עבודה זרה ו׳

עבודה זרה ו׳

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: טְרֵיפָה יוֹלֶדֶת, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִתָּךְ״ — בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ. וְדִלְמָא נֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה? ״תָּמִים״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.

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: “To keep seed alive.” The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the animals that were brought by Noah into the ark: “You shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you” (Genesis 6:19). The term “with you” 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 “complete” (Genesis 6:9).

וְדִלְמָא ״תָּמִים בִּדְרָכָיו״ הָיָה? ״צַדִּיק״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ!

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that his ways were complete, but it is not referring to Noah’s physical attributes. The Gemara explains: It is already written about him that he was “righteous” (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.

דִּלְמָא ״תָּמִים״ בִּדְרָכָיו, ״צַדִּיק״ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו הֲוָה? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּנֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוַאי, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּנֹחַ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא: כְּוָותָךְ עַיֵּיל, שַׁלְמִין לָא תְּעַיֵּיל?

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?

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אִתָּךְ״, ״לְחַיּוֹת זֶרַע״ לְמָה לִי? אִי מֵ״אִתָּךְ״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְצַוְותָּא בְּעָלְמָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ זָקֵן וַאֲפִילּוּ סָרִיס, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זֶרַע״.

The Gemara asks: And now that it has been established that one derives the disqualification of a tereifa from the term “with you,” why do I need the phrase “to keep seed alive”? The Gemara answers: If one could learn only from “with you,” 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: “To keep seed alive,” teaching that only animals that could bear offspring may be brought into the ark.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים״ — הֵן וְאֵידֵיהֶן, אוֹ דִלְמָא הֵן בְּלֹא אֵידֵיהֶן?

§ 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.

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה לִפְנֵיהֶם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶן אָסוּר. אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הֵן וְאֵידֵיהֶן, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל יוֹם אֵידֵיהֶן חַשֵּׁיב לְהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא וְחַשֵּׁיב לְהוּ לְבַסּוֹף?

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.

אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא ״שְׁלֹשָׁה לִפְנֵיהֶם״, תְּנָא נָמֵי ״שְׁלֹשָׁה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם״.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אַבְדִּימִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נוֹצְרִים לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ ״הֵן וְאֵידֵיהֶן״, הָאִיכָּא אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה דְּשָׁרֵי!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Taḥlifa 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.

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לָא קָמִבַּעְיָא לִי, דְּהֵן בְּלֹא אֵידֵיהֶן, כִּי קָא מִבַּעְיָא לִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן — מַאי?

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?

אָמַר רָבִינָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן אֵידֵיהֶן שֶׁל גּוֹיִם: קָלֶנְדָּא, סְטָרוּנְיָיא, וּקְרָטֵסִים. וְאָמַר רַב חָנִין בַּר רָבָא: קָלֶנְדָּא — שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים אַחֵר תְּקוּפָה, סְטָרוּנְיָיא — שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים לִפְנֵי תְּקוּפָה, וְסִימָנָךְ: ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״.

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 Ḥanin 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: “You have hemmed me in behind and before” (Psalms 139:5), where the word “before” appears after the term “behind.”

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הֵן וְאֵידֵיהֶן, עַשְׂרָה הָווּ! תַּנָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ קָלֶנְדָּא חַד יוֹמָא הוּא חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ.

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.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״לִפְנַי אֵידֵיהֶן שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הֵן וְאֵידֵיהֶן, לִיתְנֵי: ״אֵידֵיהֶן שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים״!

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.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי לְאַחַר אֵידֵיהֶן, לִיתְנֵי: אֵידָם שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים לִפְנֵיהֶם! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, הֵן בְּלֹא אֵידֵיהֶן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִשּׁוּם הַרְוָוחָה, אוֹ דִּלְמָא מִשּׁוּם ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״?

§ 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: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as one who sells an animal to a gentile thereby aids him in engaging in prohibited idol worship.

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּהֵמָה לְדִידֵיהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם הַרְוָוחָה — הָא קָא מַרְוַוח לֵיהּ, אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם ״עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״ — הָא אִית לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ.

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: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,” since the gentile has his own animal, the Jew is not helping him sin.

וְכִי אִית לֵיהּ לָא עָבַר מִשּׁוּם ״עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן:

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

מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יוֹשִׁיט אָדָם כּוֹס שֶׁל יַיִן לְנָזִיר, וְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לִבְנֵי נֹחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״; וְהָא הָכָא, דְּכִי לָא יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ, שָׁקְלִי אִיהוּ, וְקָעָבַר מִשּׁוּם ״לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״!

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: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (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: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind.”

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּקָאֵי בִּתְרֵי עֶבְרֵי נַהֲרָא. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״לֹא יוֹשִׁיט״ וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״לֹא יִתֵּן״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נָשָׂא וְנָתַן — מַאי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: נָשָׂא וְנָתַן — אָסוּר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: נָשָׂא וְנָתַן — מוּתָּר. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵידֵיהֶן שֶׁל גּוֹיִם נָשָׂא וְנָתַן — אֲסוּרִין, מַאי לָאו לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן? לָא, אֵידֵיהֶן דַּוְקָא.

