Explanation: After Meseches Sanhedrin which discusses idolatry (Ir ha'Nidachas, see notes of Rebbi Elazar Moshe Horovits) and constellations, it was appropriate to teach Meseches Avodah Zarah in "The Order of Salvations" (i.e. Nezikin, see Shabbos 31a).

Explanation(cont.): However, being that Makos and Shevuos deal with the Sanhedrin, they are taught immediately after Sanhedrin. Afterwards, the Mishnayos go back to their appropriate order by teaching Avodah Zarah and Horiyos.

Observation: Sometimes the Mishnah will say the number at the end of its statement, as it does here. It similarly does so in Kidushin (2a), when it says, "A woman is acquired in three ways." Another example is the Mishnah in Bikurim (2:6), "An esrog is equivalent to a tree in three ways etc."

Observation(cont.): There are also times when the Mishnah says the number before making the statement, such as the Mishnah in Nazir (65b), "In seven ways a Zav is checked." Similarly, the Mishnah in Yoma (2a) says, "Seven days before Yom ha'Kippurim (etc.)." Additionally, the Mishnah in Gitin (9a) says, "In three ways the Gitin of woman are equal to etc."

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the reason for this prohibition is because it causes the idolater on the day of his holiday to than his idol.

Observation: Rashi implies that this is even the reason why one cannot do business with the idolater (for three days beforehand).

Question: This is difficult. What do people rely upon today, as they even do business with idolaters on the day of their holiday?

Question(cont.): While it is true that most of their holidays celebrate saints (and they are not very involved in these holidays that they would go offer Korbanos or thank their idol, see Chazon Ish Yoreh Dei'ah 62:9), they still have one day a week (that they celebrate religiously). According to Rebbi Yishmael (on 6a who says that one cannot do business etc. with them for three days before and three days afterwards), it should always be forbidden to do business with idolaters!

Implied Question: One cannot say that the reason why everyone does business with the idolaters is because of the reason in Chulin (13b) that idolaters outside of Eretz Yisrael are not really idolaters, but rather continue the custom of their forefathers. (Why isn't this is a good reason?)

Answer: This is because Shmuel says in the Gemara (7b) that in the exile, it is only forbidden to do all of these things on the day of their holiday. This implies that even in the exile, all of these things are still forbidden on the holiday itself.

Answer#1: It therefore appears that the reason is due to hatred (that they will hate us if we do not do business with them at this time). This is as the Gemara (6b) states regarding Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah. A heretic sent him a new type of Dinar on his (the heretic's) holiday. Rebbi Yehudah said, what should I do? If I do not accept this gift, this will cause hatred (between us).

Implied Question#1: There is no clear proof that hatred gives room for leniency. It is possible that he would not have permitted this due to hatred, and was merely trying to get advice on a course of action that in order that the heretic should not hate him.

Implied Question#2: Additionally, if the reason is due to hatred, it would be understandable why we should lend them money, lend them items, and pay them when an idolater demands payment. However, why is there going to be hatred if we do not do business with them? Can't the Jew merely say that I am not interested now in selling and buying? Similarly, why would it be permitted to borrow items or money from them, or to pay them back? How would the idolater know that we are refraining from doing so on this day because it is his holiday (in order that this should deemed causing hatred)?

Answer#2: It therefore appears that the reason for this leniency is because we know that the idolaters among us do not bow down (i.e. serve) to idols. (The Maharam explains that they are not so tied up with their idol that they will thank him for these things, even on their holiday.)

Answer#2(cont.): For this reason, Rav Yehudah (65a) sent a present to Avidrana on his holiday, as he said that he knows that he does not bow down to idols. Similarly, Rava (ibid.) sent a present to Bar Sheishach on his holiday, as he said that he knows that he does not bow down to idols.

Answer#3: Alternatively, we can rely on the Beraisa quoted in the Yerushalmi regarding our Mishnah. The Beraisa states that it is only forbidden to do business with them at this time if it is an idolater that he does not know. If he knows him it is permitted, as he is merely flattering him. (The Maharam explains that the idolater knows that the Jew is continuing to deal with him so they can continue to have a good business relationship. He therefore will not thank his idols for "business as usual.") The Beraisa says that if someone goes into a city and finds that the idolaters there are happy (due to a holiday) he can be happy with them, as he is merely flattering them.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam explained that it is forbidden to deal with them in things that they offer to their idols. The Mishnah is not discussing buying from idolaters which is certainly permitted, both according to the opinion that he may go and thank his idol and the opinion that this is Lifnei Iver.

Opinion#2(cont.): This is because they only forbade selling items offered to idols, and "to carry and give," meaning to carry the money from them and to give them something they can offer to their idols in exchange for the money.

