יֵרָקְבוּ, מָעוֹת וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח, וְאֵיזֶהוּ עִיקּוּר? נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בְּפָנֶיהָ וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ!

he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. And what constitutes destroying? He locks the door before it, and the animal dies on its own from hunger. According to the baraita , the disposal of the animal is carried out by starving it, not by cutting its hooves.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם בִּזְיוֹן קֳדָשִׁים. וְנִשְׁחֲטֵיהּ מִישְׁחַט! אָתוּ בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה.

Abaye said: There, in the case of a consecrated animal, the method employed is different, because cutting the animal’s hooves would cause the degradation of sacrificial animals. But why does the baraita require this complicated method of killing the animal? Why not simply state that he should slaughter it? The Gemara answers: If he were to slaughter it, someone might come to experience a mishap through it, by eating the meat and thereby misusing consecrated property.

וְלִישְׁוֵיהּ גִּיסְטְרָא! אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנִתַּצְתֶּם אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתָם וגו׳ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״.

The Gemara asks: But why not let him render the animal a shard [ gistera ], by mutilating it so that it is unfit to be eaten? Why is it necessary to kill it in such a drawn-out fashion, by starving it to death? Abaye said that it is because the verse states: “And you shall break down their altars…you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). It is derived from here that one may not actively destroy any sacred item.

רָבָא אֲמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמַטִּיל מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים. נִרְאֶה? מוּם מְעַלְּיָא הוּא! הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, דַּחֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה, הָשְׁתָּא דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה – לֵית לָן בָּהּ.

Rava said there is a different reason a consecrated animal may not be disposed of by cutting its hooves: It is because it appears as though he is inflicting a blemish on a sacrificial animal. appears as though he is inflicting a blemish, when in actual fact he is inflicting a full-fledged blemish? The Gemara answers: This matter, that one may not inflict a blemish on a sacrificial animal, applies only when the Temple is standing, as the animal is fit for sacrifice and he renders it unfit. By contrast, now, when the animal is not fit for sacrifice, since there is no Temple, we have no problem with it by Torah law. The only problem is that it appears as though one is inflicting a blemish on a sanctified animal.

וְלֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַטִּיל מוּם בְּבַעַל מוּם, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה – אָסוּר! בַּעַל מוּם, נְהִי דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְגוּפֵיהּ – לִדְמֵי חֲזֵי, לְאַפּוּקֵי הָכָא, דְּלָא לִדְמֵי חֲזֵי וְלָא לְגוּפֵיהּ חֲזֵי.

The Gemara asks: But this should be considered equivalent to one who inflicts a blemish on an animal that is already blemished, which is prohibited even though that animal is not fit for sacrifice. The Gemara answers: In the case of a blemished animal when the Temple is standing it is prohibited to inflict a blemish upon it, as granted, it itself is not fit to serve as an offering; but it is fit to make use of its monetary value, i.e., another animal may be purchased with the proceeds of its sale and sacrificed in its place. This is to the exclusion of the case here, when there is no Temple, as the animal is not fit for its monetary value and it is not fit to serve as an offering itself.

אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָה לְרַבִּי עִילַּאי דְּקָאֵי אַפִּיתְחָא דְּצוֹר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָתָנֵי ״בְּהֵמָה תֵּיעָקֵר״, עֶבֶד מַאי? עֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לִי, כִּי קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לִי עֶבֶד גּוֹי, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לָךְ? תַּנְיָא: הַגּוֹיִם וְהָרוֹעֵי בְהֵמָה דַּקָּה – לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין.

§ Rabbi Yona found Rabbi Elai, who was standing at the entrance to the city of Tyre. Rabbi Yona said to him: The baraita cited above teaches that if one bought an animal at a pagan fair it should be destroyed. What should be done with a slave purchased at the fair? Rabbi Yona elaborated: I do not raise the dilemma about a Jewish slave, as it is obvious that the master cannot cause him harm. Where it is a dilemma for me is the case of a gentile slave; what is the halakha ? said to him in response: What is the reason that this is a dilemma for you? It is taught in a baraita : With regard to the gentiles and shepherds of small domesticated animals, we do not raise them from a pit but we do not actively lower them into a pit either. It may be inferred from here that one may not cause the death of a gentile slave.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא, קָתָנֵי: לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בְּהֵמָה עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת; עֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ דִּלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ עֶבֶד גּוֹי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאִי עֶבֶד גּוֹי, לְמַאי מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ? כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אֲפִילּוּ עֶבֶד גּוֹי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְנִיסוֹ תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: The second baraita cited above teaches that one may go to a pagan fair and buy from the gentiles animals, slaves, and maidservants. Does the baraita mean that one may buy a Jewish slave, or perhaps, is it teaching that one may buy even a gentile slave? Rabbi Zeira said to him: It stands to reason that the baraita means specifically a Jewish slave; as, if it is referring to a gentile slave, what is the reason that it is necessary for the Sages to permit this purchase? When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted to purchase even a gentile slave, because he brings him under the wings of the Divine Presence by having him undergo the process of conversion when he becomes the slave of a Jew.

אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: אַטּוּ בְּהֵמָה מַאי מַכְנִיס תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה אִיכָּא? אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם מִעוּטַיְיהוּ, וְהָכָא נַמִי דְּמִמַּעֲטִי שָׁרֵי.

Rav Ashi said: But with regard to the permission to buy an animal, what is there about this purchase that one can be said to bring the animal under the wings of the Divine Presence? Rather, the reason it is permitted is because through this purchase the Jew reduces the possessions of the gentile. And here too, as he reduces the gentile’s property by purchasing the slave, it is permitted.

רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב זְבַן סַנְדְּלָא, רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה זְבַן פִּיתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: יָתְמָא, עֲבַד רַבָּךְ הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידָךְ: יָתְמָא, עֲבַד רַבָּךְ הָכִי? וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת זְבוּן, וְכָל חַד וְחַד סְבַר: חַבְרַאי מִתַּגָּר זְבַן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַתַּגָּר, דְּשָׁקְלִי מִיכְסָא מִינֵּיהּ, אֲבָל בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, דְּלָא שָׁקְלִי מִינֵּיהּ מִיכְסָא – מוּתָּר.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ya’akov bought sandals and Rabbi Yirmeya bought bread at a pagan fair. One said to the other: Orphan, i.e., one with no guide, would your teacher act in this manner? The other likewise said to him: Orphan, would your teacher act in this manner? The Gemara explains: Actually, both purchased these items from a homeowner, i.e., a private individual, and each one thought that the other had purchased his item from a merchant. As Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says: The Sages taught that it is prohibited to buy from a gentile at a pagan fair only in the case of one who buys from a merchant, as a tax is taken from him and used for the benefit of idol worship. But with regard to one who buys from a homeowner, when a tax is not taken from him, it is permitted to make the purchase.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: אִילְמָלֵא הָיָה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָא זִימְנָא בְּאַתְרָא דְּקָא שָׁקְלִי מִיכְסָא, אֲפִילּוּ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֲוָה אָסַר. אֶלָּא אִינְהוּ הֵיכִי זְבוּן? מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָבוּעַ זְבוּן.

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says: If Rabbi Yoḥanan had been present at this time and age, in a place where the tax is taken from all sales, including those conducted with private individuals, he would have prohibited buying items even from a homeowner. The Gemara asks: But if so, how did these Sages, Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Yirmeya, purchase items at the fair? The Gemara answers: They purchased the items from a homeowner who sells solely on a temporary basis.

מתני׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים אֲסוּרִים לִמְכּוֹר לְגוֹי: אִצְטְרוּבָּלִין, וּבְנוֹת שׁוּחַ, וּפְטוֹטָרוֹת, וּלְבוֹנָה, וְתַרְנְגוֹל הַלָּבָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מוּתָּר לִמְכּוֹר לוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹל לָבָן בֵּין הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין; וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – קוֹטֵעַ אֶת אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמוֹכְרוֹ לוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִים חָסֵר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

These are the items that it is prohibited to sell to a gentile at any time of year, as they are used specifically for idol worship: Itzterubalin , benot shuaḥ , petotarot , frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is permitted to sell a white rooster to a gentile provided that it is sold along with other types of roosters. But when it is sold by itself, one should cut off its toe and sell it to the gentile, because they do not sacrifice a defective animal to their object of idol worship.

וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים – סְתָמָן מוּתָּר, וּפֵירוּשָׁן אָסוּר; רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף דֶּקֶל טַב וְחָצָב וְנַקְלָב – אָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר לְגוֹיִם.

And with regard to all remaining items, without specification it is permitted to sell them, but with specification it is prohibited to sell them. Rabbi Meir says: Even in the case of a good palm tree, ḥatzav , and naklav , it is prohibited to sell them to gentiles.