Commentary for Avodah Zarah 26:1

This baraita is brought here because the method of “disabling” contradicts the method mentioned in the other baraita. The topic here is one who dedicates an animal or something else to the Temple in a time where the Temple still stands. This is something one should not do, but if one did do it, he should somehow destroy the object so that it will not be brought to the Temple. The animal must be left to starve to death. [Note that this seems to obviously cause pain to the animal, but the rabbis, for various reasons, are not bothered by this.]

Abaye answers the difficulty by saying that it is prohibited to hamstring the sanctified animal because that would be considered treating sacrificial animals in a disgraceful way. One cannot slaughter the animal as a proper sacrifice because that might lead to people eating it. And one cannot cut it in half because the Torah prohibits destroying holy objects in the way that we are commanded to destroy items of idolatry.

Rava explains that disabling the animal is prohibited because there is a prohibition of putting a blemish in a sacrificial animal. Such a blemish prevents the animal from being sacrificed. When the Temple still stood, this prohibition was considered to be biblical and disabling the animal was certainly a full blemish. But once the Temple no longer stood, the prohibition was only “like putting a blemish.”

When the Temple still stood, it was prohibited to blemish a sacrificial animal even if it was already blemished. So why here does Rava say it is “like inflicting an animal with a blemish.” This seems to be really prohibited. The answer is that when the Temple still stood a blemished animal could be sold and the proceeds would go to the Temple. The animal was thus useful and blemishing it would damage it. But this animal is not fit for anything since there is no Temple. Therefore, blemishing it, while still prohibited, would only be “like blemishing” and not “real blemishing.”

Yonah asks what a Jew is to do if he bought a slave at an idolatrous fair. He knows that if one buys an animal, he should disable it, but what should he really disable a slave?
Ilai quotes a source proving that it is prohibited to actively cause harm to an idolater. This is a source we shall talk about later, and it is a troubling source, but for now, it is being used here not to encourage discrimination and violence, but to discourage it.

Zera says that the permission to buy slaves from idolaters applies only to Jewish slaves. He seems to understand the baraita as allowing Jews to buy from non-Jews only if they are “rescuing from them.” But a Jew does not need to “rescue” non-Jews from Canaanite ownership.

Resh Lakish offers a different answer to R. Yirmiyah’s question. A Jew may purchase even a Canaanite slave for by doing so he brings him “under the wings of the Shekhinah.” A Canaanite slave is obligated in many of the mitzvot. Purchasing a Canaanite slave is thus, essentially, converting him.

Ashi offers a different reason altogether why one is allowed to buy slaves from idolaters—it diminishes their possessions.

We hear of two amoraim who simply bought from idolaters at the idolatrous fair, and each accuses the other of acting improperly.

In reality, both amoraim did not break the prohibition, for both bought from private individuals from whom taxes are not collected. Since taxes are not collected, the Jew is not providing benefit to idolatry.

Abba says that at times they take taxes even from private persons and thus buying even from a private person should be prohibited. So how then can we justify the behavior of these sages? They bought from a private individual who did not pay taxes because he did not reside there permanently. Visitors, evidently, did not pay taxes.

Iztroblin are the pines of a cedar tree. Bnot-shuah are types of figs. All of these things listed in this section are used by the idolaters for idol worship. Therefore it is forbidden to sell them to non-Jews since that would be abetting idolatry.

Rabbi Judah presents some exceptions to the prohibition of selling a white rooster to an idolater. A Jew may sell a white rooster to an idolater if it is sold with other regular roosters. In this case the Jew is merely selling roosters and happens to sell one that is white. The non-Jew may also not be purchasing the rooster for idolatrous purposes since he bought a lot of other roosters. Furthermore, when he sells the white rooster it doesn’t look to others as if he is selling something specifically for idol worship, since the other roosters he is selling will not typically be used in idol worship. Rabbi Judah also creates a way for Jews to sell white roosters alone to idolaters. As long as the Jew cuts off the spur the sale is permitted since the idolater will not sacrifice a blemished animal.
With regards to the other forbidden items, it is forbidden to sell them to idolaters only if the sale is specifically for idol worship. If not, it is permitted to sell the item, because it may be used for other, non-idolatrous purposes.

Rabbi Meir adds several other things which are forbidden for a Jew to sell to idolaters. All three of these are varieties of date-palms.