Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 21, 2018 | 讛壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Avodah Zarah 6

Study Guide Avoda Zara 6

When the mishna says three days before the holiday – does it mean including the day of the holiday (3 all together)聽 or 3 full days before plus the day of the holiday? Several sources are brought to attempt to answer the question. What is the reason for the prohibition – is it because he/she will thank their聽gods because of it or is it because you are helping them to聽worship idols? What if you sold stuff to the non-Jew anyway, is it forbidden to benefit from the聽money received? Why are all the case in the mishna聽forbidden both in a way where you are helping the non-Jew and also when the non-Jew is helping you?

Shiur in memory of Rachel bat Menachem Mendel and Pesha


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专讬驻讛 讬讜诇讚转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗转讱 讘讚讜诪讬谉 诇讱 讜讚诇诪讗 谞讞 讙讜驻讬讛 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 转诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

But according to the one who says that a tereifa can give birth, what can be said? According to this opinion, a tereifa cannot be excluded by the phrase: 鈥淭o keep seed alive.鈥 The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the animals that were brought by Noah into the ark: 鈥淵ou shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you鈥 (Genesis 6:19). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 indicates that the verse is stated with regard to animals that are similar to you, but not a tereifa. The Gemara asks: But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa. If so, one cannot exclude a tereifa from the comparison of animals to Noah. The Gemara answers: It is written about Noah that he was 鈥渃omplete鈥 (Genesis 6:9).

讜讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诐 讘讚专讻讬讜 讛讬讛 爪讚讬拽 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that his ways were complete, but it is not referring to Noah鈥檚 physical attributes. The Gemara explains: It is already written about him that he was 鈥渞ighteous鈥 (Genesis 6:9), which means that his actions were perfect. Consequently, when the verse says that he was also complete, it must be referring to his body.

讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诐 讘讚专讻讬讜 爪讚讬拽 讘诪注砖讬讜 讛讜讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚谞讞 讙讜驻讬讛 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讗讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚谞讞 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讻讜讜转讱 注讬讬诇 砖诇诪讬谉 诇讗 转注讬讬诇

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that Noah was complete in his manner, and he was righteous in his good deeds. Accordingly, the verse would not exclude the possibility that Noah himself was a tereifa. The Gemara explains: It cannot enter your mind that Noah himself was a tereifa, as, if it enters your mind that Noah was a tereifa, would the Merciful One have said to him: Bring in tereifot like you to the ark, but do not bring in whole and perfect animals?

讜讛砖转讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗转讱 诇讞讬讜转 讝专注 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诪讗转讱 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇爪讜讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讝拽谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住专讬住 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讝专注

The Gemara asks: And now that it has been established that one derives the disqualification of a tereifa from the term 鈥渨ith you,鈥 why do I need the phrase 鈥渢o keep seed alive鈥? The Gemara answers: If one could learn only from 鈥渨ith you,鈥 I would say that Noah brought the animals to the ark only for the purpose of company, and therefore even an animal that is elderly and even one who is castrated can come into the ark, provided that it is not a tereifa. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭o keep seed alive,鈥 teaching that only animals that could bear offspring may be brought into the ark.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When the mishna teaches that it is prohibited to conduct business with gentiles on the three days before their festival, do the three days include them, i.e., the days preceding the festival and their festival itself, in which case the prohibition applies only to the festival and the two preceding days? Or perhaps it is referring to them without their festival, i.e., the prohibition applies to three full days before the festival.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讗住讜专 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讬讜诐 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讞砖讬讘 诇讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讞砖讬讘 诇讛讜 诇讘住讜祝

The Gemara suggests a proof from a mishna (7b). Come and hear, as Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and the three days after them, these actions are prohibited. The Gemara analyzes this statement. If it enters your mind that the three days include them and their festival, this would mean that Rabbi Yishmael counts the day of their festival twice, as he counts it initially, as part of the first set of three days, and he also counts it at the end, along with the second set of three days. Clearly, the three days do not include the day of the festival itself.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 转谞讗 谞诪讬 砖诇砖讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that the festival is counted as one of the initial three days, i.e., the three days include them and their festival, and is not counted as part of the three days following the festival. But since Rabbi Yishmael taught that these actions are prohibited during the three days before them, he also used the same expression and taught that these actions are prohibited during the three days after them, although what he is actually teaching is that these actions are prohibited only during the two days after it.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讜爪专讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 讛讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讚砖专讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Ta岣ifa bar Avdimi says that Shmuel says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, it is always prohibited to engage in business with Christians, as their festival takes place every Sunday. Since the three days preceding and following their festival are included in the prohibition, one cannot engage in business with them any day of the week. And if it enters your mind that the three days of the mishna include them and their festival, i.e., only the two days preceding and following the festival are included in the prohibition, then according to Rabbi Yishmael there are still Wednesday and Thursday, on which it is permitted to engage in business with Christians.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬 讚讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讻讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬

The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, I have no dilemma, as it is clear that the three days mentioned in the mishna are them without their festival. When I raise the dilemma, it is according to the opinion of the Rabbis: What days are included in the prohibition according to their opinion?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 拽诇谞讚讗 住讟专讜谞讬讬讗 讜拽专讟住讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 专讘讗 拽诇谞讚讗 砖诪讜谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讞专 转拽讜驻讛 住讟专讜谞讬讬讗 砖诪讜谞讛 讬诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 转拽讜驻讛 讜住讬诪谞讱 讗讞讜专 讜拽讚诐 爪专转谞讬

Ravina says: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna (8a). And these are the festivals of gentiles: Kalenda, Saturnalia, and Kratesis. And Rav 岣nin bar Rava says in explanation of that mishna: When do these festivals occur? Kalenda is held during the eight days after the winter solstice, and Saturnalia is held during the eight days before the winter solstice. And your mnemonic to remember which festival is which is that the festival that occurs after the solstice is mentioned first and the festival that takes place before it is mentioned later, as in the verse: 鈥淵ou have hemmed me in behind and before鈥 (Psalms 139:5), where the word 鈥渂efore鈥 appears after the term 鈥渂ehind.鈥

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 注砖专讛 讛讜讜 转谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 拽诇谞讚讗 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛

Ravina explains the proof: And if it enters your mind that the tanna of the mishna counts them and their festival, in this case there are ten days that are included in the prohibition: The eight days of the festival and the two days beforehand. Why, then, would the mishna say that the prohibition applies for only three days? If the three days do not include the festivals themselves, then this difficulty does not apply, as although in practice the prohibition lasts for eleven days, the mishna is not referring to the period of the festival. The Gemara responds: This proof is inconclusive, as the tanna counts all of the festival of Kalenda as one day.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇讬转谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐

Rav Ashi says: Come and hear a proof from the mishna, which specifies that the time that the actions are prohibited is: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles. And if it enters your mind that the mishna is referring to them and their festival, let it teach: At the time of the festivals of gentiles, it is prohibited to engage in business with them for three days. The wording of the mishna indicates that all three days are before the festival.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讗讞专 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇讬转谞讬 讗讬讚诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And if you would say: That which is taught in the mishna: Before the festivals of the gentiles, serves to exclude the days following their festivals, i.e., the tanna is clearly indicating that the prohibition applies before, rather than afterward, let the mishna teach: At the time of the festivals of gentiles, it is prohibited to engage in business with them for three days beforehand. Rather, conclude from the wording employed that when the mishna states: The three days before the festivals, it is referring to them without their festival. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from here that this is the case.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讛专讜讜讞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the reason for the prohibition against conducting business with gentiles in the days preceding their festivals because the gentile might profit, which will bring him joy, and he will subsequently give thanks to his idol on his festival? Or perhaps it is because this is a violation of the prohibition: 鈥淎nd you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), as one who sells an animal to a gentile thereby aids him in engaging in prohibited idol worship.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讛专讜讜讞讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara explains: What is the practical difference between the two options? The practical difference is in a situation where the gentile already has an animal of his own. If you say that the reason for the prohibition is because he might profit, here too the Jew causes him to profit. But if you say that the reason for the prohibition is due to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,鈥 since the gentile has his own animal, the Jew is not helping him sin.

讜讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讘专 诪砖讜诐 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara challenges: And even if he already has his own animal, does not one who assists him transgress due to the command: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan said:

诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讜砖讬讟 讗讚诐 讻讜住 砖诇 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讜讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖拽诇讬 讗讬讛讜 讜拽注讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇

From where is it derived that a person may not extend a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not extend a limb severed from a living animal to descendants of Noah? The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14). But here, in both cases, if one does not give it to him, he can take it himself, and yet the one who provides it to him transgresses due to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind.鈥

