Previous daf

1)

(a) Initially, we establish the Itztrublin in our Mishnah as Turnisa - a species of cedar tree.

(b) We refute this suggestion however, on the basis of a Beraisa, which includes Itztrublin among the species that are subject to the Dinim of Shevi'is. The problem with that being - that this species of cedar does not remain intact during the winter, and is therefore not subject to Shevi'is (see Tosfos DH 'Turnisa').

(c) Rav Safra finally establishes ' Itztrublin' as - acorns (the fruit of the cedar tree).

(d) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, his quotation of Rebbi Elazar - simply substantiated Rav Safra's explanation.

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains ...

1. ... 'B'nos-Shu'ach' as - a species of white (presumably what we call 'green') fig.
2. ... 'P'totros' (which is not the name of an independant species) as - the above with their stalks, which they used to suspend them in front of the Avodah-Zarah as a form of idol-worship.

(b) And Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Resh Lakish explains 'Levonah' as - Levonah-Zakah (frankincense).

(c) The Beraisa permits selling all of these items in bulk - which Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira states as three Manah. The reason for this is - because then it is obvious that the purchaser is buying the commodity for commercial purposes (and not to sacrifice to his gods).

(d) We are not concerned that the purchaser will then sell it to others for idolatrous purposes - because even if he does, the Torah only forbids causing someone to sin ("Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol"), and not for causing someone to cause someone else to sin ('Lifnei de'Lifnei').

(a) Rebbi Yonah Amar Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Z'vid (others omit Rav Z'vid) - permits selling a white rooster to a Nochri who is looking for someone selling a rooster, but forbids it if he is looking for someone selling a *white* rooster.

(b) Our Mishnah cited the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who permits selling a white rooster among other roosters - and where the purchaser must have asked for a rooster S'tam (otherwise the Tana would not have permitted selling him a white rooster, even among a batch ...

(c) ... implying that selling it to him on its own is forbidden (a Kashya on Rebbi Zeira, who permits it).

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Mishnah when the purchaser said 'Zeh ve'Zeh' - meaning that he mentioned a white rooster, but he mentioned other colors too.

(b) The difference between selling him one rooster and selling him a few, according to Rebbi Yehudah, is - that if the Nochri subsequently buys the white rooster on its own, it seems that this is what he really wanted to begin with, and that he only mentioned the other colors in order to trick the seller into believing that he is not fussy.

(c) And the Rabbanan forbid selling a white one even together with others - because, even in such a case, they suspect that the Nochri was only tricking the seller into believing that he is not fussy.

(d) And we prove this from Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa - where he qualifies the prohibition of selling a Nochri a white rooster, by confining it to where he said 'Tarnegol Zeh Lavan', but permits there where he said 'Zeh ve'Zeh'.

(e) If the Nochri said 'Tarnegol' S'tam - then even the Rabbanan would concede that one may sell him a white rooster.

(a) In a case where the Nochri is arranging a party on behalf of his son, or where a member of his family is sick, Rebbi Yehudah permits even 'Tarnegol Zeh Lavan'.

(b) The Mishnah (that we learned earlier) however - forbids doing business with a Nochri on the day that he arranges a party in honor of his son's wedding - (because he will go and give thanks to his god - a Kashya on Rebbi Yehudah, who permits selling him even a white rooster on that day.

(c) Rav Yitzchak bar Rav Mesharshaya reconciles Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa with the Mishnah, (forbidding that day at least), by establishing Rebbi Yehudah by Tavzig - which means a 'party' which is no more than a social affair, and which is not important enough to warrant giving thanks to his god.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 've'Sha'ar Kol ha'Devarim S'taman Mutar, u'Perushan Asur'. 'S'taman' cannot mean where he asked for white wheat, and 'Perushan', when he specifically added 'la'Avodas Kochavim' - because then both Dinim would be obvious, and would not require a Mishnah.

(b) So we propose to interpret ...

1. ... 'S'taman' as - when he asked for wheat.
2. ... 'Perushan' as - when he asked for *white* wheat.

(c) We can extrapolate with regard to the equivalent Din by a rooster - that even S'tam is forbidden (a Kashya on Rebbi Zeira, who permits it).

(d) We finally establish our Mishnah like we established it at first, and the Chidush lies in the Seifa. We might have thought that even though the Nochri specifically added 'la'Avodas Kochavim', it would still be permitted to sell him the white wheat - because when he mentioned 'la'Avodas-Kochavim', it was not because he wanted it for idolatrous purposes, but because, a strong adherent of idolatry, he presumes that the seller will give him a special price if he thinks that he wants it to for his god (just like he would do if he was selling to someone else).

