Aligned sentence by sentence
[]
Mishnah [1]
▶Sources · 1
MT Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 9:1–4 formalizes the three-day prohibition developed here into a systematic list of prohibited commercial activities (selling, buying, lending, renting). The Commentary concentrates on the talmudic reasoning — explaining why three days before the festival was the threshold — while the MT shifts entirely to prescriptive categories. A significant addition appears in MT 9:14: the three-day prohibition is explicitly classified as rabbinic rather than biblical, a jurisprudential distinction Rambam does not foreground in the Commentary.
, , , . .
*Eideihen* — their festivals — is a periphrasis for *mo'adeihem*, their appointed times, because the mishnah refuses to call them festivals outright; in truth they are occasions of grief. The three days mentioned are the three days *before* the festival itself, not including the festival day.
. .
The reason we are prohibited from extending a loan to idolaters during this period, or from accepting a loan from them, is that they will give thanks to their idols on account of that transaction, and one thereby becomes a contributing cause to the thanking of an idol. If, however, the loan is *be-al peh* — an oral loan, not secured by a written bond — it is permitted to collect it from them, because in doing so one is merely rescuing property from their hands.
.
The law does not follow Rabbi Yehudah.
[]
Mishnah [2]
. , .
The settled law in the Diaspora is that the prohibition applies only on the festival day itself. Anything sold to or purchased from them on that day is forbidden — meaning, one may derive no benefit whatsoever from it.
.
The law does not follow Rabbi Yishmael.
[]
Mishnah [3]
. .
The festivals enumerated in the mishnah were well known in that era among the Christians and those affiliated with them. Similarly, any seasonal festival (*mawsim*) observed by any community anywhere in the world, so long as its adherents are worshippers of idolatry, carries with it all the restrictions enumerated here.
, , . , , .
Know, moreover, that the Christian community (*ha-millah ha-noẓranit*) — all of whose sects, for all their differences, claim to follow the Messiah — are idolaters in their entirety, and all their festivals are forbidden. One applies to them in every matter of religious law exactly what one applies to idol-worshippers. Sunday is among the festivals of the Gentiles; accordingly, commercial dealings with a Christian on Sunday are prohibited without exception, in any matter whatsoever. One treats Sunday for Christians exactly as one treats the day of an idolater's festival — and this is made clear in the Talmud *(BT AZ 2a)*.
, . , .
*Mitah sheyesh bah serefah* — a death that involves burning — means that the body of the deceased, along with his vessels and garments, is burned. *Genisiyah shel melakhim* — the royal assembly — is a gathering convened to honor the king.
. , . , .
The law does not follow Rabbi Meir. *Bulyarit* — a lock of hair left at the center of the head while the surrounding hair is shaved away on all sides. This style of cutting is likewise forbidden by our law, lest we imitate their practice. However, lashes are not incurred for it unless one also shaves the *pe'ot* (sidelocks), as we explained in tractate *Makkot*.
[]
Mishnah [4]
▶Sources · 1
The Commentary's ruling on commercial dealings on the festival day itself (as opposed to the pre-festival period) is codified in MT 9:8, which extends the prohibition beyond mere sale to all forms of economic benefit. Rambam also folds the Sages' distinction between permanent and temporary commerce into MT 9:13, where it becomes a formal halakhic category. The Commentary's discursive treatment of the underlying rationale (preventing participation in the idolater's joy) drops out in the MT's laconic ruleset.
, , , , . , , .
His statement *mah hu le-lekh le-sham* — "what about going there" — means: making the city a route through which one passes on the way to somewhere else. For it is absolutely forbidden to enter a city that contains an idol — still less to reside there, and still less to conduct commerce there. *Ḥanuyot me'uvarot* — shops adorned [in honor of the festival]: any shop decorated in any manner has been adorned for the sake of idolatry, and therefore everything in it is forbidden for benefit (*assur be-hana'ah*).
, . .
From this one should understand that any city of Christendom that contains a church — which is unquestionably a house of idol-worship — may not even be passed through intentionally, let alone inhabited. But God has placed us in their hands until we dwell in their cities under compulsion, fulfilling the verse *"And there you shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone"* *(Deut 4:28)*.
, , .
If this is the ruling for the city itself, how much more so for the house of worship itself — for even glancing at it is almost forbidden; proximity to it is worse still; entering it is worst of all.
[]
Mishnah [5]
, . , . , .
*Ishtrovilin* — the small pine nut known as *qadam quraysh*. *Benot shuaḥ* — a variety of fig. *Petotroteḥen* — the tips that hang from the tree by which they are attached to the branch.