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗讬 讘转专讬 注讘专讬 谞讛专讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬讜砖讬讟 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where they are standing on the two sides of a river, and therefore the recipient could not have taken it himself. Since his help was instrumental, the one who conveyed the item has violated the prohibition of putting a stumbling block before the blind. The Gemara adds: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: A person may not extend, and it does not teach: One may not give. Learn from the usage of the term extend that the baraita is referring to one located on one side of a river, who extends the item to the one on the other side.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗住讜专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 诪讜转专 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讚讜拽讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one ignored the injunction of the mishna and engaged in business with gentiles before their festival, what is the status of the profit that he earned? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If he engaged in business, it is prohibited to derive benefit from his profits. Reish Lakish says: If he engaged in business, it is permitted to derive benefit from his profits. Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to the festivals of gentiles, if one engaged in business, these profits are prohibited. What, is it not referring to one who engages in business with gentiles before their festivals? Reish Lakish responded: No, the baraita is referring to business conducted specifically during their festivals.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗住讜专 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇讗 转谞讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 拽专讬 诇讬讛

There are those who say that there is a different version of the above exchange. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from a baraita: With regard to the festivals of gentiles, if one engaged in business these profits are prohibited. Isn鈥檛 it correct to infer from the baraita that if the business occurred during their festivals, yes, deriving benefit from the profits is prohibited, but if it took place before their festivals, no, it is not prohibited? Rabbi Yo岣nan responded: No; the tanna calls both this, the days before the festival, and that, the festival itself: Their festivals.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇砖讗转 讜诇转转 注诪讛诐 诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛诪转拽讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转拽讬讬诐 诇讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 讛诪转拽讬讬诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 诪讜转专 转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转拽讬讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛诐

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish: When the Sages said that it is prohibited to engage with the gentiles in business, they prohibited it only in the case of an item that endures. But with regard to an item that does not endure, it is not prohibited. And even with regard to an item that endures, if one did engage in business with gentiles, deriving benefit from the profits is permitted. Rav Zevid taught a baraita from the school of Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to an item that does not endure, one may sell it to them, but one may not buy it from them.

讛讛讜讗 诪讬谞讗讛 讚砖讚专 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专讗 拽讬住专谞讗讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚讜 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 讛讬讻讬 讗注讘讬讚 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讟讜诇 讜讝专讜拽 讗讜转讜 诇讘讜专 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain heretic who sent a Caesarean dinar to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia on the day of the heretic鈥檚 festival. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Reish Lakish, who was sitting before him: What shall I do? If I take the dinar, he will go and thank his idol for the success of his endeavor, but if I do not take the dinar, he will harbor enmity toward me. Reish Lakish said to him: Take it and throw it into a pit in the presence of the heretic. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said: All the more so, this will cause him to harbor enmity toward me. Reish Lakish explained: I said, i.e., I meant, that you should throw it in an unusual manner, so that it looks as though the dinar inadvertently fell from your hand into the pit.

诇讛砖讗讬诇谉 讜诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛砖讗讬诇谉 讚拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 诪注讜讟讬 拽讗 诪诪注讟 诇讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝专讛 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 讗讟讜 诇讛砖讗讬诇谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches that it is prohibited to lend them items and to borrow items from them during the three days preceding their festivals. The Gemara asks: Granted, it is prohibited to lend the items to them, as this causes them to have a profit. But why is it prohibited to borrow the items from them during this period? Doesn鈥檛 this serve to reduce for them the property they possess during the festival? Abaye said: The Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to borrow the items from them due to the concern that he might come to lend the items to them. Rava said: All of it, lending and borrowing, is prohibited for the same reason, as in either situation the gentile might go and give thanks to his idol, as he will be pleased that the Jew was forced to borrow the items from him.

诇讛诇讜讜转诐 讜诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛诇讜讜转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝专讛 诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 讗讟讜 诇讛诇讜讜转诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讛讜讗

The mishna further teaches that it is prohibited to lend money to them or to borrow money from them. The Gemara asks: Granted, it is prohibited to lend money to them, as this causes them to have a profit. But if one wants to borrow money from them, why is it prohibited? Abaye said: The Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to borrow money from them, due to the concern that he might come to lend money to them. Rava said: All of it, lending and borrowing money, is prohibited for the same reason, as in either situation the gentile will go and give thanks to his object of idol worship.

