Question: Why do we need the reason of Mechamer (that the animal goes because of him)? Shevisas Behemto (even if the animal moves because of the Nochri) should be enough of a reason!

Answer: The Ri answers that Shevisas Behemto is not reason to forbid selling an animal to a Nochri, as the only possible problem would be that at the time of the sale he would make the animal walk. Only borrowing or renting should be prohibited due to Shevisas Behemto, as it (potentially) works the entire Shabbos. However, Nisyoni, which is only an issue at the beginning of the sale which happens right before Shabbos would not be a reason to forbid the sale, if it were not for the reason of Mechamer which is more stringent.

Opinion: The Ri understands that the case is where the Kohen must feed the animal, not the Yisrael. This is apparent from the fact that the Mishnah does not say, "Even though he is obligated to feed it" in the first case, as is indeed stated by the second part of the Mishnah.

Opinion (cont.): Additionally, if the Yisrael would have to feed the animal, instead of deducing from the second part of the Mishnah that renting does not acquire, we should deduce from the first part that renting does not acquire! This would be understood from the first case, as we would say (if the Kohen had to supply the food) that the Yisrael can feed it Terumah because the food must be supplied by the Kohen. (This would show that renting does not acquire.) There is therefore no problem (for the Yisrael to feed it Terumah, as the Yisrael does not own the animal in anyway). (However, the truth is that the Yisrael has to supply the food, which is why the first case is not proof that renting does not acquire.)

Observation: The Gemara here concludes that renting is not considered to be acquiring.

Question: This is difficult. In Bava Metzia (56b, see also Tosfos there DH "v'Hai"), the Gemara concludes that the law of Ona'ah (overcharging prohibited by the Torah) applies to rental. This is implied by the Pasuk, "And when you will make a sale to your friend," which does not read, "And when you will make a sale forever." This Pasuk implies that renting is considered a sale. (Being that the Torah did not explicitly say that this only applies to something that is sold forever, the implication is that this applies to renting as well.)

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Torah only implied that a sale can also be temporary (i.e. renting) regarding Ona'ah, as it says the extra word "Memkar" - "sale." However, regarding everything else we can say that renting is not considered a sale.

Question: This is difficult. Why don't we forbid this? People who see the donkey by the house of the idolater will think that the owner himself sold it to the idolater, and they will come to permit the owner himself to sell a donkey to an idolater! This is similar to what I explained in the Mishnah regarding an animal that has a broken limb.

Answer: People find out when a middleman is used in a sale.

Opinion: Rabeinu Shmaya explains that this would be a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah (a decree protecting another decree, which we generally do not do). We would have to decree that a middleman is not good because an owner might sell, and even the owner is only forbidden to sell due to a decree that he might lend, rent, or call the animal (immediately after the sale).

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that our Mishnah which says one cannot sell an animal is referring to a case of an unkosher animal, even if nothing is said, or a kosher animal where the idolater specifies that he wants to keep it alive (i.e. to do work).

Opinion#2: The Rashbam explains in the name of Rashi that this is specifically referring to a cow, as people do not usually do work with cows. However, one cannot sell oxen, as most oxen are used for work. Calves and foals also cannot be sold. Despite the fact that they currently cannot do work, when they get older they will do work.

Question: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this explanation. On the contrary, in the entire Gemara the implication is that cows are used for plowing. This is as stated later, regarding the case of a cow that plows on Shemitah.

Question (cont.): This (that cows are used for plowing) is also implied by the Gemara in Pesachim (14a) that discusses the two cows that would plow on Har Ha'Mishchah. This is also implied by the Gemara in Bava Metzia (80a) that discusses a case of a person who rents a cow to plow a mountain. This is also indicated in the chapter of ha'Shoel Es ha'Parah (see 96a). They would use cows because oxen would gore, as stated in Bava Kama (46a) regarding an ox who gored.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara says in Bava Basra (92b) that most oxen are sold for plowing. (How, then, can we say that this was mainly done by cows?)

Answer: Even so, they were not fit for work like the cows.

Opinion#3: It therefore appears to Rabeinu Tam that both cows and oxen can be sold for slaughter. The Mishnah that tells us not to sell a large animal is referring specifically to unkosher animals, as Rashi explains.

