where he says “wheat,” and “specified” is where he says “white wheat.”

It follows that a rooster may not be sold even unspecified?

אפי' סתמן נמי לא - And this would be difficult for Rabbi Zeira, who said that if he asks “A rooster — who has one?” it is permitted to sell him a white rooster.

They said: In truth, “unspecified” is where he says “white wheat,” and “specified” is where he says “for idolatry.”

And the specified case was needed by him:

You might have said: this man does not want it for idolatry; rather, he is attached to idolatry, and he thinks: just as that man [i.e., he himself] is attached to it, everyone else is attached to it too, so I will say this in order that they give it to me [cheaply].

סד"א האי גברא לאו לעבודת כוכבים קבעי - For it is not the way to offer wheat to idols.

אלא מיבק אביק ביה - He is bound to it: if people bought any item from him for the needs of idolatry, he would give it cheaply, because he is devoted to idolatry. And he supposes: “Just as I am attached to it, and give anything I have cheaply for the needs of idolatry, everyone else is devoted to it too.” He thinks: “I will say that I want it for idolatry, and they will give it to me cheaply” — but his heart is not set on idolatry, and so it should be permitted. It teaches us otherwise.

It teaches us otherwise.

Rav Ashi asked: If he says “A maimed white rooster — who has one?”, may one sell him a whole white rooster?^[2]

קטוע - Maimed in the leg.

Do we say: since he asked for a maimed one, he does not want it for idolatry; or perhaps he is being crafty?

איערומי אערים - For he knows that a maimed one is not common, and they will sell him a whole one; he asks for a maimed one only to put it out of their minds, so that they will not realize he is asking for it for idolatry.

If you say that this one is being crafty — [if he said] “A white rooster, who has one? A white rooster, who has one?”, and they gave him a black one and he took it, and they gave him a red one and he took it — may one sell him a white one?

ויהבו ליה שחור ושקיל - That is, when they sell him a black one by itself, he takes it. And he asks this according to Rabbi Yehudah, not according to the Rabbis, for the Rabbis forbid [a white one] even among the roosters.^[3]

Do we say: since they gave him a black one and he took it, a red one and he took it, he does not want it for idolatry; or perhaps he is being crafty?

Let it stand [teiku].

“Rabbi Meir says: also a palm, etc.”^[4]

Rav Chisda said to Avimi: We have a tradition that the tractate of Avodah Zarah of Avraham our father had four hundred chapters, and we have learned only five,^[5] and we do not know what we are saying!

And what is the difficulty?

For it teaches: Rabbi Meir says: also a good palm, chatzav and nikles may not be sold to idolaters. A good palm we may not sell, but a bad palm we may sell?

דקל טב ודקל ביש - They are two kinds of palm trees.

But we learned: we may not sell them anything attached to the ground!

אין מוכרין להן במחובר לקרקע - As is explained below (20a), because it is written “lo sechanem” — do not give them a resting place in the land.^[6]

He said to him: What is “a good palm”? The fruit of a good palm.

And so said Rav Huna: The fruit of a good palm.

Chatzav: kashba.

קשבא - A kind of date, as in (Megillah 7b) “a basket full of kashba”. And some say it is the chatzuvah plant with which Yehoshua marked out the land (Bava Basra 56a), and it is an attractive grass.

Nikles: when Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Chama bar Yosef: kuraitei.

קורייטי - A kind of fruit. Some say it is the dust of frankincense crumbs, but this does not seem right, for if so, why would they not know it?

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: We learned “nikles” and did not know what it is, and you say “kuraitei,” and we do not know that either — how have you helped us?

He said to him: I have helped you: for when you go there and tell them “nikles,” they will not know; tell them “kuraitei,” and they will know and show it to you.

דכי אזלת להתם - To Eretz Yisrael.

MISHNAH. In a place where they were accustomed to sell small livestock^[7] to idolaters, one may sell; in a place where they were accustomed not to sell, one may not sell.

מתני' מקום שנהגו למכור בהמה דקה - Such as a place where they are not suspected of bestiality, and so the Gemara explains it. The words “and a person should not deviate [from the local custom], because of strife” are not the reading here; they are read only in Pesachim (50b).

And in every place one may not sell them large livestock, calves or foals, whether whole or broken.

ובכל מקום אין מוכרין להן בהמה גסה - Because it is designated for labor, and he would make his animal do labor on Shabbos.

עגלים וסייחים שלמים ושבורים - Even broken ones, which are not fit for labor — the Rabbis decreed concerning them lest people confuse them and come to sell them grown, whole animals that are fit for labor, and with those there is concern of lending, renting and trial,^[8] as the Gemara explains the reason.

Rabbi Yehudah permits a broken one,

מתיר בשבורה - The Gemara explains the reason.

and ben Beseira permits a horse.