诇驻讜专注谉 讜诇驻专讜注 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇驻讜专注谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 诇驻专讜注 诪讛谉 诪注讜讟讬 诪诪注讟 诇讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 诇驻专讜注 诪讛谉 讗讟讜 诇驻讜专注谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讛讜讗

The mishna also teaches that it is prohibited to repay debts owed to them and to collect payment of their debts. Once again, the Gemara asks: Granted, it is prohibited to repay debts owed to them, as giving them the money at this time causes them to have a profit. But why is it prohibited to collect payment of their debts? Doesn鈥檛 this serve to reduce their fortune? Abaye said: The Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to collect debts from them, due to the concern that he might come to repay their debts. Rava said: All of it, repaying and collecting debts, is prohibited for the same reason, as in either situation the gentile might go and give thanks to his idol for having had sufficient funds to pay his debts.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 诇砖讗转 讜诇转转 注诪讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讛讜 讜讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讘诇 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 讚诪注讜讟讬 拽讗 诪诪注讟 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: And all of the prohibitions listed in the mishna are necessary. As, if the mishna had taught only that it is prohibited to engage with them in business, one could have said that the reason for the prohibition is because it causes the gentile to have a profit, and he will go and give thanks to his idol. But with regard to borrowing items from them, which serves to reduce for them the property they possess during the festival, one may well do so.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讞砖讬讘讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讘诇 诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 爪注专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 转讜讘 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讜讝讬

And if the mishna had further taught only that it is prohibited to borrow items from them, one might have thought that this is because the matter is significant to the gentile, as he is pleased that the Jew is forced to borrow items from him, and therefore he might go and give thanks. But it might have been supposed that to borrow money from them is permitted, as there is only distress for the gentile when he lends money, as he would say: My money will not return to me again, since the borrower may never repay the loan.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗诪专 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 诪讬驻专注谞讗 讜讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讘诇 诇讬驻专注 诪讛谉 讚转讜 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讬诪讗 爪注专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught in addition only that it is prohibited to borrow money from them, one might have thought that this is because the gentile says: I will forcibly collect payment from the Jew against his will, by means of the promissory note, and now in any event he will go and give thanks that the Jew is forced to borrow money from him. But with regard to collecting payment from them, as this money will never return to him again, one might say that he has distress about paying back the debt, and he will not go and give thanks. Since one might have reached these conclusions, it is necessary for the mishna to state each ruling explicitly.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讬爪专 注讻砖讬讜 砖诪讞 讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect the repayment of debts from them, because this causes the gentile distress. The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda accept the principle that even though he is distressed now, he will be happy afterward?

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 诇讗 转住讜讚 讘诪讜注讚 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讬讜讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讛 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘住讬讚 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇拽驻诇讜 讘诪讜注讚 砖讟讜驻诇转讜 讘诪讜注讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪爪讬专讛 注讻砖讬讜 砖诪讞讛 讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A woman may not apply lime to her skin during the intermediate days of the Festival in order to remove bodily hair and soften her skin, because this temporarily disfigures her until the lime is removed. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to lime that she can peel off during the intermediate days of the Festival that she may apply it on the intermediate days of the Festival, as even though she is distressed now, as the lime renders her unattractive, she will be happy afterward, when the lime is removed and she becomes more attractive. It is evident from this baraita that Rabbi Yehuda does take into account the joy that will be experienced at a later time with regard to permitting an action now.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛谞讞 诇讛诇讻讜转 诪讜注讚 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诪讬爪专 注讻砖讬讜 砖诪讞讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讙讜讬 诇注谞讬谉 驻专注讜谉 诇注讜诇诐 诪讬爪专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says in response: Leave aside the halakhot of the intermediate days of a Festival. These cannot be compared to other cases, as with regard to all the labors permitted on a Festival this is the reason for the leniency: Although he is distressed by performing them now, as they involve effort and trouble, he will be happy afterward on the Festival itself that he has performed them, when he enjoys the benefits of the labor he has performed. Due to the joy they will bring him on the Festival, these labors are permitted. Ravina said that there is a different answer: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that with regard to repaying a debt a gentile is always distressed, even after the fact. But in general, Rabbi Yehuda does take into account the joy that will be experienced at a later time.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讗讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚诐

The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, as it states that one may not collect payment from a gentile during the three days preceding their festivals, without differentiating between various cases. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: In the case of a loan with a promissory note, one may not collect payment from gentiles before their festivals, as one can demand repayment of the debt by presenting the promissory note in his possession at a later stage. By contrast, in the case of a loan by oral agreement, one may collect payment from them, because he is considered as one who salvages money from them, since he has no promissory note and cannot be sure that the gentile will repay the loan at another time.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef sat behind Rabbi Abba in the study hall, and Rabbi Abba sat before Rav Huna, as a student before his teacher. And Rav Huna sat and said the following statements: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 爪诪专 诇爪讘注 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐

The Gemara explains: As for the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, this is referring to that which we said with regard to collecting a loan by oral agreement from gentiles during the days preceding their festivals. As for the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this is as it is taught in a mishna (Bava Kamma 100b): In the case of one who gives wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and instead he dyed it black, or one who gives wool to a dyer to dye it black and instead he dyed it red,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 6

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专讬驻讛 讬讜诇讚转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗转讱 讘讚讜诪讬谉 诇讱 讜讚诇诪讗 谞讞 讙讜驻讬讛 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 转诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

But according to the one who says that a tereifa can give birth, what can be said? According to this opinion, a tereifa cannot be excluded by the phrase: 鈥淭o keep seed alive.鈥 The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the animals that were brought by Noah into the ark: 鈥淵ou shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you鈥 (Genesis 6:19). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 indicates that the verse is stated with regard to animals that are similar to you, but not a tereifa. The Gemara asks: But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa. If so, one cannot exclude a tereifa from the comparison of animals to Noah. The Gemara answers: It is written about Noah that he was 鈥渃omplete鈥 (Genesis 6:9).

讜讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诐 讘讚专讻讬讜 讛讬讛 爪讚讬拽 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that his ways were complete, but it is not referring to Noah鈥檚 physical attributes. The Gemara explains: It is already written about him that he was 鈥渞ighteous鈥 (Genesis 6:9), which means that his actions were perfect. Consequently, when the verse says that he was also complete, it must be referring to his body.

讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诐 讘讚专讻讬讜 爪讚讬拽 讘诪注砖讬讜 讛讜讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚谞讞 讙讜驻讬讛 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讗讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚谞讞 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讻讜讜转讱 注讬讬诇 砖诇诪讬谉 诇讗 转注讬讬诇

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that Noah was complete in his manner, and he was righteous in his good deeds. Accordingly, the verse would not exclude the possibility that Noah himself was a tereifa. The Gemara explains: It cannot enter your mind that Noah himself was a tereifa, as, if it enters your mind that Noah was a tereifa, would the Merciful One have said to him: Bring in tereifot like you to the ark, but do not bring in whole and perfect animals?

讜讛砖转讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗转讱 诇讞讬讜转 讝专注 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诪讗转讱 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇爪讜讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讝拽谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住专讬住 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讝专注

The Gemara asks: And now that it has been established that one derives the disqualification of a tereifa from the term 鈥渨ith you,鈥 why do I need the phrase 鈥渢o keep seed alive鈥? The Gemara answers: If one could learn only from 鈥渨ith you,鈥 I would say that Noah brought the animals to the ark only for the purpose of company, and therefore even an animal that is elderly and even one who is castrated can come into the ark, provided that it is not a tereifa. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭o keep seed alive,鈥 teaching that only animals that could bear offspring may be brought into the ark.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When the mishna teaches that it is prohibited to conduct business with gentiles on the three days before their festival, do the three days include them, i.e., the days preceding the festival and their festival itself, in which case the prohibition applies only to the festival and the two preceding days? Or perhaps it is referring to them without their festival, i.e., the prohibition applies to three full days before the festival.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讗住讜专 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讬讜诐 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讞砖讬讘 诇讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讞砖讬讘 诇讛讜 诇讘住讜祝

The Gemara suggests a proof from a mishna (7b). Come and hear, as Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and the three days after them, these actions are prohibited. The Gemara analyzes this statement. If it enters your mind that the three days include them and their festival, this would mean that Rabbi Yishmael counts the day of their festival twice, as he counts it initially, as part of the first set of three days, and he also counts it at the end, along with the second set of three days. Clearly, the three days do not include the day of the festival itself.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 转谞讗 谞诪讬 砖诇砖讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that the festival is counted as one of the initial three days, i.e., the three days include them and their festival, and is not counted as part of the three days following the festival. But since Rabbi Yishmael taught that these actions are prohibited during the three days before them, he also used the same expression and taught that these actions are prohibited during the three days after them, although what he is actually teaching is that these actions are prohibited only during the two days after it.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讜爪专讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 讛讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讚砖专讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Ta岣ifa bar Avdimi says that Shmuel says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, it is always prohibited to engage in business with Christians, as their festival takes place every Sunday. Since the three days preceding and following their festival are included in the prohibition, one cannot engage in business with them any day of the week. And if it enters your mind that the three days of the mishna include them and their festival, i.e., only the two days preceding and following the festival are included in the prohibition, then according to Rabbi Yishmael there are still Wednesday and Thursday, on which it is permitted to engage in business with Christians.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬 讚讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讻讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬

The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, I have no dilemma, as it is clear that the three days mentioned in the mishna are them without their festival. When I raise the dilemma, it is according to the opinion of the Rabbis: What days are included in the prohibition according to their opinion?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 拽诇谞讚讗 住讟专讜谞讬讬讗 讜拽专讟住讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 专讘讗 拽诇谞讚讗 砖诪讜谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讞专 转拽讜驻讛 住讟专讜谞讬讬讗 砖诪讜谞讛 讬诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 转拽讜驻讛 讜住讬诪谞讱 讗讞讜专 讜拽讚诐 爪专转谞讬

Ravina says: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna (8a). And these are the festivals of gentiles: Kalenda, Saturnalia, and Kratesis. And Rav 岣nin bar Rava says in explanation of that mishna: When do these festivals occur? Kalenda is held during the eight days after the winter solstice, and Saturnalia is held during the eight days before the winter solstice. And your mnemonic to remember which festival is which is that the festival that occurs after the solstice is mentioned first and the festival that takes place before it is mentioned later, as in the verse: 鈥淵ou have hemmed me in behind and before鈥 (Psalms 139:5), where the word 鈥渂efore鈥 appears after the term 鈥渂ehind.鈥

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 注砖专讛 讛讜讜 转谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 拽诇谞讚讗 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛

Ravina explains the proof: And if it enters your mind that the tanna of the mishna counts them and their festival, in this case there are ten days that are included in the prohibition: The eight days of the festival and the two days beforehand. Why, then, would the mishna say that the prohibition applies for only three days? If the three days do not include the festivals themselves, then this difficulty does not apply, as although in practice the prohibition lasts for eleven days, the mishna is not referring to the period of the festival. The Gemara responds: This proof is inconclusive, as the tanna counts all of the festival of Kalenda as one day.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇讬转谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐

Rav Ashi says: Come and hear a proof from the mishna, which specifies that the time that the actions are prohibited is: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles. And if it enters your mind that the mishna is referring to them and their festival, let it teach: At the time of the festivals of gentiles, it is prohibited to engage in business with them for three days. The wording of the mishna indicates that all three days are before the festival.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讗讞专 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇讬转谞讬 讗讬讚诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And if you would say: That which is taught in the mishna: Before the festivals of the gentiles, serves to exclude the days following their festivals, i.e., the tanna is clearly indicating that the prohibition applies before, rather than afterward, let the mishna teach: At the time of the festivals of gentiles, it is prohibited to engage in business with them for three days beforehand. Rather, conclude from the wording employed that when the mishna states: The three days before the festivals, it is referring to them without their festival. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from here that this is the case.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讛专讜讜讞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the reason for the prohibition against conducting business with gentiles in the days preceding their festivals because the gentile might profit, which will bring him joy, and he will subsequently give thanks to his idol on his festival? Or perhaps it is because this is a violation of the prohibition: 鈥淎nd you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), as one who sells an animal to a gentile thereby aids him in engaging in prohibited idol worship.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讛专讜讜讞讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara explains: What is the practical difference between the two options? The practical difference is in a situation where the gentile already has an animal of his own. If you say that the reason for the prohibition is because he might profit, here too the Jew causes him to profit. But if you say that the reason for the prohibition is due to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,鈥 since the gentile has his own animal, the Jew is not helping him sin.

讜讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讘专 诪砖讜诐 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara challenges: And even if he already has his own animal, does not one who assists him transgress due to the command: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan said:

诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讜砖讬讟 讗讚诐 讻讜住 砖诇 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讜讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖拽诇讬 讗讬讛讜 讜拽注讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇

From where is it derived that a person may not extend a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not extend a limb severed from a living animal to descendants of Noah? The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14). But here, in both cases, if one does not give it to him, he can take it himself, and yet the one who provides it to him transgresses due to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind.鈥

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗讬 讘转专讬 注讘专讬 谞讛专讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬讜砖讬讟 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where they are standing on the two sides of a river, and therefore the recipient could not have taken it himself. Since his help was instrumental, the one who conveyed the item has violated the prohibition of putting a stumbling block before the blind. The Gemara adds: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: A person may not extend, and it does not teach: One may not give. Learn from the usage of the term extend that the baraita is referring to one located on one side of a river, who extends the item to the one on the other side.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗住讜专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 诪讜转专 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讚讜拽讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one ignored the injunction of the mishna and engaged in business with gentiles before their festival, what is the status of the profit that he earned? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If he engaged in business, it is prohibited to derive benefit from his profits. Reish Lakish says: If he engaged in business, it is permitted to derive benefit from his profits. Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to the festivals of gentiles, if one engaged in business, these profits are prohibited. What, is it not referring to one who engages in business with gentiles before their festivals? Reish Lakish responded: No, the baraita is referring to business conducted specifically during their festivals.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬讚讬讛谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗住讜专 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诇讗 转谞讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 拽专讬 诇讬讛

