אי אפשר ה"נ 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.
איכא דאמרי תריסין היינו טעמא דלא דכי שלים זינייהו קטלי בגוייהו ויש אומרים מוכרים להם תריסין דכי שלים זינייהו מערק ערקי אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה הלכה כיש אומרים 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 Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion cited as: Some say.
אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אין מוכרין להן עששיות של ברזל מ"ט משום דחלשי מינייהו כלי זיין אי הכי אפילו מרי וחציני נמי אמר רב זביד בפרזלא הינדואה והאידנא דקא מזבנינן א"ר אשי לפרסאי דמגנו עילוון: 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.
עגלים וסייחים: תניא רבי יהודה מתיר בשבורה מפני שאינה יכולה להתרפאות ולחיות אמרו לו והלא מרביעין עליה ויולדת וכיון דמרביעין עליה ויולדת אתו לשהויה אמר להן לכשתלד אלמא לא מקבלת זכר: § 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.
בן בתירא מתיר בסוס: תניא בן בתירא מתיר בסוס מפני שהוא עושה בו מלאכה שאין חייבין עליה חטאת ורבי אוסר מפני ב' דברים אחד משום תורת כלי זיין ואחד משום תורת בהמה גסה 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.
בשלמא תורת כלי זיין איכא דקטיל בסחופיה אלא תורת בהמה גסה מאי היא אמר רבי יוחנן לכשיזקין מטחינו ברחיים בשבת א"ר יוחנן הלכה כבן בתירא 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of ben Beteira, and it is permitted to sell a horse to gentiles.
איבעיא להו שור של פטם מהו תיבעי לרבי יהודה תיבעי לרבנן 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.
תיבעי לרבי יהודה עד כאן לא קא שרי רבי יהודה אלא בשבורה דלא אתי לכלל מלאכה אבל האי דכי משהי ליה אתי לכלל מלאכה אסור 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.
או דלמא אפילו לרבנן לא קא אסרי התם אלא דסתמיה לאו לשחיטה קאי אבל האי דסתמיה לשחיטה קאי אפילו רבנן שרו 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.
ת"ש דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל של בית רבי היו מקריבין שור של פטם ביום אידם חסר ד' ריבבן שאין מקריבין אותו היום אלא למחר חסר ד' ריבבן שאין מקריבין אותו חי אלא שחוט חסר ד' ריבבן שאין מקריבין אותו כל עיקר 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.
מ"ט לאו משום דלמא אתי לשהויי וליטעמיך שאין מקריבין אותו היום אלא למחר מאי טעמא אלא רבי מיעקר מילתא בעי וסבר יעקר ואתי פורתא פורתא 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.
וכי משהי ליה בריא ועביד מלאכה אמר רב אשי אמר לי זבידא בר תורא משהינן ליה ועביד על חד תרין: 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.
מתני׳ אין מוכרין להם דובין ואריות וכל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים אין בונין עמהם בסילקי גרדום איצטדייא ובימה אבל בונין עמהם בימוסיאות ובית מרחצאות הגיע לכיפה שמעמידין בה עבודת כוכבים אסור לבנות: 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.
גמ׳ אמר רב חנין בר רב חסדא ואמרי לה אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר רב חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס אבל לא למכירה GEMARA: Rav Ḥanin bar Rav Ḥisda says, and some say Rav Ḥanan 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.
ואני אומר אף למכירה מקום שנהגו למכור מוכרין שלא למכור אין מוכרין Rav Ḥanan 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.
תנן אין מוכרין להן דובין ואריות ולא כל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים טעמא דאית ביה נזק לרבים הא לית ביה נזק לרבים שרי אמר רבה בר עולא בארי שבור The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s 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;