מתיר בסוס - For its work is only riding, and riding is a shevus, not a melachah, because a living being carries itself;^[9] so we are not concerned if he comes to lend or rent it.

GEMARA. Is this to say that there is no prohibition, only a custom — where they practise prohibition they practise it, and where they practise permission they practise it?

But contrast: One may not leave an animal in the inns of idolaters, because they are suspected of bestiality!^[10]

גמ' מפני שחשודין על הרביעה - And there is the prohibition of “before the blind do not place a stumbling block”,^[11] for the descendants of Noach were commanded about bestiality, as it is written (Bereishis 2:24): “and they shall become one flesh” — excluding beast and animal, which do not become one flesh with him (Sanhedrin 58a).

Rav said: Where they permitted selling, they permitted leaving [an animal] alone with them; where they forbade leaving alone, they forbade selling.

אמר רב במקום שהתירו למכור כו' - That is, leaving alone also depends on custom; and “a place where they were accustomed to sell,” taught in our Mishnah, is, for instance, a place where they are not suspected of bestiality; therefore they permitted leaving alone.

ומקום שאסרו לייחד - As the beraisa teaches, “one may not leave”: it speaks of a place where they are suspected of bestiality, since that is their practice, and therefore it is forbidden to sell; everything follows the custom. And it is no difficulty that he did not also say, in the same phrasing, “where they forbade selling, it is forbidden to leave alone,” just as he said “where they permitted selling, they permitted leaving alone”: for “they permitted selling” refers back to our Mishnah, which teaches “in a place where they were accustomed to sell, one may sell” — our Tanna deals only with selling; while “where they forbade leaving alone” refers back to the beraisa “one may not leave,” which deals with the prohibition of leaving alone.

Tosfos

ויהבו ליה שחור ושקל - It appears that this question applies even according to the Rabbis, who forbid [a white one] among the roosters. For one can say that they forbid only where there are white and black ones there and he said “this one and that one”; then there is concern that his mind is on the white one, and he buys the black one because of the white one with it. But here, when they give him a black one and he takes it and goes, he does not know that they will give him a white one.

חצב קשבא - Rashi explained that it is a kind of date. And so it is implied in the first chapter of Megillah (7b), which says there “a basket (taska) full of kashba”; and a taska is a basket in which dates are put, as we say at the beginning of HaZorek (Gittin 78a): “a taska from which she was eating dates.” And kashba is also implied in Perek HaKoneis (Bava Kamma 58b) to be a palm, regarding the man who cut down his fellow’s kashba: the Reish Galusa said, “I myself saw it, and three young palms stood in one cluster” — and tala’ei are young palms, as is implied in Perek HaMocher es HaBayis (Bava Basra 69b). But it is difficult: why did [Rabbi Meir] specify a good palm, since all palms are forbidden? Therefore it seems right to explain that there are two kinds of kashba: one bears dates, and all the passages I cited speak of it; but the one here is a kind of grass with which Yehoshua marked out the land for Israel. And so it is implied in Perek Chezkas HaBatim (ibid. 56a), that it is set on the boundaries, as we say: “If there is neither a boundary nor a chatzav, what [is the law]?” And the Aruch (entry chatzav 5) explained every chatzva here as a honey-cane, a reed in which sugar grows. And at the conclusion of this sugya, Rabbi Baruch b. R. wrote: since for other things the specified case is forbidden, it is therefore always forbidden to sell frankincense to an idolatrous priest, for it is like the specified case — it is clear that he wants it for an offering — and one transgresses “before the blind.” It is also forbidden to sell wax to any idolater on that festival day, but on other days it is certainly permitted. Likewise, those idolatrous vessels that a Jew buys after the idolater has defaced and nullified them — it is nevertheless forbidden to sell such a vessel to an idolater as it is, until it is entirely melted down, for one defect will not stop him from putting wine in it to offer in praise to the idol. And likewise, invalid sefarim fit for prayer in a house of idolatry may not be sold to the priests, for one transgresses “before the blind”; and even to an idolater who is not a priest it is forbidden, for he will certainly give or sell it to a priest.

מקום שנהגו שלא למכור אין מוכרין - That is, because of the concern of bestiality, and he transgresses “before the blind,” etc. And since it does not distinguish here between where he has an animal and where he does not, this implies that even if the idolater has another animal, it is forbidden. Rabbi Elchanan found this difficult: how is this different from above (6a), regarding offerings, where if he has his own animal it is permitted according to the version that [the reason is] “before the blind”? And here we hold according to that version, as we explained. Rabbi Yehudah answered that bestiality is different, for he lusts after each and every animal. And if you ask: in a place where they were accustomed not to sell, let us also say “he bought it for slaughter,” as we say in the Gemara regarding Rav Huna, who sold a cow to an idolater because “say he bought it for slaughter”? One may answer that ordinary small livestock stands to be raised — a goat for its milk and a ewe for its fleece.

