Avodah Zarah 015

1:
This mishnah, while most pertinent to our present topic, is a duplicate of the mishnah in Tractate Pesaĥim 4:3. Or maybe it is the other way round: the mishnah in Pesaĥim 4:3 is a duplicate of our present mishnah. In any case, the two mishnayot are identical.

2:
Rabbinic tradition distinguishes mainly between two kinds of domestic animal: what is termed in Hebrew behemah dakkah and what is termed behemah gassah. The former term means literally "small animals" and the latter "large animals", but the terms are not really general, but more restricted in their application: the former refers to animals of the flock – sheep, goats etc – while the latter refers to animals of the herd – cows, bulls, oxen etc.

3:
Our mishnah is concerned with the sale of animals to a non-Jew. Although it is not stated expressly in our mishnah, the reason for the hesitation in selling animals to non-Jews is both religious and humanitarian – and for exactly the same reason. One verse in the Torah is known and quoted by almost everyone in some context or another, but few think about its implications as the sages did. In connection with Shabbat observance the Torah states [Deuteronomy 5:12-14]:

And again [Exodus 23:12]:

According to this law not only human beings (of whatever social status) have a right (and duty) to their weekly sabbath rest, but also "your ox or your ass or any of your cattle". The Torah requires me to see to it that all my domesticated animals are free from labour on Shabbat. The sages were concerned that if one sells an animal to a non-Jew the animal will be forced to work on Shabbat. They were well aware that one is only responsible for the weekly rest of the animals as long as they are in one's charge; but the sages were wont to make binding decrees with a blanket application because of their concern for certain special circumstances that might reasonably be expected to arise. (See paragraph 5 below.)

4:
The sale of flock animals to non-Jews was never prohibited since such animals are never put to work. However, there were places, nevertheless, where it was not customary to make such a sale for fear that people might unthinkingly also sell herd animals to a non-Jew, which is prohibited everywhere. Therefore the reisha [first clause] of our mishnah states that one must abide by what is accepted in this matter by local custom: if it is acceptable to sell a non-Jew sheep or goats one is at liberty to do so; otherwise one may not do so despite one's own personal predilections.

5:
The sale to a non-Jew of herd animals, which can be used for labour, is generally prohibited because in many cases the sale is conditional: if the buyer likes what he gets he keeps it, if he doesn't he can return the animal after a few days' trial and get his money back. In the meantime it is possible that an animal over which a Jew still has proprietary rights is being worked on Shabbat. Another qualm of the sages was that people cannot be expected to distinguish between on the one hand a sale (which transfers ownership on a permanent basis) and on the other hand lending, leasing or hiring an animal to a non-Jew (in such cases the ownership is still that of the Jew).

6:
Rabbi Yehudah ben-Ilai would permit the sale of an injured animal to a non-Jew since it is obvious that it would not be denied its shabbat rest; rather it would be denied its life, the purchase obviously being for the purpose of slaughter and resale. Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah permits the sale of a horse, because he is of the opinion that riding a horse is not putting it to work. Neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah nor the opinion of Ben-Beteyrah are accepted halakhah.

As you will see from the circumstances of the following message sometimes it takes me some time to find an opportunity to respond to some messages. Patience is a virtue.

Mark Lautman writes:

At this time of writing I am preparing the Torah reading for Parashat Va'etĥanan. I have come across the verse in Deuteronomy 4:19:

It seems to me that the early commentators explain that God designated the stars for all people as signs and not for prayer – each people and its own special star. But the plain meaning of the text of the verse is that Israel is required to worship God whereas God designated the sun, the moon and the stars for the other peoples that they should worship them – not as a concession but as a duty. If this is the case is there a contradiction between this verse and the prohibition against idolatry among non-Jews?

I respond:

The sages understood the word 'star' in the context of our present discussion as 'planet'. And we must remember that the sages did believe in astrology – at least until the time of Rambam who claimed that astrology was sheer nonsense.

In Mishneh Torah [Idolatry 1:1] Rambam writes:

I would imagine that today few would accept Rambam's reasoning. But nevertheless, it is true that almost all pagan religion is derived from a belief that the planets influence our lives and that each planet is the embodiment of a deity – such as Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Saturn etc. Thus, if one accepts astrology – as the sages did – it was commonplace that each nation had its own guardian planet – except Israel, because, as Rabbi Yoĥanan says [Shabbat 156a] "Israel has no guardian planet".