§ 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵידֵיהֶן שֶׁל גּוֹיִם — נָשָׂא וְנָתַן אָסוּר. אֵידֵיהֶן — אִין, לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן — לָא! תַּנָּא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי, ״אֵידֵיהֶן״ קָרֵי לֵיהּ.

There are those who say that there is a different version of the above exchange. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a baraita: With regard to the festivals of gentiles, if one engaged in business these profits are prohibited. Isn’t 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 Yoḥanan responded: No; the tanna calls both this, the days before the festival, and that, the festival itself: Their festivals.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ ״אָסוּר לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמָּהֶם״ — לֹא אָסְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר הַמִּתְקַיֵּים, אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים — לֹא, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּדָבָר הַמִּתְקַיֵּים נָשָׂא וְנָתַן — מוּתָּר. תָּנֵי רַב זְבִיד בִּדְבֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְקַיֵּים מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם, אֲבָל אֵין לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶם.

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.

הָהוּא מִינָאָה דְּשַׁדַּר לֵיהּ דִּינָרָא קֵיסָרְנָאָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה בְּיוֹם אֵידוֹ, הֲוָה יָתֵיב רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר: הֵיכִי אֶעֱבֵיד? אֶשְׁקְלֵיהּ — אָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה, לָא אֶשְׁקְלֵיהּ — הָוְיָא לֵיהּ אֵיבָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: טוֹל וּזְרוֹק אוֹתוֹ לְבוֹר בְּפָנָיו. אָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ אֵיבָה! כִּלְאַחַר יָד הוּא דְּקָאָמֵינָא.

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’s 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.

לְהַשְׁאִילָן וְלִשְׁאוֹל מֵהֶן כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהַשְׁאִילָן — דְּקָא מַרְוַוח לְהוּ, אֲבָל לִשְׁאוֹל מֵהֶן — מַעוֹטֵי קָא מְמַעֵט לְהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּזֵרָה לִשְׁאוֹל מֵהֶן אַטּוּ לְהַשְׁאִילָן. רָבָא אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה הוּא.

§ 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’t 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.

לְהַלְווֹתָם וְלִלְווֹת מֵהֶן. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהַלְווֹתָם — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַרְוַוח לְהוּ, אֶלָּא לִלְווֹת מֵהֶן — אַמַּאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּזֵרָה לִלְווֹת מֵהֶן אַטּוּ לְהַלְווֹתָם. רָבָא אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה הוּא.

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.

לְפוֹרְעָן וְלִפְרוֹעַ מֵהֶן כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְפוֹרְעָן — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַרְוַוח לְהוּ, אֶלָּא לִפְרוֹעַ מֵהֶן — מַעוֹטֵי מְמַעֵט לְהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּזֵירָה לִפְרוֹעַ מֵהֶן אַטּוּ לְפוֹרְעָן. רָבָא אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה הוּא.

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’t 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.

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי תְּנָא לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמָּהֶן, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַרְוַוח לְהוּ וְאָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה, אֲבָל לִשְׁאוֹל מֵהֶן, דְּמַעוֹטֵי קָא מְמַעֵט לְהוּ — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

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.

וְאִי תְּנָא לִשְׁאוֹל מֵהֶן, מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲשִׁיבָא לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא, וְאָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה. אֲבָל לִלְווֹת מֵהֶן, צַעֲרָא בְּעָלְמָא אִית לֵיהּ, אָמַר: ״תּוּב לָא הָדְרִי זוּזֵי״.

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.

וְאִי תְּנָא לִלְווֹת מֵהֶן, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאָמַר: ״בְּעַל כָּרְחֵיהּ מִיפְּרַעְנָא״, וְהַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא אָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה, אֲבָל לִיפָּרַע מֵהֶן, דְּתוּ לָא הָדְרִי זוּזֵי, אֵימָא צַעֲרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְלָא אָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה — צְרִיכָא.

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.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן כּוּ׳. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּיצֵר עַכְשָׁיו שָׂמֵחַ הוּא לְאַחַר זְמַן״?

§ 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’t Rabbi Yehuda accept the principle that even though he is distressed now, he will be happy afterward?

וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה לֹא תָּסוּד בַּמּוֹעֵד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּיוּוּל הוּא לָהּ. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּסִיד שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְקַפְּלוֹ בַּמּוֹעֵד, שֶׁטּוֹפַלְתּוֹ בַּמּוֹעֵד, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּצֵירָה עַכְשָׁיו, שְׂמֵחָה הִיא לְאַחַר זְמַן!

But isn’t 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.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הַנַּח לְהִלְכוֹת מוֹעֵד, דְּכוּלְּהוּ מֵיצֵר עַכְשָׁיו, (שְׂמֵחָה) [שָׂמֵחַ] לְאַחַר זְמַן. רָבִינָא אָמַר: גּוֹי לְעִנְיַן פֵּרָעוֹן לְעוֹלָם מֵיצֵר.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר אֵין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמַצִּיל מִיָּדָם.

The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, 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 Korḥa 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.

יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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 Korḥa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹתֵן צֶמֶר לַצַבָּע לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם.

The Gemara explains: As for the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, 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,