7)

(a) Rav Ashi asks whether, if a Nochri asks for a white rooster minus a limb, one may sell him a complete one. This might well be forbidden - because the Nochri may have asked for a blemished one as a trick, only because he knew that they would not sell him one if they knew why he wanted it; and in addition, he knew that birds with missing limbs were scarce, and that in all likelihood, he would receive a complete one anyway.

(b) Assuming that we are strict in the previous case, he then asked what the Din will be if the Nochri requested a white rooster, but accepted the initial offer of first a black one, and then, a red one. This She'eilah can only go - according to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who permits a white rooster among a batch of different colored roosters, but according to the Rabbanan, who forbid even that, it is obvious that our case is forbidden.

(c) The outcome of these She'eilos is 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

(a) Maseches Avodah-Zarah of Avraham Avinu comprised - four hundred chapters.

(b) Rav Chisda made this comment to Avimi - adding that our Maseches Avodah-Zarah comprises only five chapters, and even that we have difficulty in understanding.

(c) Rav Chisda had a problem with Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who forbids selling a 'Dekel Tav' to Nochrim. From this we can infer - that one is permitted to sell him a Dekel Ra.

(d) His problem is based on the Mishnah later - which forbids selling a Nochri whatever is attached to the ground (even a Dekel Ra).

(a) To answer Rav Chisda's Kashya, Avimi explained 'Dekel Tav' to mean - the (detached) fruit of a date-palm.

(b) Rav Huna said - the same.

(c) And they interpreted ...

1. ... 'Chatzav' to mean - 'Kasba', a kind of date (or the type of plant that grows straight down, which Yehoshua used to divide the borders when he divided Eretz Yisrael).
2. ... 'Niklas' to mean - a kind of fruit.

(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Chama bar Yosef, who translated Niklas as 'Kuraiti', to which Abaye commented - that seeing as they did not recognize this word either, they were none the wiser than they had been before.

(b) Rav Dimi response to Abaye's comment was - that at least, when he arrived in Eretz Yisrael, he would be able to ask the people there, who knew the meaning of 'Kuraiti', but not 'Niklas'.

(c) We reject the translation of 'Kuraiti' as the dust from grains of frankincense - on the grounds that if that were so, why did Abaye not know what it meant (not a problem if it was the name of a fruit that grew locally in Eretz Yisrael).

(a) Our Tana rules that selling ...

1. ... a small type animal to a Nochri - is permitted, subject to Minhag - because in some places, the Chachamim suspected Nochrim of bestiality (at least, that is what we think initially).
2. ... him a large animal - is always prohibited (as we shall see in the Sugya).

(b) Calves and foals - fall under the category of large animals (because the owner might substitute them for fully-grown animals, and the same reason will apply to the opinion of the Tana Kama that follows).

(c) The Tana Kama does not differentiate between whole ones and broken ones. Rebbi Yehudah - permits selling him broken ones.

(d) ben Beseira - permits selling him a horse (all of which will be explained in the Sugya).

(a) The Beraisa - forbids leaving animals under the care of Nochrim in their inns.

(b) The reason for this - is based on the Pasuk "Ve'hayu le'Basar Echad" (permitting mankind only such a union which produces children, and precluding bestiality). Consequently, seeing as the Nochrim are suspect on bestiality (Revi'ah), leaving one's animals with them constitutes "Lifnei Iver ... ".

(c) Rav correlates this Beraisa, which seems to forbid leaving an animal with a Nochri outright, with our Mishnah which presents selling them a small animal as a matter of Minhag - by disillusioning us and establishing the Beraisa in places where they are suspect (coinciding with the Minhag which forbids selling in our Mishnah).

(a) Rebbi Elazar disagrees with Rav. According to him, our Mishnah has nothing to do with the suspicion of 'Revi'ah' - because even though a Nochri is suspect on Revi'ah, that is only on someone else's animal. He will not however, commit bestiality with his own animal, seeing as that causes the animal to become sterile (and a Nochri 'has pity on his own animal').

(b) The reason for the Minhag that prohibits the sale of a small animal is - a decree that one may come to sell him a large animal (Lo P'lug).

(c) Rav retracted from his ruling - and conceded that Rebbi Elazar was right.

(d) Rav Tachlifa ... issued a statement in the name of Rav that a Nochri has pity on his animal and will not allow it to become sterile.