Opinion#3 (cont.): Calves are specifically mentioned as being forbidden, as they are needed for work. If he would want them for slaughter, he wouldn't bother to buy them and raise them (he would simply buy a cow). Foals are also included to teach that even though they cannot currently be used for work, they cannot be sold.

Question: There is difficulty with Rabeinu Tam's explanation. Later (16a), when the Gemara asks a question regarding a fattened ox, it implies that other oxen are generally forbidden.

Answer#1: The Ri says that oxen are actually permitted to be sold. However, the Gemara is unsure regarding the sale of a fattened ox, as perhaps one should be stringent not to sell it to an idolater due to the known principle that if it gets back into shape it can do twice as much work as a regular ox. This means it essentially is even more fit to work than other oxen!

Answer#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that the case of the fattened ox is that it is not yet fattened, but rather is about to be fattened. The Gemara therefore asks that perhaps it should be forbidden to be sold more than other oxen, as while it is waiting to be fattened he might change his mind and use it for work.

Question: Even though he only sells the animal for slaughter, why don't we suspect that he will have relations with the animal before he slaughters it? This is similar to the incident later (22b) where an idolater bought a duck from the market, had relations with it, strangled it, and ate it.

Answer: This incident was an uncommon incident (the fact that he bought it to eat and had relations with it first), and therefore the Rabbanan did not make a decree in this matter.

Observation: We now see that according to both the Rashbam and Rabeinu Tam it is forbidden to sell an idolater calves, foals, and all unkosher animals.

Question#1: It is therefore difficult to understand why they (or we, see Avodah Berurah) allow the sale of calves and foals to idolaters.

Question#2: It is also difficult to understand how they (or we) can sell them foals. It is understandable that those foals that are only for riding can be sold. This is because Rebbi Yochanan (16a) rules like Ben Beseirah who permits selling horses because they only do work which does not entail a Torah prohibition (of Shabbos desecration). There is no reason to forbid them because they are carrying their saddle (which should be a Torah prohibition of carrying on Shabbos), as the saddle is considered part of the person who is riding on them (and the person is considered to carry himself). However, the type of foals that pull wagons, and especially a case when the idolater specifies that he is buying the foal to plow his field or pull a wagon, is difficult. (How can we permit this?)

Answer: It is possible to answer that according to the Gemara's conclusion that one can sell these animals through a middleman as the animal does not recognize the voice of the middleman, this is understandable. Even our own animals do not recognize our voice! There is therefore no more reason to suspect that we will call them immediately after the deal (at the onset of Shabbos). We also do not usually lend or rent our animals to others.

Question: However, there is still a difficulty regarding those who do normally rent animals to idolaters.

Answer: The prohibition against selling idolaters unkosher animals was certainly only in their days when there were many Jews that lived together. If a person did not need an animal, he would sell it to his friend and he would not lose any money. However, what can we do now that a person cannot always find a Jewish buyer? Should have to lose money?! This is why the custom of the Gaonim was to permit this.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, the Gemara later asks that we should not even be allowed to sell them wheat or barley. The Gemara answers, this is too difficult of a decree (and therefore the Rabbanan did not make such a decree). The same is true regarding selling calves, foals, and horses today, being that it is too difficult.

Opinion: Rabeinu Baruch therefore ruled that according to this, one should only permit this when a person bought the horse for himself, and then changed his mind and wanted to sell it. If he will not sell it, he will lose his money. However, it is forbidden for a person to establish a business of buying horses in order to sell them and profit. If he does not buy them, he will not lose any money!

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that therefore (being that a person is not commanded to make sure his animal does not work on Shemitah) there is no reason to make a decree not to sell one's animal to this Jew who is suspected of working on Shemitah because of renting, borrowing, and Nisyoni, as it is inapplicable. There is also no problem of Lifnei Iver, as we assume that he wants it to slaughter it for its meat. However, regarding a Nochri, the fact is that a person is commanded to ensure that his animal does not work on Shabbos. This is why there is reason to make a decree not to sell an animal to a Nochri due to the Shabbos prohibition that can come up in a case of renting, borrowing, and Nisyoni. This is the explanation of Rashi.

Question: This is difficult. If so, what is the question, "A field etc.?" A field is not relative to the decree of borrowing and Nisyoni that we make regarding an animal! This is obviously true, as we do not forbid the selling of a field to a Nochri for this reason, although we do forbid the sale of a large animal for this reason.

