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 נַמִי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״לֹא יוֹשִׁיט״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״לֹא יִתֵּן״, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

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.

אִיבַּעֲיָא 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, אִידִי וְאִידִי ״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 אוֹשַׁעֲיָא: 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.

הַהוּא מִינָאָה דִּשְׁדַר לֵיהּ דִּינָרָא קֵיסַרְנָאָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה בְּיוֹם אֵידוֹ, הֲוָה יָתֵיב רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר: הֵיכִי אֶעֱבִיד? אֶשְׁקְלֵיהּ – אָזֵיל וּמוֹדֶה, לָא אֶשְׁקְלֵיהּ – הָוְיָא לֵיהּ אֵיבָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: טוֹל וּזְרוֹק אוֹתוֹ לַבּוֹר בְּפָנָיו. אֲמַר: כָּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ אֵיבָה! כִּלְאַחַר יָד הוּא דְּקָאָמִינָא.

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״ כו׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהַשְׁאִילָן – דְּקָא מַרְוַוח לְהוּ, אֲבָל לִשְׁאוֹל מֵהֶן – מַעוּטֵי קָא מְמַעֵט לְהוּ! אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: גְּזֵרָה לִשְׁאוֹל מֵהֶן אַטּוּ לְהַשְׁאִילָן. רָבָא אֲמַר: 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? אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: גְּזֵרָה לִלְווֹת מֵהֶן אַטּוּ לְהַלְווֹתָם. רָבָא אֲמַר: 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״ כו׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְפוֹרְעָן – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַרְוַוח לְהוּ, אֶלָּא לִפְרוֹעַ מֵהֶן – מַעוּטֵי מְמַעֵט לְהוּ! אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: גְּזֵירָה לִפְרוֹעַ מֵהֶן אַטּוּ לְפוֹרְעָן. רָבָא אֲמַר: 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, דְּמַעוּטֵי 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, אֲמַר: 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 מִיפַּרַעֲנָא, וְהָשְׁתָּא 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״ כו׳. 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 שִׂמְחָה לְאַחַר זְמַן. רָבִינָא אֲמַר: 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 קָרְחָה; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה 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, וִיתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, 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 דַּאֲמָרַן. כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹתֵן צֶמֶר לַצַּבָּע 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,