There are those who say that there is a different version of the above exchange. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from a baraita: With regard to the festivals of gentiles, if one engaged in business these profits are prohibited. Isn鈥檛 it correct to infer from the baraita that if the business occurred during their festivals, yes, deriving benefit from the profits is prohibited, but if it took place before their festivals, no, it is not prohibited? Rabbi Yo岣nan responded: No; the tanna calls both this, the days before the festival, and that, the festival itself: Their festivals.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇砖讗转 讜诇转转 注诪讛诐 诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛诪转拽讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转拽讬讬诐 诇讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 讛诪转拽讬讬诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 诪讜转专 转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转拽讬讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛诐

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish: When the Sages said that it is prohibited to engage with the gentiles in business, they prohibited it only in the case of an item that endures. But with regard to an item that does not endure, it is not prohibited. And even with regard to an item that endures, if one did engage in business with gentiles, deriving benefit from the profits is permitted. Rav Zevid taught a baraita from the school of Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to an item that does not endure, one may sell it to them, but one may not buy it from them.

讛讛讜讗 诪讬谞讗讛 讚砖讚专 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专讗 拽讬住专谞讗讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚讜 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 讛讬讻讬 讗注讘讬讚 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讟讜诇 讜讝专讜拽 讗讜转讜 诇讘讜专 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain heretic who sent a Caesarean dinar to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia on the day of the heretic鈥檚 festival. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Reish Lakish, who was sitting before him: What shall I do? If I take the dinar, he will go and thank his idol for the success of his endeavor, but if I do not take the dinar, he will harbor enmity toward me. Reish Lakish said to him: Take it and throw it into a pit in the presence of the heretic. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said: All the more so, this will cause him to harbor enmity toward me. Reish Lakish explained: I said, i.e., I meant, that you should throw it in an unusual manner, so that it looks as though the dinar inadvertently fell from your hand into the pit.

诇讛砖讗讬诇谉 讜诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛砖讗讬诇谉 讚拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 诪注讜讟讬 拽讗 诪诪注讟 诇讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝专讛 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 讗讟讜 诇讛砖讗讬诇谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches that it is prohibited to lend them items and to borrow items from them during the three days preceding their festivals. The Gemara asks: Granted, it is prohibited to lend the items to them, as this causes them to have a profit. But why is it prohibited to borrow the items from them during this period? Doesn鈥檛 this serve to reduce for them the property they possess during the festival? Abaye said: The Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to borrow the items from them due to the concern that he might come to lend the items to them. Rava said: All of it, lending and borrowing, is prohibited for the same reason, as in either situation the gentile might go and give thanks to his idol, as he will be pleased that the Jew was forced to borrow the items from him.

诇讛诇讜讜转诐 讜诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛诇讜讜转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝专讛 诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 讗讟讜 诇讛诇讜讜转诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讛讜讗

The mishna further teaches that it is prohibited to lend money to them or to borrow money from them. The Gemara asks: Granted, it is prohibited to lend money to them, as this causes them to have a profit. But if one wants to borrow money from them, why is it prohibited? Abaye said: The Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to borrow money from them, due to the concern that he might come to lend money to them. Rava said: All of it, lending and borrowing money, is prohibited for the same reason, as in either situation the gentile will go and give thanks to his object of idol worship.

诇驻讜专注谉 讜诇驻专讜注 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇驻讜专注谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 诇驻专讜注 诪讛谉 诪注讜讟讬 诪诪注讟 诇讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 诇驻专讜注 诪讛谉 讗讟讜 诇驻讜专注谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讛讜讗

