Avodah Zarah 15a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Elazar said: Even in a place where they prohibited leaving the animal in seclusion, -

it is permitted to sell it.

He disagrees with Rav in two matters. First, the sale depends only on the local custom, and there is no prohibition involved, as is evident plainly from our Mishna. Second, the prohibition against placing an animal in an inn does not depend on local custom; rather, it is an absolute prohibition everywhere, as is implied plainly by the Mishna below, which does not make placing an animal in an inn dependent on local custom.

What is the reason

that it is permitted to sell an animal even in a place where they prohibited leaving it in seclusion, and there is no concern in selling it that the gentile will engage in bestiality with it? Because

a gentile

who purchases an animal does not engage in bestiality with it once it belongs to him, since he

takes care that his animal not be rendered infertile. [Since bestiality renders it infertile, so that it will no longer give birth.]

Совокупление делает животное бесплодным, так что оно больше не сможет приносить потомство.

For this reason, there were places where the practice was to be lenient and sell animals to a gentile. But placing a Jew’s animals in an inn is prohibited everywhere, since the gentile does not care about rendering a Jew’s animal infertile, and he is suspected of engaging in bestiality with it. Therefore, it is prohibited [as an absolute prohibition, and in every place] to place a Jew’s animal in an inn.

And the Gemara adds:

And Rav retracted his position;

he retracted what he had said—“In a place where they prohibited leaving an animal in seclusion, they prohibited selling it”—and instead agreed with Rabbi Elazar, that even in a place where they prohibited leaving it in seclusion, it is permitted to sell it.

This is because we find

that Rav Tahlifa said that Rav Sheila bar Avimi said in the name

of

Rav: A gentile takes care that his animal not be rendered infertile.

This proves that Rav retracted his position and did not prohibit selling an animal because of concern that the gentile would engage in bestiality with it; rather, the matter depends only on local custom.

We learned in our Mishna:

And everywhere they may not sell large livestock, calves and foals, whether whole or injured.

And the Gemara explains the reason for the prohibition.

What is the reason,

what is the reason that the Sages prohibited selling large livestock to them everywhere? —

Because

granted

that

we are not concerned about bestiality,

even in a place where they were not concerned about bestiality, for the reason that a gentile who purchases an animal takes care that it not be rendered infertile—

we are concerned that he will make it perform labor,

as we are concerned that the gentile will make it perform labor on Shabbat.

And we challenge this:

Let him make it perform labor!

Let him make it perform labor on Shabbat; there is no prohibition in that, since

once he has purchased it—

he has acquired it!

Since the gentile has purchased it, it belongs to him, and he is permitted to make it perform labor, and we are not causing him to sin. Granted, in the case of the prohibition against bestiality, since the gentile is prohibited from engaging in it, it is prohibited for us to cause him to stumble by an offense he will commit after purchasing the animal. But the gentile was not commanded concerning the prohibitions of Shabbat. If so, what stumbling block or prohibition is there if the gentile works with it on Shabbat?!

And we answer: This is not a prohibition of causing someone to stumble; rather,

it is a decree

that the Sages instituted

because of lending and because of renting.

There is concern that if they permit selling an animal to a gentile, people will also come to lend or rent the animal to him. Lending or renting an animal is certainly prohibited, because the gentile will make it perform labor on Shabbat, and the Jew will violate the prohibition of allowing his animal to rest, as it is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 5]: “And the seventh day is a Shabbat for the Lord your God; you shall not perform any labor … nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your animals.” As long as the Jew has not sold the animal to the gentile, the Jew is commanded to ensure that his animal rests on Shabbat.

But the Gemara is puzzled: After all,

a loan—

is an acquisition!

One who borrows something from another is considered to have acquired the object for the duration of the loan.

And rent—

is an acquisition;

and likewise, one who rents an object for use is considered to have acquired it for the duration of the rental. If so, a gentile who receives an animal as a loan or rental is considered to have acquired it for a period of time, and since it is then considered the gentile’s animal, the Jew does not violate the prohibition of allowing his animal to rest when the gentile works with it. Why, then, did they prohibit lending or renting it to him?

And we answer:

Rather, said Rami, son of Rav Yeiva:

The reason they prohibited selling an animal to a gentile is

because of “

testing.”

Perhaps the gentile will test the animal to see whether it walks well when laden with loads, as is the practice of animal merchants, and this test may lead the Jew who wishes to sell him the animal to violate the prohibition against making his animal perform labor on Shabbat.

At times,

it may happen

that he sells it to him—

that the Jew sells it to the gentile—

near sunset on the eve of Shabbat

on Friday,

and he says to him,

the gentile purchaser says to him, before completing the acquisition: “

Come, test it for me”;

come and test it for me. The Jew then calls his animal so that the gentile can observe how well it walks,

and it hears his voice,

and the animal, which recognizes his voice, indeed obeys him,

and it walks because of him,

walking while laden with a load because of the Jew’s command,

and he is pleased that it walks,

and the Jew indeed wants it to walk, since he wishes to demonstrate its ability to transport loads, and it will continue walking as part of the test even after Shabbat begins,

and he thereby becomes one who “drives” [

leading it by his voice while it is laden with loads]

his animal on Shabbat, and

the halakha, according to several amoraim, is that

one who drives his animal on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

По этой причине мудрецы запретили продавать крупный скот нееврею даже во все дни недели.