Proof: Rabeinu Tam proves this from the question in the Gemara later (6a) regarding the reason that it is forbidden to "carry and give with them." The Gemara asks whether this is because of profit, meaning that he profits and therefore goes and thanks his idols, or because of Lifnei Iver. The Gemara notes that the practical difference is if the idolater has another animal.

Proof(cont.): If selling something that is not used for sacrifices is also forbidden, why doesn't the Gemara say that the difference is regarding such an item? This should still be forbidden according to the reason that he will thank his idols (but not Lifnei Iver)! Rather, it must be (that the Gemara did not cite this example because) something that is not offered to an idol is permitted.

Proof(cont.): It is not possible to say that he will thank his idols regarding regular business deals, being that he is giving money in exchange for an object. If he is buying the object, he is not certain he will profit from this merchandise (that he is buying).

Proof(cont.): The question of the Gemara is as follows. Is the reason that it is forbidden to deal with them in items that can be offered to their idols because he will now have many animals to sacrifice? If so, it will even be forbidden if he has other animals. Being that he has many animals, he can sacrifice the best ones. Alternatively, the reason may be Lifnei Iver. This would mean that if he already has an animal it should be permitted (as the Jew is not enabling the idolater to serve his idol, as he already has that ability).

Answer#4: According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation there is no question on the custom for everyone to deal with idolaters, even on their holiday. Even if we would assume that they are extremely into idolatry, they no longer sacrifice to their idol, but rather pledge money to the idol. In such a case it is not possible to say he has a lot of money now to choose from (as Rabeinu Tam explains the Gemara), as they already have a lot of money anyway for that purpose.

Opinion#1: However, it is appropriate to be stringent if an idolater comes and asks to borrow money for his lie, which is called "Ofrir." (This opinion seems to understand that this money is donated towards the idol itself, see below.)

Opinion#2: However, Rabeinu Elchanan says that even the Ofrir money is not forbidden, as the fact that it is given to priests does not mean that it is for idolatry, but rather for their (the priests) pleasure.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that it is forbidden to give them a loan without taking interest. However, one can lend him money with interest as this pains him greatly, as stated in Kidushin (20a) that a person should rather sell his daughter instead of borrow with interest.

Observation: In the Gemara (6b), we rule like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah that one can collect an oral loan from an idolater at this time, because it is as if he is saving his money from them.

Observation(cont.): It is possible that one can even collect from them a loan that is documented, as the Yerushalmi states that even a loan that is documented is considered lost, as a person is not always able to collect his loan.

Opinion: The Ri therefore understands that a loan recorded in our documents (with witnesses), and even those that have checks issued allowing the bearer to collect this money from the borrower's assets in other places (see Avodah Berurah), can be collected (at this time). This is even if he is going to thank his idol, as this is always considered saving the money from their hand.

Implied Question: Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says that one cannot collect a loan that is in a document. (How can we rule otherwise?)

Answer: This is only when our hand is strong over the idolaters (and our courts can force them to pay). Even so, one can still collect an oral loan, in order that he should not deny the loan a different time.

Observation: When there was collateral taken for the loan, the Yerushalmi says that one cannot collect, as the loan is not lost when there is collateral.

Opinion: However, in any event this is still considered saving it from his hand, as many times a person will not be able to collect a loan, even when there is collateral. (See Avodah Berurah regarding whether or not this opinion argues on the previous observation.)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Beitzah (35b) says that one opinion has the text, "Meishilin" while the other has the text, "Mashchilin." Similarly, in Bava Kama (116b) one has the text, "Meitzikin" while the other has the text "Masikin." However, the Gemaros in these places do not discuss why each one holds their specific text is correct, and not that of the other opinion. (Why is this only discussed in our Gemara?)

Answer: Perhaps those Gemaros do not ask this question because each implies a similar meaning (as opposed to the different meanings in our Gemara).

Question: However, there is a difficulty from the Gemara in Sukah (50b) where there are different texts of either "Sho'eivah" or "Chashuvah." Similarly, there are different texts in Yevamos (17a) of "Rishonah" or "Sheniyah." These clearly do not mean the same thing, yet these Gemaros do not deduce anything.

Answer: Our Gemara does make this deduction because it holds the term implying testimony is more logical, because this is testimony to break them. (It therefore asks why the other opinion would have the text "eideihen" with an alef.

Question: I have difficulty with this answer. Why, then, does the Gemara ask why the opinion that the text has an ayin does not have the text with an alef? We already explained that the questioner knew why one would preferably have the text with an ayin, as the term regarding testimony is better!

