Avodah Zarah 16b — the Talmud in English

The reason for the permission is

according to Rabbi Yehuda

who permits [the sale of] a broken large domesticated animal, and therefore it is permitted—

and we should not infer from this the view of the Sages, who prohibit even a broken large domesticated animal, that they would likewise prohibit a broken large wild animal—

and likewise we should not infer [the ruling] according to Rabbi Yehuda regarding an intact lion; indeed, it is prohibited, just as a large domesticated animal is prohibited—according to Rav.

Rav Ashi said:

There is no need to establish the Mishna as referring to a broken lion, because

an ordinary lion

even an intact one—

is broken with regard to labor,

for a lion is not fit for labor. And therefore it is permitted according to Rabbi Yehuda, just as he permits a broken domesticated animal, and it is prohibited according to the Sages, just as they prohibited a broken domesticated animal.

And according to this answer, Rabbi Yehuda agrees regarding a large wild animal whose way is to perform labor, such as a wild ass with which one grinds at a millstone—that it is prohibited.

The Gemara raises an objection,

The Gemara brings a beraita in accordance with Rav’s view, and it is a refutation of Rav Hanan:

Just as they do not sell large domesticated animals to them,

so they do not sell large wild animals to them. And even in a place where they sell small domesticated animals to them,

they do not sell large wild animals to them.

A refutation of Rav Hanan bar Rava. A refutation!

The Gemara brings Ravina’s version, which presents the above question and answer in a different form.

Ravina raised a contradiction

He posed a contradiction

between the Mishna and the beraita

from the Mishna against the beraita,

and resolved it

and answered it:

We learned

in the Mishna:

They do not sell bears and lions to them, nor anything in which there is harm to the public—

The reason

The reason for the prohibition is because

there is harm in it.

And we infer:

but

a domesticated lion, in which

there is no harm—

they do sell—

And he raises a contradiction,

but the beraita contradicts this. For we learned:

Just as they do not sell large domesticated animals—

so they do not sell large wild animals, and even in a place where they sell small domesticated animals—

they do not sell large wild animals.

Does this not show that they do not sell them a domesticated lion and a large wild animal, because they are fit for labor?

And he resolves

and answers: The inference that we inferred from the Mishna—that they sell a domesticated lion because there is no harm in it—is referring to

a broken lion

which is not fit for labor,

and

this permission is

according to Rabbi Yehuda

who permits a broken large domesticated animal. But regarding a wild animal fit for labor, Rabbi Yehuda agrees, and certainly the Sages, that it is indeed prohibited to sell it—as the beraita says.

Rav Ashi said:

There is no need to establish the inference from the Mishna as referring to a broken [lion], because

an ordinary lion

even an intact one—

is broken with regard to labor,

and is not fit for labor; therefore it is permitted according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raise a difficulty against what they inferred from the Mishna, from which it is implied that it is permitted to sell a domesticated lion, and they wished to learn from this that every large wild animal [in which there is no harm to the public]—they sell.

Rav Nahman challenged this:

How did they infer this?

Who says to us

who told us

that a lion is a large wild animal,

so that we should learn from this that regarding other large wild animals in which there is no harm to the public—they sell?

Perhaps

it is possible that a lion is

a small wild animal,

and therefore it is permitted to sell a domesticated lion, just as it is permitted to sell a small domesticated animal—

and how can we learn from this regarding other large wild animals?

And according to Rav Nahman, there is no significance in the Mishna from which to infer that a domesticated large wild animal is permitted for sale.

In the discussion above, we inferred from the Mishna in accordance with Rav Hanan’s words, and we raised a difficulty against Rav. But Rav Ashi infers from the Mishna the opposite: that its implication accords with Rav’s view, and it is a question against Rav Hanan!

Rav Ashi inferred from the Mishna

He inferred from the words of the Mishna

and raised a refutation

and refuted Rav Hanan’s words.

We learned

in the Mishna:

They do not sell bears and lions to them, nor anything in which there is harm to the public—

The reason

The reason for the prohibition is because

there is harm in it.

And we infer:

but

a domesticated lion, in which

there is no harm—

they sell—

And the reason

for this inference is only regarding

a lion, for an ordinary lion is broken with regard to labor,

that is, it is not fit for labor, and there is no reason to prohibit it: it causes no harm and performs no labor—and we infer from this:

but something else

other wild animals

that performs labor—

not

do they sell to the gentiles.

For if the tanna wished to teach a prohibition regarding all harmful wild animals and a permission regarding all domesticated large wild animals fit for domestication, why did he take the lion—which is not fit for labor—as an example? He should have stated in “general” language: “They do not sell wild animals and anything in which there is harm to the public.” And we ourselves would infer from this that “all” domesticated large wild animals fit for domestication are permitted to sell to them.

And according to this approach of Rav Ashi,

a refutation of Rav Hanan bar Rava

even from the Mishna

! A refutation.

We said in the discussion according to Rav that it is prohibited to sell wild animals [even though they do not harm the public], because of the reason of “loan, rental, and trial”—since wild animals are fit for labor. And we clarify—

And a large wild animal—

at least

nevertheless

what labor does it perform?

What labor is it fit to perform?

Abaye said: Mar Yehuda told me: In the house of

a certain person named

Mar Yohani, they grind millstones with wild asses,

with the wild ass, and it is a species of large wild animal.

We have learned that Rav’s students transmitted in his name that a large wild animal is like a small domesticated animal with regard to convulsive movement.

The Gemara explains who is the “owner” of this teaching—Rav or Shmuel—and likewise who “transmitted” this teaching.

Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the academy of

when we were in the academy of

Rav Yehuda,

who was a student of Rav and Shmuel,

he said to us

Rav Yehuda said to us:

Learn this matter from me

learn this matter from me

! For it was from a great man

Rabba

that I heard it

that I heard it from a great man

, and I do not know

and I do not now know from whom I heard it,

whether from Rav or from Shmuel:

A large wild animal is like a small domesticated animal with regard to convulsive movement.

And Rabbi Zeira continues:

When I came

when I came

to

a place called

Korkonia, I found

I found

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi, who was sitting and saying

who was sitting and saying

in the name of Shmuel: A large wild animal is like a small domesticated animal with regard to convulsive movement.

I said,

I said,

from this infer

it is implied that this statement

was stated in the name of Shmuel,

and Rav Yehuda heard it from Shmuel.

And Rav Zeira continues:

When

I came

to

a place called

Sura, I found

I found

Rabba bar Yirmeya, who was sitting and saying to him

who was stating this teaching

in the name of Rav: A large wild animal is like a small domesticated animal with regard to convulsive movement.

I said,

I said,

from this infer

it is implied that this statement

was stated in the name of Rav and

also

was stated in the name of Shmuel.

When I went up there

when I went up to the Land of Israel,

I found

I found

Rav Asi, who was sitting and saying: Rav Hama bar Gurya said in the name of Rav: A large wild animal is like a small domesticated animal with regard to convulsive movement.

And Rabbi Zeira continues:

I said to him

I said to Rav Asi: You are stating this teaching in the name of Rav Hama bar Gurya in the name of Rav,

and

but do you

not hold

do you not hold

who is the master of this teaching

who is the bearer of this teaching:

Rabba bar Yirmeya

I—Rabbi Zeira—heard this teaching from him in Sura in the name of Rav?! And how are you transmitting this teaching in the name of Rav Hama bar Gurya?!

He said to me

Rav Asi said to me:

Black vessel

a black vessel [that is, you too are accustomed and constant in Torah! Splendid wisdom in an unattractive vessel! For it is the way of Torah scholars that they toil in Torah study and do not launder their garments]—

from me and from you

from my teaching and from your teaching

the teaching shall be concluded

the teaching shall be stated in the name of its author! That is, indeed Rabba bar Yirmeya heard this teaching from Rav Hama bar Gurya , and he heard it from Rav.

It was also stated

and likewise we learned:

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Asi said that Rabba bar Yirmeya said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: A large wild animal is like a small domesticated animal with regard to convulsive movement.

We learned in the Mishna:

They may not build with them a basilica, a tribunal, an arena, or a platform.

The Gemara explains what a “basilica” is. For what purpose were these great structures used?

Rabba bar bar Hanna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: There are three

types of

basilicas: those of foreign kings, those of bathhouses, and those of storehouses,

where the treasures of kings and their stores were kept,

and therefore they built a strong structure.

Rava said: Two

of the three

are permitted

it is permitted to build with the gentiles—and they are those of bathhouses and storehouses,

and one

of them

is prohibited,

and that is the one belonging to kings—

and a sign

shall be in your hand as to which of them is prohibited: this verse [Psalms 149],

“To bind their kings with chains”—

that is, the one belonging to kings is prohibited, because they judge people there and execute them.

And there are those who say

there is one who transmitted this teaching:

Rava said: All of them are permitted.

And we raise a difficulty:

and

but

we learned

after all, we learned in the Mishna:

They may not build with them a basilica, a tribunal, an arena, or a platform.

Does this not show that there is a “basilica

” that is prohibited?

And we answer: Say

the meaning of the Mishna is: a basilica—

of a tribunal, an arena, and a platform

intended for judging people there. But an ordinary basilica made for the residence of kings is permitted.

Regarding what we learned, that a “tribunal” is a place of capital judgment, the Gemara recounts

an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer [

ben Hyrcanus].

The Sages taught: When Rabbi Eliezer was seized for heresy

the Roman heretics seized him and wished to force him to engage in idolatry—

they brought him up to the tribunal to be judged

for death.

That governor said to him: An elder such as you should engage

in these worthless matters?!

He said this regarding words of Torah .

He said to him

Rabbi Eliezer, in these words: “

The judge is trusted by me”!

That governor thought,

that

he was speaking about him,

that he was the judge, and that he was saying regarding him that he agreed with his words, that he should not have occupied himself with worthless matters.

—But he

Rabbi Eliezer

did not say

this

but rather: in reference to his Father in Heaven

, the True Judge; he accepted the heavenly judgment, that they were executing him, thinking that he had committed sins against the Holy One, blessed be He, and that they were now exacting punishment from him.

He said to him

the governor:

Since I have trusted [

Version of the Yaavetz:

and you have trusted me]

in you,

you have placed your trust in me, that my judgment is true—

Dimos!

an oath invoking the name of his idol that was present—

you are acquitted!

And thus he was released from Roman judgment.

When he came to his home

he mourned greatly, because he did not know why this thing had happened to him, that he had been sentenced to death, and he searched through his deeds in order to repent . And

his students entered to him to comfort him—

but he did not accept consolation.

но он не принял утешения.

Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher! Permit me to say one thing of what you taught me?

He said to him

Rabbi Eliezer:

Say it!

He said to him

Rabbi Akiva:

My teacher! Perhaps

words of

heresy came to you,

you heard words of heresy

and they pleased you,

and the matter appeared right in your eyes,

and because of it,

because of this pleasure of yours,

were you seized?