משנה: אֵילּוּ כֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין הָאוּמָּן רַשַּׁאי לְמוֹכְרָן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית מַחֲרֵישָׁה וְכָל־כֵּלֶיהָ הָעוֹל וְהַמִּזְרָה וְהַדֶּקֶר. אֲבָל מוֹכֵר הוּא מַגַּל יַד וּמַגַּל קְצִיר וַעֲגָלָה וְכָל־כֵּלֶיהָ. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־שֶׁמְּלַאכְתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ אָסוּר לְאִיסּוּר וּלְהֵיתֵר מוּתָּר. הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר חָמֵשׁ כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה כַּדֵּי יַיִן שֶׁכֵּן דַּרְכּוֹ לְהָבִיא מִן הַהֶבְקֵר אִם הֵבִיא יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן מוּתָּר. וּמוֹכֵר לַגּוֹיִם בָּאָרֶץ וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים לֹא יִמְכּוֹר לוֹ פָּרָה חוֹרֶשֶׁת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְשׁוֹחֲטָהּ. וּמוֹכֵר לוֹ פֵּירוֹת אֲפִילוּ בִשְׁעַת הַזֶּרַע וּמַשְׁאִיל לוֹ סְאָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֵּשּׁ לוֹ פוֹעֲלִין וּפוֹרֵט לוֹ מָעוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֵּשּׁ לוֹ פוֹעֲלִין. וְכוּלָּן בְּפֵירוּשׁ אֲסוּרָה. MISHNAH: These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical: A plough and all its implements, a yoke, a winnowing fork and an axe. But he may sell a hand sickle, a grain sickle, a carriage and all its implements. This is the principle: Everything that is used only for its work62In most Mishnah mss: לעבירה “for sinful activity”. is forbidden; [if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted.
The seller65This text is only found in the Leyden ms. and the Venice print. All other sources have הַיּוֹצֵר “the potter”. The quote in the Halakhah shows that this should be the text here also. may sell five oil amphoras and fifteen wine amphoras because so much one brings from ownerless property66Since all produce in the Sabbatical is ownerless, this is what one usually collects under Sabbatical rules.. If he brought more than that amount, it is permitted. He may sell to Gentiles in the Land and to Jews outside of the Land. The House of Shammai say, one may not sell to him68The person known to flout the laws of the Sabbatical. a ploughing cow during the Sabbatical but the House of Hillel permit it because he might slaughter it. One may sell him produce even during the sowing season and lend him one's measuring device even though one knows that he has workers, and one may exchange coins for him even though one knows that he has workers. In all cases it is forbidden if specified.
הלכה: אֵילּוּ כֵּלִים כו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא אֵילּוּ כֵּלִים שֶׁאֵין הָאוּמָּן רַשַּׁאי לְמוֹכְרָן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית לֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית. סְתָמָן מַהוּ מִן מַה דְּתַנֵּי לְאִיסּוּר וּלְהֵיתֵר מוּתָּר הָדָא אָֽמְרָה סְתָמָן מוּתָּר. HALAKHAH: “These are the implements”, etc. Rebbi Jonah said: So is the Mishnah63The interpretation of the Mishnah given in his time.: “These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical to a person suspected of violating the Sabbatical.” If one does not know64The seller does not know the extent of religious observation of the prospective buyer., what is the rule? Since it was stated “[if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted”, that means that it is permitted if one does not know.
הַיוֹצֵר מוֹכֵר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא הֶחֱלִיף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה נִכָּרוֹת הֵן. אֵילּוּ שֶׁל יַיִן וְאֵילּוּ שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי עוּלָּא אַדְרָא דְּאִילֵּין חֲכִימָא וְאַדְרָא דְּאִילֵּין חֲכִימָא. “The potter may sell”. Should we not worry and say, maybe he will switch? Rebbi Jonah said, one recognizes, these are for wine and those for oil. Rebbi Ulla said, the material of these is known and the material of those is known67According to R. Jonah, the amphoras are distinguished by their shapes, according to R. Ulla by their material. In the translation, (أرض) ארדא "material, earth" is read for אדרא "skin", following R. E. D. Lapp..