For this reason, the Sages prohibited selling large livestock to a gentile even on weekdays.

The Gemara now returns to discuss what it had said: One who borrows or rents an object from its owner acquires a time-limited right to it for the duration of the loan or rental, and it is considered his during that time, rather than belonging to its owner.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, challenged this:

He objected to this tradition:

“Is rental really an acquisition?!”

Does rental transfer the object to the renter to such an extent that it is considered his?!

But we learned

a Mishna below [21a], from which it is implied that “rental is not an acquisition,” since the Mishna there states: One may not rent houses to gentiles in Eretz Yisrael [and the reason is explained there]. But outside Eretz Yisrael one may rent them. The Mishna there continues:

Even in a place where they said

that it is permitted

to rent—

they did not say

that it is permitted for the

purpose of a dwelling,

because

the

gentile

brings idolatry into it [rather, it is permitted to rent only for use as a woodshed or storehouse].

»

And if it enters your mind

to say, “

rental is an acquisition,”

why is it prohibited to rent him a house for use as a dwelling? After all,

this—

gentile—

when he brings in

idolatry into the house rented by him,

he is bringing it into his own house;

he is bringing it into his own temporary house, which belongs to the gentile. Why, then, is it prohibited for a Jew to rent him a house?!

Rather, it is implied that the reason for the prohibition is that the rented house remains the house of the Jewish landlord. This proves that “rental is not an acquisition.”

And we answer: In fact, “rental is an acquisition.” The reason they prohibited renting him a house for use as a dwelling is that

different

is the law of

idolatry, which is severe,

as it is a more severe prohibition, and the Torah was particularly stringent concerning it,

as it is written [

«

You shall not bring an abomination into your house.”

Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Mesharsheya, challenged this: “Is rental really an acquisition?!”

But we learned,

a Mishna in tractate Terumot [11:9], which proves that “rental is not an acquisition.”

As we learned: It is permitted to feed an animal belonging to a kohein teruma. Therefore,

if a Jew rented a cow from a kohein, he may feed it

the Jew is permitted to feed the kohein’s animal

the carob beans [

a type of vegetable] of

teruma,

because the animal is the kohein’s animal.

But

nevertheless,

if a kohein rented a cow from a Jew, even though its food is his responsibility,

since the kohein who rented it undertook to provide it with food,

he may not feed it carob beans of teruma,

because it is a Jew’s animal.

The Gemara draws an inference from the latter clause: And from the latter clause it is precise:

And if it enters your mind

to say, “

rental is an acquisition,”

why may he not feed it

the kohein carob beans of teruma? After all,

it is his cow;

it is now his cow.

Rather,

from the fact that the kohein is prohibited from feeding it teruma,

learn from this

that the rented animal remains the property of its Jewish owner, because “

rental is not an acquisition.”

And the Gemara concludes:

And now that you have said,

after you have proved that “

rental is not an acquisition”—

the reason that the Sages prohibited selling an animal to a gentile is

a decree because of rental, and a decree because of lending,

lest the gentile who borrowed or rented the animal make it perform labor on Shabbat, in which case it remains “a Jewish animal,” and also

a decree because of testing.

Now, after we have concluded that the prohibition against selling is not an independent prohibition, but rather a decree because of “lending, rental, and testing,” the Gemara introduces a novel ruling: A sale in which these decrees do not apply is permitted.

Rav Adda permitted

a Jew

to sell a donkey

to a gentile

through a broker,

through an Israelite broker. For—

If it is because of testing,

if the reason for the prohibition is concern about “testing,” that the gentile will lead it on Shabbat by his voice, there is no such concern with a broker, because

it does not recognize his voice, and it does not walk because of him.

The animal does not recognize the broker’s voice, and therefore it will not walk at his command.

And if it is because of lending and rental,

there is no such concern with a broker,

since it is not his,

the animal does not belong to him;

he will neither lend it nor rent it,

he will not lend or rent it to a gentile, because it was given to him only so that he would sell it, and not for any other purpose.

And furthermore,

there is another reason why the broker will not lend or rent it to a gentile:

because

the broker is holding it in order to sell it, and he does not want to lend or rent it

lest a defect be revealed in it

so that a defect will not be discovered while it is in the possession of the borrower or renter.

Since these decrees do not apply in this manner, it is permitted to sell it to a gentile. The Gemara reports that

Rav Huna sold

sold

a certain cow to a gentile.

Rav Hisda said to him: “What is the reason that my master acted in this manner?”

Why did you do this, contrary to what is stated in the Mishna, that one may not sell an animal to a gentile?

He said to him

Rav Huna:

Suppose

one may posit and say:

He bought it for slaughter!

This gentile bought it in order to slaughter it, and not in order to keep it with him, and in this manner the Sages did not prohibit it.