Opinion: It appears that we are also permitted nowadays to sell weapons to Nochrim on the basis that they will use them to protect us (if this is the case).

Explanation: A male can also be used to have relations with many females.

Implied Question: This (the Gemara's statement that a Treifah will not accept a male) is not because Rebbi Yehudah holds that a Treifah does not give birth, as in Chulin (57b) we want to suggest that according to Rebbi Yehudah a Treifah does give birth. (If it gives birth, how can we say it does not accept a male?)

Answer: Rather, he literally means it does not accept a male. (However, if it had been impregnated before it became a Treifah, it could give birth.) This is implied by our Gemara, which does not deduce that a Treifah does not give birth.

Question: This is difficult. Why don't we say that Rebbi does not hold of the concept, "Chai Nosei Es Atzmo" - "A living being carries itself" regarding birds, just as the Rabbanan do not hold of this regarding birds?

Answer: Being that Rebbi forbids the sale of a horse because of the weapon aspect (that a horse can be used in battle), the implication is that even a horse that is specifically for people (riding it) is forbidden, despite the fact that everyone agrees that a living being carries itself. If so, what is the "large animal" reason to forbid its sale? It is therefore apparent that there are three different opinions. (The Maharam explains that Ben Beseirah even permits a horse that is specifically for birds. Rebbi even forbids a horse that is for people to ride on it. The Rabbanan forbid a horse that is for birds, but permit a horse that is for people. However, see Rashash who notes that Tosfos in Shabbos argues that the Chachamim also forbid the sale of all types of horses to Nochrim.)

Question: This is difficult. Why do we require the reason that if the fattened animal is left around it will be used for work? We should derive that the reason is because if he leaves it around, people will end up saying that he sold it when it was skinny. This is similar to the Rabbinic decree regarding an animal with a broken limb that it still cannot be sold to Nochrim, as we do not want people to say that he sold it when it was healthy.

Answer: It is certainly understandable to make this decree regarding an animal with a broken limb. Being that the Rabbanan hold that a male animal could mate with it, he will keep it around for along time. However, in the small amount of time that he keeps an animal that is fattened, there is no reason to make a decree if it were not for the reason that it is fit to work when it becomes skinny.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not specifically mean, "this (animal is for slaughter)" as regarding regular oxen we also say that they are presumably sold for slaughter. (Why, then, does the Gemara say this is for slaughter? What is it excluding?)

Answer: Rather, it says this to exclude the large animal discussed by our Mishnah, which is an unkosher animal. However, every kosher animal is presumed to be used for slaughter, even though regular oxen are also used for plowing.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that Rav Ashis statement is according to Rebbi Yehudah, who permits selling an animal with a broken limb. However, the Rabbanan who forbid selling an animal with a broken limb also forbid selling a lion.

Explanation#2: The Ri says that Rav Ashi's statement could even be according to the Rabbanan. The Rabbanan only forbade selling an animal with a broken limb because one might think that the Jew sold it to the Nochri when it was healthy (and it only broke its limb after it was in the possession of the Nochri). However, regarding a lion this reason does not apply, as a lion is always considered "broken" regarding doing work.

Explanation: The Ri explains that Rav Nachman's question is also on these answers when they were quoted earlier in our Gemara.

Text: There are indeed Sefarim that have the text that Rav Nachman asked this question earlier as well, and there is indeed no reason to have erased this text from our Gemara.

Explanation: The Ri says that the Gemara means that Rav Ashi deduces from the Mishnah that a lion is categorized as a large undomesticated animal (thereby answering Rav Nachman's question).

Explanation (cont.): This is because the Mishnah separately lists a lion, due to the fact that it cannot do work. If it is a small undomesticated animal (which does not do work) and it is also forbidden, the Mishnah should have merely said, "Any undomesticated animal that can damage the public should not be sold." (Being that the Mishnah made a separate point that we do not sell lions, the implication is that it is specifically referring to large undomesticated animals. It is saying that even large undomesticated animals that do not work cannot be sold to Nochrim, even if they do not pose a threat to the public.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that a platform composed of one rock upon which people offer sacrifices for idols is called an altar etc. They are permitted because they are only an item that is used for an item used for idolatry.

Question#1: This is difficult, as it cannot be that such a platform is used for an item that is used for idolatry, rather it is itself is used for idolatry. This is as the Mishnah states later (47b) that a stone that was carved to be used as a Bimus etc. Rashi there explains that this is a stone upon which the idol itself sits. Those who serve the Bimus are like those who serve the idol itself.

Question#1 (cont.): The Gemara (53b) also says that Bimosiyos of idolatrous kings are forbidden, because they place upon them idols when the kings worship. This implies that it is literally something that is used for the idol itself.

Question#2: Additionally, even if it is something that is used for an item used for idolatry, why should it be permitted to build such a thing with idolaters? Is it logical to permit building an altar with them so they can sacrifice with a fire-pan sacrifices (or incense) to an idol?!

Opinion#2: The Ri therefore understands that the correct text is that of the Aruch, who has the text of "Dimosiyos" with a Daled. This is a term meaning (a type of) bathhouses, as stated in Shabbos (147b) that it is forbidden to sit on the floor of Dimosiyos on Shabbos, because they cause the skin to become hot and heal. The Gemara there similarly says, the water of the Damusya (bathhouses) and the wine of Frugisa beat the Ten Tribes. The Medrash also says, "Tomorrow I will open for them bathhouses and Dimosiyos."

Opinion#3: The Rashbam also has the text "Dimosiyos," and explains that these are buildings that are not used for idolatry.

Explanation: The word Dimus refers to the mercy of the judge's idol, as Dimus is a term meaning mercy.

Proof: This is as the Yerushalmi in Shevi'is states (ch.9) with the incident regarding Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai that happened after he came out of the cave (where he was hiding due to the persecution of the Romans). He saw someone who was hunting birds. When he heard a Bas Kol say, "Dimus" there was a Pisgah. This means that when the word Dimus was said, the bird flew away from the trap. When the Bas Kol said, "Spikula" the bird would be trapped in the trap. [The word Kula is the Targum of Pach.] This implies that Dimus is a term of mercy.

Observation: The Yerushalmi continues that Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai remarked that we see from here that even a light bird would not be trapped without a declaration from Heaven. Certainly this is also true regarding a person!