מוֹכֵר לַגּוֹיִם בָּאָרֶץ וַאֲפִילוּ יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֲפִילוּ מִן הַקָּנוּי בָּאָרֶץ. “He may sell to Gentiles in the Land” even a larger quantity “and to Jews outside of the Land” even for what was bought in the Land.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים כו׳. תַּנֵּי הַמּוֹכֶר שׁוֹר לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִמְצָא נוֹגְחָן רַב אָמַר מֶקַח טָעוּת הוּא וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר יְכִיל הוּא מֵימַור לֵיהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מָכַרְתִּיו לָךְ. מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין אִם בְּשֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לְאָרִיס דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לַחֲרִישָׁה מָכַר. אִם בְּשֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לְטַבָּח דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לִשְׁחִיטָה מָכַר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בְּשֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לְסִרְסוּר. רַב אָמַר מֶקַח טָעוּת הוּא. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר יְכִיל הוּא מֵימַר לִשְׁחִיטָה מָכַרְתִּיו לָךְ. מֻחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב מֻחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן מְכָרָהּ לוֹ בְּיוֹבֵל עַצְמוֹ רַב אָמַר קָנָה וְיוֹצֵא מִיָּדוֹ בַּיּוֹבֶל שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לֹא קָנָה. מֻחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר קָנָה וָכָא הוּא אָמַר לֹא קָנָה. תַּמָּן יוֹבֵל מְפוּרְסָם הוּא בְּרַם הָכָא מֶקַח טָעוּת הוּא. מֻחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר לֹא קָנָה וָכָא אָמַר קָנָה. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר מְכָרָהּ לוֹ לֹא לִזְרִיעָה. בְּרַם הָכָא יָכוֹל הוּא מֵימַור לֵיהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מָכַרְתִּיו לָךְ. “The House of Shammai say”, etc. It was stated69The expression usually is reserved for Tannaitic statements; this Amoraic statement is found in Babli Baba Qama 46a, Baba Batra 92a. The statement is identical but the interpretation is radically different: Samuel is interpreted to hold that probabilities are not admitted in suits about monetary claims while Rav will admit probabilistic arguments in civil suits.: If somebody sells an ox and it turns out be a goring one, Rav said it is an erroneous transaction70The buyer may return what he bought for a full refund. but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you for slaughtering. What are we talking about? If he sold it to a sharecropper, he sold it for ploughing. If he sold it to a butcher, he sold it for slaughter. But we are considering that he sold it to a broker71The Babli notes that usually an ox trained for ploughing is much more valuable than one sold for slaughter and we are forced to conclude that we are dealing with the unlikely case that the two prices are about equal and one cannot determine the use of the ox by the price paid. This argument is discussed in the next paragraph.. Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering. The reasoning of Rav is inverted, the reasoning of Samuel is inverted. For they disagreed72Arakhin.29b">Babli Arakhin 29b. The argument is purely theoretical since the institution of the Jubilee, in which all agricultural land reverts to the family who received it under Joshua, was not (and could not have been) revived during the Second Commonwealth.: If he sold it73A field. Since the Jubilee is also a Sabbatical, the buyer could never have any benefit from his buy. during the Jubilee year itself, Rav said he acquired it and it leaves his hand in the Jubilee year; Samuel says he did not acquire. The reasoning of Rav is inverted: there he said he acquired and here he said he did not acquire. There the Jubilee is public knowledge74Nobody can claim ignorance of the basic rules of the Jubilee; hence, the transaction was entered upon in the full knowledge of its futility. But in the case of the ox, the buyer has no advance knowledge of its dangerous behavior. but here there is an erroneous transaction. The reasoning of Samuel is inverted: there he said he did not acquire and here he said he acquired. For what purpose did he sell it to him if not for sowing75It is stated in Leviticus.25.15">Lev. 25:15 that fields are sold for future harvests. Therefore, a transaction that cannot lead to a harvest is illegal.? But here he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering.
רַב כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. רַב כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי וַאֲפִילוּ יִסְבּוֹר כְּבֵית הִלֵּל לֵית אוֹרְחָהּ מַשְׁהָתָהּ תַּלְתִּין יוֹמִין וְיַתִּין תְּלָֽתְתֵי יוֹמַיָּא לֹא מֶקַח טָעוּת הוּא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּבֵית הִלֵּל וַאֲפִילוּ יִסְבּוֹר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי לֵית אוֹרְחָהּ דְּבַר נַשָּׁא מֵיכוֹס תּוֹרָא רַדִּיָא. Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep76Cattle bought for slaughter. for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction77Even for Samuel.? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle78In the case of the Mishnah, he would agree with the House of Shammai that a cow bought explicitly for ploughing is not to be slaughtered. But in the case of the goring ox it is a matter of monetary claim and in suits over money it is incumbent on the claimant to prove his claim; he cannot have recourse to an argument about probabilities. For Rav and Samuel the case of the goring ox has no parallel in the Mishnah here..
רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּר חִייָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הִשְׁאִיל לוֹ סְאָתוֹ וּבָא וּמְצָאוֹ מוֹדֵד בָּהּ אֵינוֹ זָקוּק לוֹ כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן בְּמַשְׂכִּירָהּ לוֹ. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody lent his measuring cup and found him using it79The lender found the borrower using his measuring vessel for a Sabbatical crop, in violation of the rules., he does not have to say anything; much less if he rented it out.