Avodah Zarah 15
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאָסְרוּ לְיַיחֵד, מוּתָּר לִמְכּוֹר. מַאי טַעְמָא? גּוֹי חָס עַל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵּעָקֵר. וְאַף רַב הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב תַּחְלִיפָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁילָא בַּר אֲבִימִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: גּוֹי חָס עַל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵּעָקֵר.
And Rabbi Elazar says: Even in a place where they prohibited leaving an animal in seclusion with a gentile, it is permitted to sell it to a gentile. What is the reason? Once the animal is sold to the gentile, there is no concern that he will engage in bestiality. This is because a gentile spares his own animal from bestiality, as he does not want it to become sterile through this practice. By contrast, it is prohibited to leave one’s animal in seclusion with a gentile, as he would have no such compunction with regard to an animal belonging to others. The Gemara notes: And even Rav retracted his opinion; as Rav Taḥlifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avimi says in the name of Rav: A gentile spares his animal, as he does not want it to become sterile.
וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם אֵין מוֹכְרִין בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? נְהִי דְּלִרְבִיעָה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, מֶעְבַּיד בַּיהּ מְלָאכָה חָיְישִׁינַן.
§ The mishna teaches: But in every place one may not sell to gentiles large livestock, calves, or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason? The Gemara explains: Granted, we are not concerned about the gentile engaging in bestiality with the animal, but we are concerned about him putting the animal to work on Shabbat.
וְנֶיעְבֵּיד, כֵּיוָן דְּזַבְנַהּ קַנְיַיהּ! גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵלָה וּמִשּׁוּם שְׂכִירוּת.
The Gemara expresses puzzlement: And let the gentile put it to work. Why should one be concerned about this possibility? Since he bought it, he acquires it and may put it to work on Shabbat, as it no longer belongs to the Jew. The Gemara answers: Selling it is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the concern of lending and due to the concern of leasing the animal to the gentile, as in those cases the animal would be performing work on Shabbat when it is owned by a Jew.
שַׁאֲלַהּ קַנְיַיהּ, וְאַגְרַהּ קַנְיַיהּ!
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: But during that time period, the act of borrowing the animal causes the gentile to temporarily acquire it, and likewise, by leasing the animal, he temporarily acquires it. Why, then, is it a problem if the gentile puts the animal to work on Shabbat?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָמֵי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יֵיבָא: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם נִסְיוֹנֵי, דְּזִמְנִין דְּזַבְּנַהּ לַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה דְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״תָּא נַסְּיַיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ״, וְשָׁמְעָה לֵיהּ לְקָלֵיהּ וְאָזְלָא מֵחֲמָתֵיהּ, וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתֵיזִיל, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ מְחַמֵּר אַחֵר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְהַמְחַמֵּר אַחֵר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said: Selling is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the concern with regard to testing. As at times, one sells an animal to a gentile when it is close to sunset of Shabbat eve, and one says to him: Go and test the animal, and it hears the voice of its Jewish owner and walks because of his command. And it is beneficial to the Jewish seller that the animal should walk, as he wants to demonstrate to the gentile that it is fit for labor. And in this manner, he is considered one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat. And one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: וּשְׂכִירוּת מִי קָנְיָא? וְהָתְנַן: אַף בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר — לֹא לְבֵית דִּירָה אָמְרוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְנִיס לְתוֹכוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׂכִירוּת קָנְיָא, הַאי כִּי קָא מְעַיֵּיל — לְבֵיתֵיהּ קָא מְעַיֵּיל!
Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to the Gemara’s assumption that leasing confers ownership. And by leasing an item, does one actually acquire it? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (21a): Even in a place with regard to which the Sages said that it is permitted for a Jew to rent a house to a gentile, they did not say that one may rent it for use as a residence, because the gentiles will bring objects of idol worship into it? The objection is as follows: And if it enters your mind to say that through leasing one acquires an item or property, then when this gentile brings the idols into the house he brings them into his own house. Why, then, is it prohibited for a Jew to rent a residence to a gentile?
שָׁאנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דַּחֲמִירָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ״.
The Gemara answers: Idol worship is different, as it is a particularly severe prohibition, and therefore even an item that does not entirely belong to a Jew is treated with great stringency. As it is written: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26), and this house still retains the name of its Jewish owner.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וּשְׂכִירוּת מִי קָנְיָא? וְהָא תְּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׂכַר פָּרָה מִכֹּהֵן — יַאֲכִילֶנָּה כַּרְשִׁינֵּי תְרוּמָה, וְכֹהֵן שֶׁשָּׂכַר פָּרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ עָלָיו — לָא יַאֲכִילֶנָּה כַּרְשִׁינֵּי תְרוּמָה.
Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, also objects to the Gemara’s assumption that leasing confers ownership. And by leasing an item, does one actually acquire it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 11:9): An Israelite who rented a cow from a priest may feed it vetches of teruma, as the animal belongs to a priest; and conversely, a priest who rented a cow from an Israelite, although the responsibility to feed it is incumbent upon him, he may not feed it vetches of teruma, as it does not belong to him.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׂכִירוּת קָנְיָא, אַמַּאי לָא יַאֲכִילֶנָּה? פָּרָה דִּידֵיהּ הִיא! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׂכִירוּת לָא קָנְיָא. וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ שְׂכִירוּת לָא קָנְיָא, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם שְׂכִירוּת, וּגְזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵלָה, וּגְזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם נִסְיוֹנֵי.
And if it enters your mind to say that through leasing one acquires the item, why can’t the priest feed it vetches of teruma? After all, it is currently his own cow. Rather, learn from here that one does not acquire an item through leasing. The Gemara comments: And now that you have said that one does not acquire an item through leasing, and therefore an animal that was leased to a gentile still belongs to the Jew, the original proposal can be accepted: The reason that one cannot sell large livestock to gentiles is a rabbinic decree due to the concern of leasing, and a decree due to the concern of lending the animal to the gentile, and also a decree due to the concern of testing.
רַב אַדָּא שְׁרָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי חֲמָרָא אַיְּדָא דְּסַפְסִירָא, אִי מִשּׁוּם נִסְיוֹנֵי — הָא לָא יָדְעָה לְקָלֵיהּ דְּאָזְלָא מֵחֲמָתֵיהּ, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵלָה וּשְׂכִירוּת — כֵּיוָן דְּלָא דִּידֵיהּ הִיא לָא מוֹשֵׁיל וְלָא מוֹגַר, וְעוֹד — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נִיגַלֵּי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא.
§ The Gemara relates: Rav Adda permitted the owners of a donkey to sell their donkey to gentiles by means of a Jewish middleman [desafseira]. He reasoned as follows: If the concern is due to testing, in this case the animal does not recognize the voice of the middleman so that it would walk because of him. And if the concern is due to lending and leasing, since the donkey is not his, that middleman would neither lend nor lease it. Additionally, the middleman would not lease or lend the animal because he wants to sell it and does not want any blemish to be revealed in it.
רַב הוּנָא זַבֵּין הָהִיא פָּרָה לְגוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא עֲבַד מָר הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימוֹר לִשְׁחִיטָה זַבְנַהּ.
The Gemara relates: Rav Huna sold a certain cow to a gentile. Rav Ḥisda said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in that manner? Rav Huna said to him: I can say that he purchased it in order to slaughter it, not to use it for labor.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּאָמְרִינַן כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם פָּרָה הַחוֹרֶשֶׁת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְשׁוֹחְטָהּ.
Rav Huna added: And from where do you say that in a case like this we say that the animal will be slaughtered, and one is not concerned about placing a stumbling block before the blind, despite the fact that the animal could be used to violate a prohibition? As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 5:8) that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell a cow that plows in the Sabbatical Year, as it is prohibited to plow during the Sabbatical Year and the buyer presumably wants it for this purpose. And Beit Hillel permit selling the cow, since the buyer can slaughter it rather than use it for plowing. This shows that according to Beit Hillel, whose opinion is accepted as halakha, one may assume that an animal will be used for a permitted purpose, rather than for a prohibited action.
אָמַר רַבָּה: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם אֵין אָדָם מְצוֶּּוה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, הָכָא אָדָם מְצוֶּּוה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת.
Rabba said: Are these matters comparable? There, with regard to the Sabbatical Year, a person is not commanded to let his animal rest during the Sabbatical Year, as there is no prohibition against his animal performing labor. Therefore, there is no reason to decree that the sale is prohibited lest he lend, lease, or test the animal. As for the concern that he is misleading the buyer and encouraging him to sin, he may rely on the fact that the buyer probably intends to slaughter the animal. But here, with regard to selling an animal to a gentile, a person is commanded to let his animal rest on Shabbat, and therefore the Sages decreed the sale prohibited in case he comes to lend, lease, or test the animal.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאָדָם מְצוֶּּוה אָסוּר? וַהֲרֵי שָׂדֶה, דְּאָדָם מְצוֶּּוה עַל שְׁבִיתַת שָׂדֵהוּ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם שְׂדֵה נִיר בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהוֹבִירָהּ!