, , . , . , .
Rabbi Meir's mention of *tamar tov* — fine dates — means the fruit of a superior palm, since choice fruit is offered before the idol. *Ḥaẓav* — sugar cane. *Naqlibis* — another species of refined vegetation.
, , .
Rabbi Yehudah's ruling that one does not offer a deficient thing before idolatry is correct. And so too the law follows Rabbi Meir, who forbids the sale of these items as a preventive decree, lest any of them be offered to an idol.
[]
Mishnah [6]
, , , , .
Large cattle (*behemah gasah*) are forbidden to be sold to a non-Jew because a Jew is commanded concerning the rest of his animal *(Exod 20:10)*; it is therefore forbidden to transfer the animal to a non-Jew who is under no such obligation. This is a Rabbinic decree. Similarly, one may not lease cattle to a non-Jew or lend it to him, claiming that just as selling is permitted in certain circumstances so too leasing ought to be — for the non-Jew will use the animal and put it to labor. Nevertheless, one may sell such an animal through an intermediary broker, as we explained in the fourth chapter of *Pesaḥim* *(M. Pes. 4)*.
, , . .
An animal that is lame (*ha-shevurah*) may also be put to work at a mill. Ben Beteira holds that horses used by hunters to transport game birds may be sold to them, because he maintains the principle "a living creature carries itself" (*ha-ḥay nosei et aẓmo*) — even animals and fowl — as we explained in the fourth chapter of *Pesaḥim*. The Sages, however, hold that this principle applies only to a human being, as is clarified in the tenth chapter of *Shabbat* *(BT Shab. 94a)*.
. . .
The law does not follow Ben Beteira. The law does not follow Rabbi Yehudah. As for other horses, it is permitted to sell them to a non-Jew, since it is well known that their ordinary use is for riding only.
[]
Mishnah [7]
, , , .
Everything that poses a danger to the public (*kol davar sheyesh bo nizkah le-rabbim*) — such as all weapons of war and instruments of torture, including chains, fetters, and shackles — is likewise forbidden to sharpen for them or to sell to them. One does not polish swords or spears or the like for them, so as not to assist those who spread violence throughout the land.
, . , . , .
*Basilki, girdon, istadya, u-vimah* — these are all forms of platforms and podiums erected for the glorification of idolatry and in its honor. *Bimosot* — [reading:] *qaṣūr* [i.e., abbreviated or unclear; the term refers to raised stone plinths or pedestals]. *Kipah* — a vault or arch.
[]
Mishnah [8]
, . , , , .
The Scriptural basis for these prohibitions is the verse *"You shall not give them a foothold"* (*lo teḥannem*, Deut 7:2) — from which tradition derives: do not grant them lodging (*ḥanayah*) in the land, since that falls under the prohibition of *lo teḥannem*. As for the statement "it goes without saying regarding fields" — fields carry two prohibitions: the first under *lo teḥannem*, and the second because withholding them prevents the separation of *terumah* and *ma'asrot*.
. , .
The law follows Rabbi Yossi. The condition is that one may rent to one or two individuals, but not to three or more, lest this constitute the establishment of an idolater's neighborhood (*shekhunath goyim*).
[]
Mishnah [9]
, . . .
The statement *"even where they said it is permitted to rent"* is Rabbi Meir's view, which holds that renting is permitted only in Syria, not in the Land of Israel. According to Rabbi Yossi's view, the clause reads coherently: "and where they permitted renting, they permitted it only for use as a storehouse, not as a residence." There is no dispute on this point — one may rent to a non-Jew only for use as a warehouse, or for very limited and incidental residence on a temporary or makeshift basis.
, , , .
His statement *"al shemo"* — "in his name" — means: in the name of the Israelite who owns the bathhouse. The non-Jew who rents it will operate it on the Sabbath and admit non-Jewish bathers, who will say, "Let us bathe at so-and-so's bathhouse today." This constitutes a desecration of God's name (*ḥillul ha-Shem*) in the ears of anyone who hears it without knowing that it has been rented out for a fixed fee.
, , , .
This ruling applied in their time, when the practice was the lease arrangement for a bathhouse described as *aristuta le-merḥaẓ* — a lump-sum rental that did not involve the labor of the owner's servants. In our own era, however, the rule governing a bathhouse, a farm (*fadan*), and all other properties is the same: since it is standard practice for every estate-owner to rent out his property, and this is universally well known, there is no concern for the appearance of impropriety.