Answer: It appears to me that the Gemara has the following difficulty. Why doesn't the one whose text is with an alef have the text with an ayin? The Pasuk explicitly states, Eideihen in the Pasuk! However, Eideihen with an alef is not explicitly stated in the Pasuk. Only Eidam is stated! The Gemara answers that it is preferable to state a term meaning breaking. The Gemara then asks, if so, why should the other opinion have the text with an ayin if it is better to say a term implying breaking?

Explanation: (Rome is called "the liable") Being that the Pasuk says regarding Rome, "And they will call them the boundary of evil" and the word evil translates into liable.

Explanation(cont.): It is found in the Beraisa of Maseh Merkavah that when the incident with Rebbi Chanina ben Tradyon occurred, great destruction was decreed for Rome.

Explanation: This means that Hash-m asked them what merits they had in all of their generations.

Implied Question: Hash-m also could have answered that they made marketplaces to do business (and not their stated purpose which was in order that Bnei Yisrael could learn Torah). (Why wasn't this answer given?)

Answer: Rather, Hash-m wanted to denigrate them as much as possible, as if to say that you even made marketplaces for the needs of prostitutes.

Question: On the contrary, the kingdom of Bavel should be considered more important, as it is compared to a lion! This is as the Pasuk says, "The lion came up out of its shelter," and the lion is the king of the beasts.

Answer#1: Even though the lion is the king of the beasts, a bear is more brazen and is trickier. This is as the Gemara states in Berachos (13a) regarding second troubles causing previous troubles to be forgotten. It relates how after a person was attacked by a bear, he stopped telling the story of how he was saved by a lion, and started relating how he was attacked by a bear and saved (implying the bear was the greater threat). (It should be noted that we do not have the text regarding a bear in the Gemara in Berachos 13a.)

Answer#2: Rebbi Yitzchak explains that Bavel was only compared to a lion when it ruled the world. Currently, it is an insignificant kingdom. However, Persia is still currently the second most significant kingdom, and will stay this way until it is almost time for Moshiach to come, as is explained later in the Gemara.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rome also built many bridges, as stated in Shabbos (33b). (Why wasn't this stated regarding Rome as well?)

Answer: The Roman Empire was not as skilled in building bridges as was the Persian Empire.

Implied Question: They didn't answer that they helped build the Beis Hamikdash when Hash-m asked what they did. (Why didn't they give this answer, which seems a lot better than the one they gave?)

Answer: According to this answer, it would only be reason enough for that generation to have merit. Hash-m asked them what every one of their generations did in order to have merit.

Explanation: The Gemara is asking regarding Babylon and Greece, whom together with Rome and Persia are the four kingdom's that oppressively ruled over Bnei Yisrael, and were important. However, the Gemara does not have a question regarding the other nations amongst the seventy nations.

Implied Question: We say that Persia will in the future fall to Rome. (This implies that its kingdom will not last so long!)

Answer: This will be close to the coming of Moshiach, as the Gemara says in Sanhedrin (98b) that in the future, the kingdom of Rome will rule over the entire world for nine months.

Explanation: Paran is from the land of the Yishmaelim, as the Pasuk says regarding Hagar (Bereishis 21), "In Midbar Paran." Our Gemara is relying on the second part of the Pasuk (Chavakuk 3:3, quoted in the Gemara), "And the Holy One from Mount Paran forever."

Text#1: We do not have the text, "What did Hash-m want in Teiman?" This is because Teiman is in Sa'ir, as the Pasuk says, "And your strong ones, Teiman, will be cut off, in order that a man from Mount Eisav will be cut down."

Question: However, there is a difficulty according to the text of Rashi. Why does the Gemara quote the Pasuk in Chavakuk to teach us this? The Pasuk in V'Zoas Ha'Berachah also mentions Paran!

Answer: It is possible to understand the Pasuk in V'Zoas Ha'Berachah as teaching the lesson from Bava Kama (38a) that from Paran the money of the Nochrim was given to Bnei Yisrael. In this context Paran means Har Sinai, as the Gemara says in Shabbos (89a) that the mountain upon which Bnei Yisrael received the Torah has five names: Sinai, Paran, etc.

Text#2: Rebbi Elchanan says that the text, "What did He want in Sa'ir, what did He want in Teiman?" is understandable. Teiman is not the name of a nation, but rather another way of saying "south." This is as indicated in the Pasuk, "Wake up north, and come Teiman (south)." This is as the Sifri teaches in V'Zoas Ha'Berachah that Hash-m revealed himself to Bnei Yisrael from four sides. This is as the Pasuk says, "Hash-m will come from Teiman." It is therefore understandable why the Gemara had to bring the Pasuk from Chavakuk (as the other Pesukim, including the one in V'Zoas Ha'Berachah, do not even mention the word Teiman).