And Rabbi Elazar says: Even in a place where they prohibited leaving an animal in seclusion with a gentile, it is permitted to sell it to a gentile. What is the reason? Once the animal is sold to the gentile, there is no concern that he will engage in bestiality. This is because a gentile spares his own animal from bestiality, as he does not want it to become sterile through this practice. By contrast, it is prohibited to leave one’s animal in seclusion with a gentile, as he would have no such compunction with regard to an animal belonging to others. The Gemara notes: And even Rav retracted his opinion; as Rav Taḥlifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avimi says in the name of Rav: A gentile spares his animal, as he does not want it to become sterile.

§ The mishna teaches: But in every place one may not sell to gentiles large livestock, calves, or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason? The Gemara explains: Granted, we are not concerned about the gentile engaging in bestiality with the animal, but we are concerned about him putting the animal to work on Shabbat.

The Gemara expresses puzzlement: And let the gentile put it to work. Why should one be concerned about this possibility? Since he bought it, he acquires it and may put it to work on Shabbat, as it no longer belongs to the Jew. The Gemara answers: Selling it is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the concern of lending and due to the concern of leasing the animal to the gentile, as in those cases the animal would be performing work on Shabbat when it is owned by a Jew.

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: But during that time period, the act of borrowing the animal causes the gentile to temporarily acquire it, and likewise, by leasing the animal, he temporarily acquires it. Why, then, is it a problem if the gentile puts the animal to work on Shabbat?

Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said: Selling is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the concern with regard to testing. As at times, one sells an animal to a gentile when it is close to sunset of Shabbat eve, and one says to him: Go and test the animal, and it hears the voice of its Jewish owner and walks because of his command. And it is beneficial to the Jewish seller that the animal should walk, as he wants to demonstrate to the gentile that it is fit for labor. And in this manner, he is considered one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat. And one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to the Gemara’s assumption that leasing confers ownership. And by leasing an item, does one actually acquire it? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (21a): Even in a place with regard to which the Sages said that it is permitted for a Jew to rent a house to a gentile, they did not say that one may rent it for use as a residence, because the gentiles will bring objects of idol worship into it? The objection is as follows: And if it enters your mind to say that through leasing one acquires an item or property, then when this gentile brings the idols into the house he brings them into his own house. Why, then, is it prohibited for a Jew to rent a residence to a gentile?

The Gemara answers: Idol worship is different, as it is a particularly severe prohibition, and therefore even an item that does not entirely belong to a Jew is treated with great stringency. As it is written: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26), and this house still retains the name of its Jewish owner.

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, also objects to the Gemara’s assumption that leasing confers ownership. And by leasing an item, does one actually acquire it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 11:9): An Israelite who rented a cow from a priest may feed it vetches of teruma, as the animal belongs to a priest; and conversely, a priest who rented a cow from an Israelite, although the responsibility to feed it is incumbent upon him, he may not feed it vetches of teruma, as it does not belong to him.

And if it enters your mind to say that through leasing one acquires the item, why can’t the priest feed it vetches of teruma? After all, it is currently his own cow. Rather, learn from here that one does not acquire an item through leasing. The Gemara comments: And now that you have said that one does not acquire an item through leasing, and therefore an animal that was leased to a gentile still belongs to the Jew, the original proposal can be accepted: The reason that one cannot sell large livestock to gentiles is a rabbinic decree due to the concern of leasing, and a decree due to the concern of lending the animal to the gentile, and also a decree due to the concern of testing.

§ The Gemara relates: Rav Adda permitted the owners of a donkey to sell their donkey to gentiles by means of a Jewish middleman [desafseira]. He reasoned as follows: If the concern is due to testing, in this case the animal does not recognize the voice of the middleman so that it would walk because of him. And if the concern is due to lending and leasing, since the donkey is not his, that middleman would neither lend nor lease it. Additionally, the middleman would not lease or lend the animal because he wants to sell it and does not want any blemish to be revealed in it.

The Gemara relates: Rav Huna sold a certain cow to a gentile. Rav Ḥisda said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in that manner? Rav Huna said to him: I can say that he purchased it in order to slaughter it, not to use it for labor.