Explanation#2: It therefore appears that when we say that a person is not commanded to ensure his animal does not work on Shemitah, it means that the prohibition is not dependent on the animal, but rather on the (working of the) land. Even if he lent his cow to a Nochri to plow on Shemitah, there is no denigrating prohibition that is being transgressed through the animal's plowing. We can therefore sell the cow to a Jew who is suspected of working the land on Shemitah, because we can presume he wants the cow for its meat. However, being that on Shabbos the prohibition is dependent on the animal itself (working on Shabbos), and there is a prohibition for the Jew if he allows a Nochri to plow with his animal on Shabbos, we do not allow it to be sold to a Nochri just because the Nochri might slaughter it.

Explanation#2 (cont.): The Gemara therefore asks, a person is commanded that his field should not have work done on it during Shemitah! If he allows another Jew to plant in his field on Shemitah, a Torah prohibition is being transgressed. Yet we still allow a person to sell a field that is plowed to a Jew who is suspected of working on Shemitah, as we say that he might leave it fallow (and not plant it)!

Question: This is difficult. This is a case of an entirely different nature! Didn't the Gemara realize that vessels are different because there is no other reason why he would want these vessels on Shemitah if not to work with them? All of the previous cases where we were lenient were only because we had a reason to presume the buyer would do something that was permitted with the item, such as slaughter the animal or leave the field fallow (instead of using it for a forbidden purpose)!

Answer: It is perhaps possible to answer that the questioner thought that it is possible to presume that the person is buying this equipment (on Shemitah) for the year after Shemitah, and even so we say it is forbidden.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this is a "Rachas" - "shovel used to turn over grain," and it is called a Pl"a (in Old French).

Question: This is difficult, as the Pasuk in Yeshayah (30:24) says, "With a Rachas and a Mezareh." (This clearly indicates that a Rachas and Mezareh are two different things!)

Explanation#2: This is why the Ri says that this Mezareh is a vessel used for plowing.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this is a shovel called a Pashuyo"r (in Old French).

Question: This is difficult according to the Ri. We say in Beitzah (7b) that this (that he can cover the blood if he slaughters a bird or undomesticated animal on Yom Tov) is only if he already has a Deker stuck into the ground. However, it is not common that a shovel is left stuck in the ground.

Explanation#2: The Ri therefore understands that this is referring to a plowing tool called a Koltr"a, which is normally (left) stuck in the ground.

Explanation: The explanation for his action is that we can presume that he will sell it to a Jew.

Question: This is difficult, as Rabah himself pushed aside Rav Huna's reasoning earlier (top of 15b) when Rav Huna said that we presume that the Nochri is going to slaughter the animal. This is why Rabah asked, "Are the cases comparable (ibid.)?"

Answer#1: It is possible that after he heard an explanation from Rav Huna, he accepted the explanation.

Answer#2: It is also possible that the cases are not similar. Earlier, there is not much reason to assume that the cow will be used for slaughter, as most of them are used for plowing. (However, Rabah had the right to assume that the Jew would probably sell the animal to a Jew.)

Text: According to the Sefarim that have the text earlier of "Rava" (asking the question on Rav Huna), and only in our Gemara the text "Rabah," there is no question.

Observation: The Gemara concludes that one cannot sell (a donkey) to a Jew who is suspected (of selling to Nochrim).

Question: Why is this different from the law of Lifnei d'Lifnei stated earlier (which is permitted)?

Answer#1: The Gemara there is discussing a Nochri (the middleman) who is not commanded on Lifnei Iver. Therefore, we do not suspect that the Nochri might sell to his friend. However, here we are discussing a Jew who is suspected of sinning, and we are commanded that he should not sin due to our actions. This answer is advanced by Rabeinu Elchanan.

Answer#2: Additionally, there is only one Lifnei, namely that the Jew should not sin by selling the animal to a Nochri due to borrowing, renting, and Nisyoni. (See Insights here at length regarding the various ways to understand these answers.)

Implied Question: Despite the fact that we previously said that we assume he bought it for slaughter, here we do not presume that the Jew will sell it to a Jew. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because he will sell it to both equally (he just wants his money).