The mishna also teaches that it is prohibited to repay debts owed to them and to collect payment of their debts. Once again, the Gemara asks: Granted, it is prohibited to repay debts owed to them, as giving them the money at this time causes them to have a profit. But why is it prohibited to collect payment of their debts? Doesn鈥檛 this serve to reduce their fortune? Abaye said: The Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to collect debts from them, due to the concern that he might come to repay their debts. Rava said: All of it, repaying and collecting debts, is prohibited for the same reason, as in either situation the gentile might go and give thanks to his idol for having had sufficient funds to pay his debts.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 诇砖讗转 讜诇转转 注诪讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪专讜讜讞 诇讛讜 讜讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讘诇 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 讚诪注讜讟讬 拽讗 诪诪注讟 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: And all of the prohibitions listed in the mishna are necessary. As, if the mishna had taught only that it is prohibited to engage with them in business, one could have said that the reason for the prohibition is because it causes the gentile to have a profit, and he will go and give thanks to his idol. But with regard to borrowing items from them, which serves to reduce for them the property they possess during the festival, one may well do so.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讞砖讬讘讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讘诇 诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 爪注专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 转讜讘 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讜讝讬

And if the mishna had further taught only that it is prohibited to borrow items from them, one might have thought that this is because the matter is significant to the gentile, as he is pleased that the Jew is forced to borrow items from him, and therefore he might go and give thanks. But it might have been supposed that to borrow money from them is permitted, as there is only distress for the gentile when he lends money, as he would say: My money will not return to me again, since the borrower may never repay the loan.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 诇诇讜讜转 诪讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗诪专 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 诪讬驻专注谞讗 讜讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讘诇 诇讬驻专注 诪讛谉 讚转讜 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讬诪讗 爪注专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讛 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught in addition only that it is prohibited to borrow money from them, one might have thought that this is because the gentile says: I will forcibly collect payment from the Jew against his will, by means of the promissory note, and now in any event he will go and give thanks that the Jew is forced to borrow money from him. But with regard to collecting payment from them, as this money will never return to him again, one might say that he has distress about paying back the debt, and he will not go and give thanks. Since one might have reached these conclusions, it is necessary for the mishna to state each ruling explicitly.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讬爪专 注讻砖讬讜 砖诪讞 讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect the repayment of debts from them, because this causes the gentile distress. The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda accept the principle that even though he is distressed now, he will be happy afterward?

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 诇讗 转住讜讚 讘诪讜注讚 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讬讜讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讛 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘住讬讚 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇拽驻诇讜 讘诪讜注讚 砖讟讜驻诇转讜 讘诪讜注讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪爪讬专讛 注讻砖讬讜 砖诪讞讛 讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A woman may not apply lime to her skin during the intermediate days of the Festival in order to remove bodily hair and soften her skin, because this temporarily disfigures her until the lime is removed. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to lime that she can peel off during the intermediate days of the Festival that she may apply it on the intermediate days of the Festival, as even though she is distressed now, as the lime renders her unattractive, she will be happy afterward, when the lime is removed and she becomes more attractive. It is evident from this baraita that Rabbi Yehuda does take into account the joy that will be experienced at a later time with regard to permitting an action now.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛谞讞 诇讛诇讻讜转 诪讜注讚 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诪讬爪专 注讻砖讬讜 砖诪讞讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讙讜讬 诇注谞讬谉 驻专注讜谉 诇注讜诇诐 诪讬爪专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says in response: Leave aside the halakhot of the intermediate days of a Festival. These cannot be compared to other cases, as with regard to all the labors permitted on a Festival this is the reason for the leniency: Although he is distressed by performing them now, as they involve effort and trouble, he will be happy afterward on the Festival itself that he has performed them, when he enjoys the benefits of the labor he has performed. Due to the joy they will bring him on the Festival, these labors are permitted. Ravina said that there is a different answer: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that with regard to repaying a debt a gentile is always distressed, even after the fact. But in general, Rabbi Yehuda does take into account the joy that will be experienced at a later time.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讗讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚诐

The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, as it states that one may not collect payment from a gentile during the three days preceding their festivals, without differentiating between various cases. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: In the case of a loan with a promissory note, one may not collect payment from gentiles before their festivals, as one can demand repayment of the debt by presenting the promissory note in his possession at a later stage. By contrast, in the case of a loan by oral agreement, one may collect payment from them, because he is considered as one who salvages money from them, since he has no promissory note and cannot be sure that the gentile will repay the loan at another time.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef sat behind Rabbi Abba in the study hall, and Rabbi Abba sat before Rav Huna, as a student before his teacher. And Rav Huna sat and said the following statements: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 爪诪专 诇爪讘注 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐

The Gemara explains: As for the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, this is referring to that which we said with regard to collecting a loan by oral agreement from gentiles during the days preceding their festivals. As for the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this is as it is taught in a mishna (Bava Kamma 100b): In the case of one who gives wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and instead he dyed it black, or one who gives wool to a dyer to dye it black and instead he dyed it red,

Scroll To Top