Previous daf

1)

(a) In connection with our Mishnah 'Sheloshah Yamim Lifnei Eidehen' - we ask whether 'three days' includes the festival or not.

(b) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, who says 'Sheloshah Lifneihem u'Sheloshah le'Achareihem' - because if it was inclusive, then Rebbi Yishmael would be counting the actual festival twice.

(c) In refuting the proof, we establish 'Sheloshah Lifneihem' as being inclusive - and Rebbi Yishmael only said 'Sheloshah le'Achareihem' (including the festival again) in order to match 'Sheloshah Lifneihem' (but in reality, he holds 'Shenayim le'Achareihem').

(a) Based on the fact that Sunday is considered a Notzri (Christian) festival, Rav Tachlifa bar Avdimi Amar Shmuel states - that according to Rebbi Yishmael, one is never permitted to do business with a Notzri.

(b) This statement clashes with the previous one - that Sheloshah Yamim includes the festival, in which case Wednesday and Thursday would be permitted.

(c) We get round the problem - by retracting from the previous statement (inasmuch as according to Rebbi Yishmael, the three days are exclusive [like we suggested initially]), and confining the She'ilah to the opinion of the Rabbanan.

(a) The next Mishnah will discuss Kalanda, Satrunya and Kartesim - which are the names of three Nochri festivals.

(b) Rav Chanin bar Rava explains that Kalanda takes place eight days after the Tekufah (the beginning of the new season) - of Teives.

(c) Satrunya take place - eight days before the Tekufah.

(d) We quote the Pasuk "Achor va'Kedem Tzartani" - as a means of remembering that Kalanda (which the Tana, like the Pasuk, mentions first) occurs after the Tekufah, and Satrunya, before it, and not vice-versa.

(a) We ...

1. ... try to prove from here that 'Sheloshah Yamim' must be exclusive (minus the festival itself) - because if it was inclusive, then the Tana ought to have spoken about ten days, and not three.
2. ... reject this proof however, concluding that 'Sheloshah Yamim' might even be inclusive - only the Tana refers to the entire festival as if it was one day.

(b) Rav Ashi finally extrapolates from the Lashon 'Lifnei Eidehen shel Akum Sheloshah Yamim' - that 'Sheloshah Yamim' is exclusive, because if it was inclusive, then the Tana should have said 'Eidehen shel Ovdei Kochavim Sheloshah Yamim'.

(c) And had he meant merely to preclude three days after the festival, then he ought to have said - 'Eidehen shel Ovdei Kochavim Sheloshah Yamim Lifneihem'.

(a) We ask whether the Isur is perhaps based on 'Harvachah' - which means that by doing business with the Nochri, one causes him to gain, in which case, he will thank his god, and one will have transgressed "ve'Shem Elohim Acherim ... Lo Yishama al Picha".

(b) Alternatively, the Isur would be - that of "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol".

(c) The ramifications of the She'eilah are - there where the Nochri has another animal, say, in which case "Lifnei Iver" would not apply, though "Lo Yishama" would.

(a) The Beraisa - prohibits handing a Nazir a glass of wine or a piece of Eiver min ha'Chai to a Nochri, because of "Lifnei Iver".

(b) This appears to clash with what we just said - inasmuch the Isur seems to apply, even though the Nazir or the Nochri are quite capable of taking the Isur themselves, whereas we just said that "Lifnei Iver" is confined to where the sinner would not have the means to sin if not for his current assistance.

(c) We reconcile the two statements - by confining the Beraisa to a case where the wine or the Eiver min ha'Chai are on the other side of the river, and they could not obtain it without the aid of the person who is now handing it to them.

(d) The Lashon of the Beraisa bears this out - because 'Lo Yoshit' implies that he is handing it over some sort of barrier, such as a river.

7)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan forbids anyone who did do business with a Nochri before the festival to derive any benefit from the proceeds - Resh Lakish permits it Bedi'eved.

(b) Resh Lakish reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa 'Eidehen shel Ovdei Kochavim, Nasa ve'Nasan Asur' - by confining it to the actual day of the festival.