שלמין ושבורין - That is, we decree concerning broken ones because of whole ones. And it is astonishing: how is this different from a cow, where we rely on “say he bought it for slaughter,” whereas broken ones are certainly bought for slaughter? One may answer: with broken ones, when people see them in the idolater’s house, they assume they were sold whole and broke in the idolater’s house, and that when he bought them it was not for slaughter. But a cow — even after many days, when people see it in the idolater’s house, they say he bought it for slaughter, because it is not so fit for labor. One cannot explain, however, that it is not fit for labor at all, for we say in the Gemara (below, 15a), “a Jew who rented a cow from a Kohen,” which implies that a cow is a working animal; and likewise (ibid. 15b), “one may not rent him a cow that plows in the Sabbatical year” — so it is a working animal. Rashbam.

ובן בתירא מתיר בסוס - Rashi explained: because he wants it for riding, since its work is only riding, and riding carries no liability for a chatas, only a shevus. But he was not precise: for regarding a horse designated for a person’s riding, it is certainly said in Perek HaMatzni’a (Shabbos 94a) that even the Rabbis agree there is no liability for a chatas, because a living being carries itself; they disagree only about a horse designated for birds.^[12] And if you ask: how do we know there that the reason of the Rabbis who forbid here is that they hold that a living load such as birds does not carry itself — perhaps their reason is like Rebbi, who decreed because of the law of weapons? One may answer: since they listed it together with the other large livestock, whose reason is that there is a prohibition at the time of sale because of lending, renting and trial, learn from this that for a horse too that is their reason.

אמר רב במקום שאסרו לייחד אסרו למכור כו' - That is, the reason the Rabbis permitted in a place where they were accustomed to sell is that they are not suspected of bestiality, and the same applies to leaving alone. Thus Rav makes the reason for selling depend on the suspicion of bestiality. And the Ri found it difficult: why did [the Gemara] not challenge him from the Mishnah below (15b) in our sugya: “In a place where they were accustomed to sell small livestock to Kuthim, one may sell; and in a place where they were accustomed not to sell, it is forbidden” — and there there is no suspicion of bestiality, as [the Gemara] challenges below that Kuthim are not suspected of bestiality? This requires study. But according to [the conclusion] that Rav retracted, it is well.

Notes

1. 1. This continues the discussion from the previous amud. The Mishnah (13b) forbids selling a white rooster to an idolater before his festival, and rules that all other items are permitted when unspecified but forbidden when specified. The Gemara asked what “unspecified” (stam) and “specified” (peirush) mean, and here it settles the question.
2. 2. In the Mishnah (13b), Rabbi Yehudah rules that when a white rooster is sold by itself, one cuts off its toe and then sells it, for a maimed creature is not offered to idols. Rav Ashi asks about a buyer who himself asks for a maimed one.
3. 3. In the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah permits selling a white rooster among other roosters, since the buyer is then not plainly seeking it for worship; the Rabbis forbid even that.
4. 4. The Gemara returns to the Mishnah’s next clause. Rabbi Meir adds three items to the list of things that may not be sold to idolaters before their festivals: a “good palm,” chatzav and nikles. The Gemara now asks what these are, and why a good palm is singled out.
5. 5. The tractate Avodah Zarah of the Mishnah has only five chapters. Rav Chisda laments how much of the tradition on the subject has been lost, so that even these five chapters are not properly understood.
6. 6. Devarim 7:2. The Gemara (20a) reads lo sechanem as “do not give them chanayah (a resting place) in the land”: land in Eretz Yisrael may not be sold to idolaters, nor anything attached to it, such as a tree.
7. 7. Small livestock (behemah dakah) are sheep and goats; large livestock (behemah gasah) are cattle, donkeys and horses, which are used for labor. The Gemara explains the concern with each.
8. 8. A Jew must let his animal rest on Shabbos. If he sells large livestock to an idolater, he may lend or rent it to him, or the buyer may try it out before the sale is complete, so that the Jew’s animal ends up working on Shabbos. The Gemara (15a) explains these three concerns.
9. 9. A living being “carries itself”: one who carries a living person out on Shabbos is exempt (Shabbos 94a). Riding a horse is therefore only a rabbinic prohibition (shevus), not a melachah.
10. 10. A pundak is an inn. Leaving one’s animal at a gentile’s inn, alone with them, is what the Gemara calls yichud, “leaving alone.” The beraisa forbids it outright, not according to custom.
11. 11. Vayikra 19:14. Lifnei iver forbids causing another to sin, and it applies even to causing a non-Jew to transgress one of the Noachide commandments.
12. 12. A horse used to carry birds. According to the Rabbis, birds do not “carry themselves” the way a person does, so carrying them is a real melachah.