Abaye said to Rabba: And does this mean that wherever a person is commanded to allow his possessions to rest it is prohibited to sell an item to one who might use it to perform labor, even if he might also use it for an innocent purpose? But there is the case of a field, as a person is commanded to let his field rest during the Sabbatical Year, and yet we learned in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell a plowed field during the Sabbatical Year, as it is presumed that the buyer will sow it, and Beit Hillel permit this sale, since the buyer can let it lie fallow during the Sabbatical Year. In this case, although one is commanded to let his field rest during the Sabbatical Year, he may still sell it under the assumption that the buyer will use the field in a permitted manner.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאֵין אָדָם מְצוֶּּוה — שְׁרֵי? וַהֲרֵי כֵּלִים, דְּאֵין אָדָם מְצוֶּּוה עַל שְׁבִיתַת כֵּלִים בִּשְׁבִיעִית, וּתְנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן כֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְמוֹכְרָן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית: הַמַּחְרֵישָׁה וְכׇל כֵּלֶיהָ, הָעוֹל, וְהַמִּזְרֶה, וְהַדֶּקֶר!
Rav Ashi also objects to Rabba’s statement: And conversely, is it true that wherever a person is not commanded to allow his possessions to rest it is permitted to sell the item? But there is the case of vessels, as a person is not commanded to let his vessels rest during the Sabbatical Year, and yet we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 5:6): These are the implements that a person is not allowed to sell during the Sabbatical Year: The plow and all of its appurtenances, the yoke that is used to hitch the cow to the plow, and the winnowing fork, and the stake.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיתְלֵא תָּלֵינַן, וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְצוֶּּוה, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא לְמִיתְלֵי — לָא תָּלֵינַן, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵינוֹ מְצוֶּּוה.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: Anywhere that it is possible to assign an innocent motive, one assigns such a motive, and this applies even though one is commanded to allow the item to rest. And anywhere that it is not possible to assign an innocent motive, one does not assign an innocent motive, even though one is not commanded to allow the item to rest.
רַבָּה זַבֵּין הָהוּא חֲמָרָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֶחָשׁוּד לִמְכּוֹר לְגוֹי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמָא עָבֵד מָר הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל זַבֵּינִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא אָזֵיל וּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ לְגוֹי! לְגוֹי קָא מְזַבֵּין, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָא מְזַבֵּין?
§ The Gemara relates: Rabba sold a certain donkey to a Jew who was suspected of selling large livestock to a gentile. Abaye said to Rabba: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner? Rabba said to him: I sold the donkey to a Jew. Abaye said to him: But he will go and sell it to a gentile. Rabba responded: Is the only possibility that he will sell to a gentile, and he will not sell it to a Jew? Since there is no reason to assume that he will sell specifically to a gentile rather than to a Jew, there is no problem in selling to him.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְכּוֹר בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה לַכּוּתִים — מוֹכְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא לִמְכּוֹר — אֵין מוֹכְרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲשִׁידִי אַרְבִיעָה, וּמִי חֲשִׁידִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין מַעֲמִידִין בְּהֵמָה בְּפוּנְדְּקָאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, זְכָרִים אֵצֶל זְכָרִים, וּנְקֵבוֹת אֵצֶל נְקֵבוֹת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר נְקֵבוֹת אֵצֶל זְכָרִים וּזְכָרִים אֵצֶל נְקֵבוֹת.
Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s opinion from a baraita: In a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to Samaritans, one may sell the animals to them; in a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them one may not sell the animals to them. What is the reason that the sale of small livestock to Samaritans is prohibited? If we say that it is because Samaritans are suspected of engaging in bestiality, are they suspected of this practice? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One may not keep an animal in the inns of gentiles. Male animals may not be placed with men, as they are suspected of engaging in bestiality, and female animals may not be left with women, despite the fact that there is no concern that they may engage in bestiality. And needless to say, it is prohibited to leave female animals with men, and male animals with women.
וְאֵין מוֹסְרִין בְּהֵמָה לָרוֹעֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן, וְאֵין מְיַיחֲדִין עִמָּהֶם, וְאֵין מוֹסְרִין לָהֶם תִּינוֹק לְלַמְּדוֹ סֵפֶר וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוּמָּנוּת, אֲבָל מַעֲמִידִין בְּהֵמָה בְּפוּנְדְּקָאוֹת שֶׁל כּוּתִים, זְכָרִים אֵצֶל נְקֵבוֹת וּנְקֵבוֹת אֵצֶל זְכָרִים, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר זְכָרִים אֵצֶל זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת אֵצֶל נְקֵבוֹת.
The baraita continues: And one may not entrust an animal to a gentile shepherd, and one may not seclude oneself with gentiles, due to the danger that this entails. And one may not entrust a child to them to teach him how to read books or to teach him a craft. But one may keep an animal in the inns of Samaritans, as they are not suspected of violating a Torah prohibition and engaging in bestiality. Male animals may be placed with women and female animals may be left with men, and needless to say, it is permitted to leave male animals with men and female animals with women.
