Commentary for Avodah Zarah 11:11

Before the idols of idolaters three days it is forbidden to negotiate with them to lend them and ask them. And after the time Rabbi Ishmael says that three before them and three after them are forbidden, and the Ecclesiastes before their idols are forbidden after their idols are permitted. It is forbidden to negotiate with them. In the negotiations of bargaining and selling, this is proven from the interpretation that Kaman interpreted in Pirkin, because he is a dazil and a mummy for idolatry, and it is forbidden because he will not hear from you. But rather in the case of a middy dhazi, for the sacrifice of your words, it is written, Because he says that helping him with his idolatry according to his needs and the more difficult is that he does not have to deal with them because of the welfare or because before the skin it will not give an obstacle and interpret it because the welfare is drowsy and woeful and moody, and it is not difficult to say, A beast for its children, etc. And Amai did not command an antiaircraft in the hands of a man who is not worthy of sacrifice. And that he should be asked to accompany them, and to accompany them from them. He asked him, "What is the thing of Israel?" He needs him and Zil and Moody, but in the negotiations of bargaining and selling, he did not think that he was profitable. Like his smell and even when he buys, he still does not know if he will profit from it and when he is familiar, he is worried that he will take out the money before he finds another commodity and not Azil and Moody and the late Rambam writes that D'Isor took from them everything that the coins are held in his hand, To sell them something worthy of the "star worship" and to take money from them and give them their alternates and make them to them The island of Dasro to sell them from Hadzi to the starry work because of the welfare that he has a lot to sacrifice for idolatry he sacrifices in profit and from the best and praises his idolatrous work, which is invited to sacrifice with distinction and from the finest and that he has properly sacrificed it is forbidden to sell him or Dalma precisely because before and after skin A woman who is a member of the rabbinical court in the baritah of דרב זביד is required to do something that does not exist but does not take them from them לאו במקח אירי only with the receipt of דורון דומיא דימוא הטם משנא דינה קיסרינא to רב יהודה נשיאה and to פשישי "שפי ' To sell him and Azil and Modi is difficult Negotiate because welfare is Dltama Dlfni skin Emei no Lokhin them and YL fraiche Dlsat and give Dmtni not only the sale and remnants of best means to carry them coins and let them bargain but not taking banned "Give Dstm is familiar sadness. And in the case of the "פרישי" דכ"ל when they said that it is forbidden to negotiate with them, they did not say anything but In the matter that takes place but something that does not exist is permissible, and in each one of them there is one side permit and one side prohibition of anything that exists is forbidden to know and it is permissible to take and something that is not fulfilled is forbidden to be taken and permitted to sell. According to the fact that there is also the taking of the other side and the prohibition aspect, the baraita does not invalidate the law for taking, and in the beritha of a raven zevi דיפור דין לקניה ושתיה לפרשת Rashi In the negotiations of bargaining and selling, there is in the sale a prohibition and a permit side, as well as a trick and a parakeet. There is no difference between these two דיכיון דמתאוו to the מוכר שמח and זעיל and מודי even though he explained that דמקמח and ממכר does not belong אזיל and מודי does not belong to אזיל ומודי It is actually without interest, but in the interest it is permitted to do so, and not to eat it, and to recite it, In this case it is not possible to say that it is necessary for the נעות ממעות to be ממעו קט a little "Samuel said in the Diaspora is not forbidden, but only the day of idols. And the day that he sees who is forbidden and the Rabbi who is related to Rav Nachman to the zavoni of Hamra and to the rabbi raised to the zivoni of Hitta in Haggata Dtei'i that I am a חגתא דטייי דביא קביעה and was amazed at our custom that we do not refrain from marrying and lending with them and accompanying them. Rashi: "Now the nations among us are idolaters, not Azali and Moody, as in the Book of David." Daha from the island of Tama Sheri Lakman in Pb (p. 64): Dkamer Rav Yehuda Shadar Korbana Lavodarina said Yudna Beha Dallah Falah for the work of the stars and Rava "And the Lord of the heavens is not forbidden, but rather the day of idem alone. On the day of their idols, it is permissible to allow them, and Aviel, because our most precious livelihood is from them, and we bear and enjoy with them all the year of the year, so that we will not be separated from them on the day of their idyll. Lachish Kammiah said, "Let us make it into its hands, and we shall not consider it." Before him

If one holds that by definition a “trefa” cannot give birth, then it makes sense to exclude it from the phrase, “to keep seed alive.” But what about those who hold that a “trefa” can give birth. We would then need the earlier verse to exclude the trefa and we would have no verse to exclude the animal missing a limb.
The Talmud finds a new way of excluding the trefa—from the word “with you.” The animals that Noah sacrifices must be like Noah—able to bear offspring and not trefot.

The Talmud tries to prove that Noah was not a trefa by citing various adjectives used to describe him. But when this fails, they say simply that Noah could not have been a trefa because God would not have said “like you” if Noah himself was a trefa.

If the Torah had just written “with you” I would not have known that Noah had to bring fertile animals on to the ark. I might have thought that they were just there for company. He could not have brought a trefa but he could have brought an old or infertile animal. Therefore, the Torah says that the animal must be able to bear children (seed).

Ishmael prohibits engaging in business for the three days before and the three days following the festival. From his phrasing it seems that the festival day is not included, for if it was, it would be included twice—with the days before and with the days following.
The Talmud rejects this answer. It might be that R. Ishmael does include the festival day with the three days. It is prohibited to engage in business for three days before, including the festival. The phrase “three days following” is not precise, and does include the festival day. He only used this language to parallel the phrase “three preceding.”

According to Shmuel, since Sunday (a reference to Christianity, manuscripts read “the Christian day” instead of Sunday) is always a holiday, it would always be prohibited to engage in business with idolaters, or at least with Christians. This must mean that the three days do not include the festival for if they did, one could engage in business with Christians on Wednesday and Thursday.

The Talmud admits that to R. Ishmael the three days clearly does not include the festival itself. But what about to the rabbis who prohibit only the three days before?
Ravina tries to use a later mishnah to answer the question. The Mishnah lists a few holidays. We will discuss what these holidays are when we get to that mishnah. R. Hanin b. Rava says that each of these holidays is eight days before or after the equinox. If the number of days includes the festival, then the first mishnah should have read ten (2 plus the 8 days of the holiday) and not 3.
The answer is that all of Kalenda might be considered one day. Thus the prohibition would begin two days before Kalenda and then last for the whole festival, which is considered only one day.

From the words “preceding the festivals,” R. Ashi concludes that the prohibition is for three days before the festival, not including the festival day itself.

Is it prohibited to engage in business because doing so will cause the idolater to profit and then he will go thank his god on his festival? Or is it a transgression of the prohibition of causing someone else to stumble? By selling or giving an animal to be sacrificed, the Jew is causing the idolater to engage in idolatry.

If the idolater has another animal of his own, then if the prohibition is due to profit, it is still in effect because by selling the idolater another animal, the Jew still causes him to profit. If, however, the prohibition is because of placing a stumbling block before the blind, then if the idolater has another animal to sacrifice, the Jew is not enabling him to offer a sacrifice. The idolater could have sacrificed one anyway.

The implication above was that if the idolater has another animal to sacrifice, the Jew who sells him an animal does not transgress the prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind. But this contradicts a baraita stated by R. Natan. If one makes forbidden substances available to those to whom they are prohibited, he transgresses, even if the person could have consumed the substance in any case.