(c) In the second Lashon, Rebbi Yochanan counters Resh Lakish's inference 'Eidehen In, Lifnei Eidehen, Lo' - by incorporating the days before the festival in 'Eidehen'.

(a) The Beraisa qualifies the prohibition of 'Lifnei Eidehen', restricting them to objects that will last until the festival - but precluding objects that will not, such as vegetables - because the Nochri is unlikely to go and thank his god, once the article is no longer in existence.

(b) The Tana rules that someone who transgressed the prohibition, and did business with a Nochri within three days of the festival - is nonetheless permitted to benefit from the transaction (like Resh Lakish).

(c) Rav Z'vid quoting a Beraisa by Rebbi Oshaya forbids the purchase of objects that will not last until the festival, from a Nochri - because the Nochri is even more pleased to have managed to sell goods that will not last.

(a) A Dinra Keysarna'ah is - a Dinar coin that the king authorized, after disqualifying the previous one.

(b) When a Miyn sent Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah such a coin on the day of his festival, the latter was in a quandary as whether he should not perhaps accept it (despite the prohibition) - because of Eivah (friction that could lead to trouble [such as pogroms]).

(c) Initially, he declined to accept the advice of Resh Lakish to throw it into a deep pit in the Miyn's presence - because, he maintained, that would cause even more friction.

(d) What Resh Lakish really meant was - that he should drop the Dinar into a deep pit in a way that would lead the Miyn to believe that he done it 'inadvertently', thereby dispensing with the problem of Eivah.

(a) Our Mishnah includes borrowing from a Nochri in the prohibition (even though he appears to gain nothing), because, says Abaye - Chazal decreed borrowing on account of lending.

(b) According to Rava, however, the prohibition of borrowing is as intrinsic as that of lending - since the Nochri is pleased that a Yisrael needs him.

(c) In similar vein, Abaye explains the prohibition of claiming payment of a loan from a Nochri as a decree on account of lending him money. According to Rava however - the Isur there is intrinsic too, because once the Nochri has paid, he is happy to have been relieved of the burden of repaying the loan, and it is for this that he will go and thank his god.

1. ... doing business with a Nochri (where his property is replenished), the Tana nevertheless needs to add that of borrowing vessels from him - since there, his possessions are temporarily depleted.
2. ... borrowing vessels from him (where he is honored that the Yisrael needs his property, and he knows that he will get it back intact), the Tana finds it necessary to add that of borrowing money - from which he gains nothing (in fact he sustains a temporary loss).
3. ... borrowing money from him (where at least he knows that he will get it back), the Tana nevertheless needs to add that of claiming a debt from him - even though the loss is permanent.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah permits claiming a debt from a Nochri within the three days prior to his festival. Initially, we ascribe Rebbi Yehudah's ruling - to the fact that at the time that the Nochri pays, he is sad.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa ...

1. ... forbids a woman to smear a lime pack on her face on Yom-Tov if it is not due to be removed until the middle of Yom-Tov- because the woman suffers (from her looks) on Yom-Tov.
2. ... permits it if it can be removed on the first day of Yom-Tov - since she will still derive benefit from it on the same day.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles this ruling with Rebbi Yehudah's previous ruling, where he did not contend with the fact that the Nochri will benefit later - by ascribing the leniency here to Yom-Tov, where most of the Heterim are based on the fact that they will pleasure from the Melachah later (such as Shechting an animal and preparing a Se'udah).

(d) According to Ravina, repayment of a loan is different - because, in his opinion, Rebbi Yehudah considers the Nochri permanently unhappy at his loss.

(a) Our Mishnah does not go like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah - who restricts the prohibition in our of claiming a debt from a Nochri to a documented loan, permitting an oral one, because one is simply saving oneself from a probable loss.

(b) Rebbi Huna rules - like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah.

(c) Rebbi Aba was sitting in front of Rav Huna when he issued that ruling - Rav Yosef was sitting behind Rebbi Aba at the time.