וּמוֹסְרִין בְּהֵמָה לָרוֹעֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן, וּמְיַיחֲדִין עִמָּהֶם, וּמוֹסְרִין לָהֶם תִּינוֹק לְלַמְּדוֹ סֵפֶר וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוּמָּנוּת; אַלְמָא לָא חֲשִׁידִי.
The baraita concludes: And one may entrust an animal to a Samaritan shepherd, and one may seclude oneself with Samaritans, and one may entrust a child to them to teach him how to read books and to teach him a craft. The Gemara infers from the baraita: Evidently, Samaritans are not suspected of engaging in bestiality, yet livestock may not be sold to them, as they are suspected of selling it to gentiles.
וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם לֹא זַיִין וְלֹא כְּלֵי זַיִין, וְאֵין מַשְׁחִיזִין לָהֶן אֶת הַזַּיִין, וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן לֹא סַדָּן וְלֹא קוֹלָרִין וְלֹא כְּבָלִים וְלֹא שַׁלְשְׁלָאוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל, אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד כּוּתִי.
And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: One may not sell weapons to gentiles or the auxiliary equipment of weapons, and one may not sharpen weapons for them. And one may not sell them stocks used for fastening the feet of prisoners, or iron neck chains [kolarin], or foot chains, or iron chains. This prohibition applies equally to both a gentile and a Samaritan.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי נֵימָא דַּחֲשִׁידִי אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וּמִי חֲשִׁידִי? הָאָמְרַתְּ: וּמְיַיחֲדִין עִמָּהֶן! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי לְזַבּוֹנַהּ לְגוֹי.
Abaye analyzes this baraita: What is the reason for the prohibition against selling these items to Samaritans? If we say that they are suspected of bloodshed, that is difficult: But are they suspected of this? Didn’t you say that one may seclude oneself with them, which indicates that they are not suspected of bloodshed? Rather, it is prohibited to sell these items to Samaritans because they will come to sell them to a gentile. According to this reasoning, it should likewise be prohibited to sell a donkey to a Jew who is suspected of selling animals to gentiles.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: כּוּתִי לָא עָבֵיד תְּשׁוּבָה, יִשְׂרָאֵל עָבֵיד תְּשׁוּבָה, וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ אָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר לְגוֹי, כָּךְ אָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֶחָשׁוּד לִמְכּוֹר לְגוֹי! רְהַיט בָּתְרֵיהּ תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: פַּרְסָא בְּחָלָא, וְלָא אַדְרְכֵיהּ.
And if you would say that there is a difference between a Jew and a Samaritan, as a Samaritan will likely not repent and will sell to a gentile, whereas a Jew will likely repent and not sell these items, this reasoning is incorrect. But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say explicitly that Rabba bar Avuh says: Just as the Sages said that it is prohibited to sell to a gentile, so too it is prohibited to sell to a Jew who is suspected of selling to a gentile? When Rabba heard this and realized that Abaye was correct, he ran three parasangs after the buyer who purchased his donkey to revoke the sale, as the Jew was suspected of selling to gentiles; and some say that he ran one parasang through sand. But he did not succeed in overtaking him.
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי בַּר אַבָּא: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר לְגוֹי, אָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר לְלִסְטִים יִשְׂרָאֵל. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דַּחֲשִׁיד דְּקָטֵיל — פְּשִׁיטָא, הַיְינוּ גּוֹי.
Apropos the baraita that discusses the prohibition against selling weapons, the Gemara relates that Rav Dimi bar Abba says: Just as it is prohibited to sell to a gentile, it is prohibited to sell to an armed bandit who is a Jew. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this prohibition? If the thief is suspected of killing, isn’t it obvious that it is prohibited? After all, he is the same as a gentile. Providing a Jew who might kill with weapons is no different from giving a weapon to a gentile, as in both cases one violates the prohibition: Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.
וְאִי דְּלָא קָטֵיל, אַמַּאי לָא? לְעוֹלָם דְּלָא קָטֵיל, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּמַשְׁמוֹטָא, דְּזִימְנִין דְּעָבֵיד לְאַצּוֹלֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ.
And if he is a bandit who does not kill, why not sell to him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Dimi bar Abba is referring to a bandit who does not kill, and here we are dealing with a bandit who steals, as sometimes he makes use of his weapon to save himself when he is caught. Consequently, it is prohibited to sell him weapons in case he kills with them in self-defense.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן תְּרִיסִין, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן תְּרִיסִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמַגְּנוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ, אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ חִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי נָמֵי לָא! אָמַר רַב:
§ The Sages taught: One may not sell shields [terisin] to gentiles, despite the fact that they are used for protection, not to attack others. And some say: One may sell shields to them. The Gemara asks: What is the reason behind the opinion that prohibits selling shields to gentiles? If we say it is because they protect them in wartime, if so, then even wheat and barley should not be sold to them. Rav said:
