Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף כ״ו, we will start from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה says, בת ישראל, a Jewish woman, לא תיילד את עובדת כוכבים, should not act as a midwife to a goyishe woman, should not help a goyishe woman give birth to her child, מפני שמיילדת בן לעבודת כוכבים, because she will be helping to give birth for a son to idol worship. Because this son later will grow up and become an עובד כוכבים, so we are giving birth to a son for עבודה זרה. אבל עובדת כוכבים מיילדת בת ישראל, but a goyishe woman is allowed to act as a midwife to a Jewish woman and help a Jewish woman give birth to a child. Another דין the משנה says, בת ישראל לא תניק בנה של עובדת כוכבים, a Jewish woman should not nurse the son, the child, of a goyishe woman. אבל עובדת כוכבים מניקה בנה של ישראל ברשותה, but a goyishe woman is allowed to nurse the child of a Jewish woman, which means we are allowed to give our child to a goyishe woman to nurse as long as it's done ברשותה, on the premises of the Jew. But to give the child to the goyah that she should take her the child home and nurse the child at home, you're not allowed because we're afraid that maybe she will kill the child. And the

גמרא, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, בת ישראל לא תיילד את עובדת כוכבים, a Jewish woman should not help give birth to a goyishe child, מפני שמיילדת בן לעבודת כוכבים, because she will be giving birth for a son to the עבודה זרה. And also the ברייתא says, ועובדת כוכבים לא תיילד את בת ישראל, and a goyishe woman should not help a Jewish woman give birth to a child, she should not be allowed to act as a midwife, מפני שחשודין על שפיכות דמים, because they are suspected of murder. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, עובדת כוכבים מיילדת את בת ישראל, that you could allow a goyishe woman to help a Jewish woman give birth, בזמן שאחרות עומדות על גבה, as long as other women are standing nearby. אבל לא בינה לבינה, but not amongst themselves, in other words if there's no one else there, then you are not allowed to let her do it. ורבי מאיר אומר, but רבי מאיר says, אפילו אחרות עומדות על גבה, even if other women are standing nearby, נמי לא, you're also not allowed to let her do it. Why? דזמנין דמנחא ידה אפותא, it's possible that sometimes she will put her hands on the temples of the child, וקטלא ליה, and she will kill him, ולא מתחזי, and it would not be seen. So the reason the חכמים say why if others are there you're allowed, because they will watch her that she wouldn't kill the child. But רבי מאיר says she could do it in such a way that no one will see that she killed the child, and that's why you're not allowed even if there are other women watching. The

גמרא brings a story, כי הא איתתא, like this woman, דאמרה לחברתה, she said to her friend, מלדא יהודייתא בת מלדא יהודייתא, she called her Jewish midwife, the daughter of a Jewish midwife. אמרה לה, so she said to her, נפישין בישא דהא איתתא, that so many evils should fall upon this woman. She cursed her and said to her that so much evil should fall upon you as much דקא משפילנא מינייהו דמא כי עופקי דנהרא, as much as I have dropped of these Jewish children like lumps of wood in the river. In other words she was saying that even though she was a midwife and she helped Jewish women give birth to their children, but she killed many of them and no one knew about it. So we see that she could do it in such a way that no one should know. And that's the reason why רבי מאיר says that even if other women are watching, you're still not allowed to allow the goyah to help the Jewish woman give birth to the child. But then the גמרא asks, ורבנן, what would the רבנן answer to that? How could the רבנן say that if there are other women watching, you're allowed to let her, but here we see a story that she killed, she said at least that she killed many Jewish children and no one knew about it? אמרי ליה, they will say to him, לאי, this is not true, במילתא בעלמא הוא דאוקימתא, she was just saying words. She was just trying to answer the other woman, so that's what she said, but really this is not true, and therefore in the case where other women are watching, we don't suspect that she would kill the child. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, בת ישראל לא תניק, that a Jewish woman should not nurse a goyishe child, but you are allowed to allow a goyishe woman to nurse the child of a Jew as long as it's done ברשותה, on the premises of the Jew. The

גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, בת ישראל לא תניק בנה של עובדת כוכבים, a Jewish woman should not nurse the child of a goyishe woman, מפני שמגדלת בן לעבודת כוכבים, because she would be raising a child for the עבודה זרה. ועובדת כוכבים לא תניק את בנה של בת ישראל, you shouldn't allow a goyishe woman to nurse the child of a Jewish woman, מפני שחשודה על שפיכות דמים, because you suspect her of murder, that she might kill the child. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. וחכמים וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, עובדת כוכבים מניקה את בנה של בת ישראל, that you could allow a גויישע woman to nurse the child of a Jewish woman, but this is only בזמן שאחרות עומדות על גבה, when other women are standing nearby. אבל לא בינה לבינה, but not between herself. In other words, if there is no one watching, then you are not allowed to let her nurse the child, because then we suspect she might kill the child. But if there are other women watching, we don't suspect that she will kill the child. רבי מאיר אומר, but רבי מאיר says, אפילו אחרות עומדות על גבה נמי לא, even if other women are standing nearby, you still are not allowed to let her nurse the child. We still suspect that she might kill the child even though they're watching, because זימנין, sometimes, דשייפא לה סמא לדדי מבראי, she could smear some poison on her breast on the outside, and that she could do beforehand when no one sees, וקטלה ליה, and she will kill the child. And therefore רבי מאיר holds that you are not allowed to let her nurse the child even if other people are watching. And the

גמרא says, וצריכא, the ברייתא has to tell us both דינים, because here we had a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים in two cases: whether in a case where other women are watching, are you allowed to let a גויישע woman help a Jewish woman give birth to a child, and also in the case where other women are watching, are you allowed to let a גויישע woman nurse a Jewish child? So לכאורה, the מחלוקת is the same. Why did the ברייתא have to tell us this מחלוקת in both cases? Why couldn't the ברייתא just tell us the מחלוקת in one of the two, and we would understand ourselves that the same מחלוקת is in the other case? And the גמרא says וצריכא, the ברייתא has to tell us both cases, because if it would only say one, we wouldn't know that the same מחלוקת is in the other. Why? דאי אשמעינן מיולדת, if we would only know the מחלוקת in the case of becoming a midwife of letting the גויישע woman give birth to the child, I would think בהא קאמרי רבנן, only in that case the רבנן say דשרי, that it's מותר, that you're allowed to let her do it if other women are watching, דלא אפשר, because it's impossible for her to kill the child, משום דאחרות רואות אותה, because others are watching. In other words, the רבנן then hold that we don't suspect that she would be able to kill him through pushing him on the temples, as we said before, because that also other people will see. אבל מניקה, but we would think that in the case of the nursing, דאפשר דשייפא לה סמא לדדי מבראי וקטלה לה, that it's possible that she should smear poison on her breast on the outside and kill him, and that is something that no one could see. So over there, there is more reason to say that we suspect that she might kill the child. אימא, I would think, מודו ליה לרבי מאיר, the חכמים admit to רבי מאיר that in the case of nursing, you should not be allowed to let the גויישע woman nurse the child even if there are other women watching. On the other hand, ואי אשמעינן מניקה, if the ברייתא would only tell us the דין concerning the nursing, I would think בהא קאמר רבי מאיר דאסר, that only in the case of nursing, רבי מאיר holds that it's אסור to let her do it, if even in front of others, משום דשייפא לה סמא לדדי מבראי וקטלה ליה, because there there is something she could do that the other women should not notice, she could smear the poison on her breast beforehand and kill the child when no one sees. אבל מילדת, in the case of helping to give birth, דלא אפשר היכא דאחרות עומדות על גבה, where it's impossible to do something when others are watching that they shouldn't see, אימא, I would think, מודי להו לרבנן, so רבי מאיר is מודה to the רבנן that in a case like this, you're allowed to let her do it if other women are watching. צריכא, that's why the ברייתא has to tell us that, that the מחלוקת is in both cases, that רבי מאיר holds in all cases it's possible that she would do it, that other people shouldn't notice, and the רבנן hold that in both cases, it is impossible that she should do it, that other people should not notice. And it's important to note here, that even the רבנן who say that you are allowed to let her do it when others are watching, obviously this is also only if it is in the רשות of the אידן. And this applies to both: in the case of the מניקה and in the case of the מילדת. Since in the case of the מניקה, the משנה says מפורש that when are you allowed to let her do it, only if in the premises of the איד, and in the ברייתא, the דין of מניקה and the דין of מילדת go together, so we know from here that this is only allowed to be done in the רשות of the איד. And even that, when is it allowed to be done, only if others are watching, but if others are not watching, even in the רשות of the איד, then you are not allowed to let the גוי not be a מילדת, and not allowed her to be a מניקה. But

תוספות says that when we say that it must be only in the case where others are watching, it doesn't mean that they ממש have to stand over her and watch. ישראל יוצא ונכנס is enough. יוצא ונכנס means that if a איד is in and out and not standing there the whole time, it's also enough and it's allowed, because that is considered עומד על גבה. That we consider as if he's standing on top of him and watching what he is doing, as we see in the פרק of רבי ישמעאל later on on דף ס״א ע״ב. And תוספות brings out a דין from this גמרא here, that when a אידישע woman goes out of town, she should not leave her child in the hands of a גויישע nurse, unless there are אידן there who are יוצא ונכנס, but if there are no אידן who are יוצא ונכנס, סתם אידן, אידישע people who go in and out constantly, you're not allowed to do it. And even more than that, at night when you go to sleep, even who are יוצא ונכנס, then you're still not allowed to. Why? Because then the יידן will not be walking in and out, so then they will be left in the hands of the גויה herself, and that you're not allowed. And the ר"י also said that when you leave children in the house of גוים by themselves to be cured, you're not allowed to do that for many reasons. One is because they are חשוד on שפיכות דמים, and even if they're a little bit bigger and we don't suspect for שפיכות דמים, we're afraid that the גוי will pull the child for מינות, for אפיקורסות, and that's why you're not allowed. But בכלל, it's כדאי to mention that all these דינים that the גמרא says here concerning the חשש that we're afraid that the גוי will kill, and that's why you're not allowed to do certain things, so we find in the תשובה of אחרונים that לאו דווקא it applies nowadays, that nowadays it is not the way it used to be. All the דעות are mentioned in the אנציקלופדיה תלמודית in the ערך of גוי, and there's another תשובה which is not mentioned there, and the ליובאוויטשער רבי שליט"א brings it and he says that they did not mention it in the אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, and this is the תשובה of הר"ם שטרן, which is brought down in the שאלות ותשובות חבצלת השרון, סימן ס"ו. And בכלל, from the תשובה in חבצלת השרון comes out that wherever it says that גוים are חשוד on שפיכות דמים, that means a regular גוי, not only an עובד עבודה זרה. And that's how it's משמע also the שיטה of the אלטער רבי, the בעל התניא, because he says in שולחן ערוך, סימן שפ"ב, סעיף א', concerning the דין of עירוב, he says a לשון there, לפי שאינו מצוי שידור ישראל אחד עם גוי בחצר, it's not common for a ייד to live alone with a גוי in a yard, מפני שיוחש לעצמו, a ייד should be afraid, שמא יהרגנו, he might kill him, שהגוים חשודין על שפיכות דמים, because גוים are suspected of שפיכות דמים. It's משמע that this דין that we say that a גוי is suspected is not only a גוי who is עובד עבודה זרה, but also a regular גוי. But the מאירי here in this גמרא says that the reason why nowadays people are not careful with all these things is because all these things were only said, he says, על אומות הקדומות, on the old nations, which were not גודר בדרכי הדתות, they didn't have any religion, and they were אדוקים ומסמידים בעבודה של אלילים, עיקר עבודה זרה, that they were only involved in עבודה זרה. But anybody who doesn't worship עבודה זרה is not included in this דין, he says, of being חשוד on שפיכות דמים or גזל, etc. And many places he writes like that in the גמרא עבודה זרה, and also in מאירי, בבא קמא, דף ל"ז, עמוד ב', or קי"ג, עמוד ב', and in other places. In יורה דעה, in the beginning of סימן קנ"ג, in the ווילנא print and all the prints that were later copied, photostated from that print, there is an הערה printed, where it says that all the דינים that are mentioned in סימן קנ"ג, קנ"ד, קנ"ה, and קנ"ו, which deal with the דינים of גוים, were all said only concerning the time of the גמרא, then it says the עובדי כוכבים were פראים, they were wild people, etc., but now this all stopped, and therefore, all these דינים don't apply concerning יידן בזמן הזה. But there's no ראיה from this הערה that this is actually the שיטה of the שולחן ערוך, because this could have been written because of the censor, because as we see that in the old prints, like the print of ויניציאה, ש"ג, and other prints, we don't have this הערה. In the בית יוסף to the טור in אורח חיים, סימן כ', he writes like that: לפי שהיו חשודים על שפיכות דמים בימים הקדמונים, that the גוים were suspected of murder in the earlier days. So we see he only says this applies only to the earlier days. But it seems also that this was added because of the censor, because as we see that in the first print of the בית יוסף, which is printed in ויניציאה, the year ש"י, and also later in the דפוס of ויניציאה, ש' כ"ד, but it was printed the first one was printed yet in the lifetime of the בית יוסף himself, there the words בימים הקדמונים don't say. And also in שולחן ערוך, אורח חיים, סימן כ', סעיף ב', he writes להלכה that you should not sell a טלית with ציצית to a גוי, because maybe the גוי might use that as an excuse to walk along with a ייד on the road, because the ייד will think he's also a ייד because he wears a טלית, and he might kill him. So we see that we do apply this even to a גוי nowadays. And the אלטער רבי, the בעל התניא in שולחן ערוך, in the same סימן כ', סעיף ו', also brings the same דין. In the באר הגולה to the שולחן ערוך, חושן משפט, סימן תכ"ה, in the דין that you are not allowed to save a גוי, he writes in סעיף קטן ש' that לא אמרו חז"ל דבר זה אלא על העכו"ם שהיו בימיהם, that the חז"ל said this only concerning the גוים that were in those times, that were עובדי עבודה זרה, אבל הגוים that we live amongst them and they guard us, so not only is there no איסור in saving them, but on the contrary, we're מחוייב to להתפלל בשלומם, etc., that we are supposed to daven for the peace of the government, etc. And this is also in the first print of the באר הגולה, which was printed in אמסטרדם in תכ"ד. So we do see that he says that nowadays the גוים are different. But he didn't write this דין concerning חשוד on שפיכות דמים, he just writes it concerning the דין that you're not allowed to save a גוי, that only applies to the גוים that used to be in those days, not now. But he doesn't write this concerning the fact that we are afraid that the גוי will kill somebody, that could be he holds also applies nowadays. And now we will continue with the גמרא. The גמרא says, ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא. We

learned in another ברייתא, יהודית מילדת עובדת כוכבים בשכר, אבל לא בחינם, that a Jewish woman is allowed to help a גויישע woman give birth if she gets paid for it, but not for free. But here we see that a Jewish woman is allowed to help a גויישע woman give birth, and before we learned that a Jewish woman is not allowed to do it. אמר רב יוסף, and רב יוסף said, בשכר שרי, משום איבה, that for money you're allowed because of hatred, because if you don't get paid for it, then you have a good excuse not to do it. You could say that you are busy, you have to make money, you can't give up your time to help her because you have to go someplace, and if you don't go you're going to lose money. So that's a good excuse. But if they're going to pay you, so you have no excuse why not to do it. So if you don't do it, there'll be hatred between the גוים and the אידן, so because of that, you are allowed to do it. So if they pay you, you're allowed to do it. But the question one might ask, what was the קשיא to begin with? It says בפירוש in this ברייתא that you're allowed to do it בשכר, but not בחינם. So לכתחילה we see right away that there is a difference between getting paid or not getting paid. So obviously the משנה where it says that you are not allowed to do it is if you don't get paid, and here where it says you're allowed, it's only בשכר. So what was the קשיא of the מקשן, of the one that asked the קשיא? So תוספות says that the מקשן, the one that asked the קשיא thought that probably the משנה means that you're not allowed to do it even if you get paid, because the משנה gives a reason that you're not allowed to do it because you will be giving birth to a child for עבודה זרה. Now, if that's the reason, what difference does it make whether you get paid for it or not? You are not allowed to give a child to עבודה זרה, help give birth to a child who is going to later on worship עבודה זרה. So whether it's for money or not. So he didn't think that the משנה meant only בחינם, that's why he asked the קשיא. But רב יוסף answered, no, the משנה טאקע means only בחינם, but if you get paid for it, then you're allowed, because the סברא of איבה, of not causing hatred between the גוים and the אידן, is a strong enough סברא that should overcome even the סברא that the משנה says that you're not allowed to give birth a son to עבודה זרה. Then the גמרא continues, סבר רב יוסף למימר, רב יוסף thought to say, that אולודי עובדת כוכבים בשבתא בשכר שרי משום איבה, that you're even allowed to help a גויישע woman give birth to a child on שבת if you get paid for it. Because like this: to help somebody give birth is a מלאכה. The reason you're allowed to do it to a Jewish woman is because of פיקוח נפש, because it's a danger of life and therefore you're allowed. But to a גויישע woman, you are not allowed to do it. But in the case of איבה, that if you're not going to do it, there will be hatred, because the גוים know that to a Jewish woman, she would help give birth. If you're not going to do it to a גויישע woman, there will be hatred. So if you have an excuse that you are busy with something else, then we have a good excuse and therefore you shouldn't do it. But if you have no excuse because you get paid for this, so then רב יוסף said, you would be able to do it even for a גויישע woman, even on שבת. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him, no, and on שבת you can't do it, and you do have a good excuse. יכלה למימר לה, so you could say to her, דידן, our women, דמנטרי שבתא, that they keep שבת, מחללינן עלייהו, we have to be מחלל the שבת for them, דידכו, your children, דלא מנטרי שבתא, you don't keep שבת, לא מחללינן, we don't have to be מחלל. In other words, the גוים know that it's a חילול שבת to help give birth. The only reason they will be angry is because they would say, how come to your own

children you do it? So אביי said you could always say that our own children, that the child that will be born will keep שבת, so for a child like that we're allowed to be מחלל שבת, but for your child, who is not going to keep שבת, so for that we are not allowed to be מחלל שבת, and that's a good excuse, and therefore you are not allowed to help a גויישע woman give birth on שבת even if you get paid for it. But תוספות asks a קשיא, what was the הוה אמינא of the גמרא, of רב יוסף, that you were allowed to do it, since giving birth is a איסור דאורייתא, that תוספות brings a ראיה from the גמרא in שבת, somebody put his hand into the stomach of a בהמה, and moved and pulled out the child from inside the stomach, he is חייב because of עוקר דבר מגידוליו, because he pulled out something from its growth, from its original place where it's connected to, from its growth, which is a תולדה of גוזז, which is a מלאכה דאורייתא. So how did רב יוסף think that you are allowed to be מחלל שבת with a מלאכה דאורייתא because of the סברא of איבה, of avoiding, avoiding the hatred of the גוים? And we see that even אביי also agreed to it! The only reason אביי said you're not allowed to is because it is no איבה, because you have a good excuse. But we see אביי himself holds that if not for that excuse, then because of איבה you would be able to do it. But how is there a סברא to say that you should be מחלל שבת with a מלאכה דאורייתא because of איבה? And therefore תוספות answers we must say that here we're talking in a case where the woman is already in labor, and the child already so to speak tore itself off from the place it's connected in order to go out, so then there is no מלאכה דאורייתא, or in a case that the mother was pregnant with the child full months, so then by the time finish, we assume that the child is already cut off from its source, and therefore there is no מלאכה דאורייתא. And

that's why רב יוסף said that because of איבה you're allowed to do it, and even אביי also holds that because of איבה you're allowed to do it, he just said that there is no איבה because you have a good excuse that you could say that only for those who keep שבת you're allowed to be מחלל שבת, but for those who don't keep שבת you're not allowed to be מחלל שבת. Then the גמרא continues, סבר רב יוסף למימר, that רב יוסף thought of saying, אנוקי בשכר שרי משום איבה, that רב יוסף thought of saying that even nursing a גויישע child, you are allowed if you get paid for it, because otherwise there will be the hatred. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said, no, there is no hatred, because you do have a good excuse why not to nurse the child. יכלה למימר, she could say to her, אי פנויה היא, if she is an unmarried woman, she could say, בעינא למינסב, I want to get married. Now if I'm gonna nurse, I won't be able to get married. אי אשת איש היא, if she's a married woman, she could say, לא כל כמינך דמנוולא באפי גברא, I don't want to get disgusted in front of my husband. In other words, my husband won't like the fact that I am nursing a child and therefore I don't want to nurse the child. And since it's a good excuse, there won't be no איבה, and therefore even for money you're not allowed to do it. Then the גמרא continues, סבר רב יוסף למימר, that רב יוסף also thought to say, הא דתניא, concerning the ברייתא that we learned, עובדי כוכבים, idol worshippers, ורועי בהמה דקה, or even יידן, but if they're shepherds of small cattle, and we assume that they steal, we assume that they take the cattle to places where you are not allowed to and they let the cattle eat there, so they are עובר on the איסור of גניבה. So people like that, לא מעלין ולא מורידין. You should not pick up, and you should on the other hand not drop in. If these people, one of these, fell into a pit, and it's dangerous for his life, then you're not allowed to take him out, you're not allowed to save his life. On the other hand, you're not allowed to push him in, you're not allowed to kill him, but you also are not allowed to save him if he is in danger. So רב יוסף thought to say, דלאסוקי בשכר שרי משום איבה, that to take out for payment, you are allowed because of hatred, because what kind of excuse can you give? If you don't get paid, then you can always say, I have no time to help you, to save you, because I am busy, I have to go make money, and if I don't go, I'm gonna lose money. But if they're ready to pay you, then you have no excuse. Then if you don't do it, it'll cause hatred. So רב יוסף thought to say that you are allowed to do it for money. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him, יכול למימר ליה, he could say to him, קאי ברי אאיגרא, my son is caught, some place stuck on the roof, and I have no time, I can't save you because I have to rush to take my son off the roof. אי נמי, or he could say, נקיטנא זימנא לבי דיינא, I have an appointment at the court and I have no time to wait and help you come out, and that is a good excuse, so it won't cause any hatred and therefore even for money you're not allowed to do it. But we have to mention that when it says that the רועים of בהמה דקה, the shepherds of small cattle, are in this דין that לא מעלין ולא מורידין, it is only if they are shepherds of their own cattle, but if they're shepherds of other people's cattle, then this דין doesn't apply, because the גמרא says in בבא מציעא that אין אדם חוטא ולא לו, that a person does not do an עבירה if it's not for himself. A person will not do an עבירה for someone else's benefit. So therefore, why should we assume that he let the cattle eat from other people's fields and עובר on the איסור of גניבה when he doesn't gain anything by it? So therefore, if he's a shepherd of other people's cattle, then we assume he's a כשר'ע person and he's not in this דין of לא מעלין ולא מורידין. When do we say this דין? Only if he is a shepherd of his own cattle, so then we assume that probably he will let his animals eat from other people's fields, which is גניבה, and therefore he is the דין of לא מעלין ולא מורידין. That's the way תוספות says. But then

תוספות asks a קשיא: why is it that the חכמים were so much מחמיר concerning these רועים? The דין is that a רועה like this is not פסול to testify only מדרבנן, and not only that, there is a certain type of testimony that even מדרבנן they're מותר. And this is concerning עדות אשה, to testify to a woman that her husband died, so she should be allowed to marry. Even a רועה, a shepherd, is believed when he testifies. So we see that a רועה is not the worst. And nevertheless, the חכמים were מחמיר that they're לא מעלין ולא מורידין, which means that you shouldn't save him if he is in danger. On the other hand, גזלנים, who are robbers, which are פסול to testify מן התורה, מדאורייתא, for all עדות שבתורה, nevertheless, the חכמים weren't מחמיר that much. There is no דין that a גזלן you are not allowed to save if he is in danger. Why is it? And the same question applies, תוספות says, to a מומר אוכל נבילות לתיאבון. A מומר who eats נבילה, and he only eats it לתיאבון, he only eats it out of desire. He doesn't eat it להכעיס, in spite, that he בדוקא eats non-kosher meat. If he would have kosher meat and non-kosher meat and they both would be the same, he would eat the kosher meat. If the non-kosher tastes better, he will eat the non-kosher, or if he could only he could only get non-kosher, he will eat non-kosher. And

there the גמרא here says later on that you have to return an object that he lost, and you have to save him if he is in danger, even though he is worse than the רועה, because he is פסול to testify מדאורייתא. So, why is it that concerning those people the חכמים were not מחמיר, and concerning a רועה the חכמים were מחמיר, even though he's only פסול מדרבנן? And there he answers, because this itself is the reason. Since they are only פסול מדרבנן, עשו חכמים חיזוק, the חכמים strengthened their own דין, so people should do תשובה. And we find that בית דין have a right to hit and to punish, even though it's against the תורה. So, this is the punishment that the בית דין gave to the shepherds who are פסול only מדרבנן, to make sure they do תשובה. When somebody is פסול מדאורייתא, there is a stronger סברא to say that he will do תשובה on his own, because he did a very terrible עבירה. He knows that מדאורייתא that he becomes פסול לעדות. So, he probably would do תשובה on his own. But these רועים, the shepherds, who are only פסול מדרבנן, so probably they will not do תשובה. So, חכמים strengthened their own דין and they said because of that you should not save his life, and that will bring them to do תשובה. Then the גמרא continues, תני רב אבהו קמיה דרבי יוחנן, רב אבהו learned in front of רבי יוחנן, עובדי כוכבים, idol worshippers, ורועי בהמה דקה, or the shepherds of the small cattle, לא מעלין ולא מורידין, you should not You should not take him out of the pit to save their life, and on the other hand, you should not throw them in. אבל המינים, but the מינים, and רש״י says the מינים are the priests of עבודה זרה, and this makes no difference whether they Jews or non-Jews, but if they are priests for עבודה זרה, or והמסורות, מסורות are the מסורים, those that מסר, those that come to the government, and they give over to the government the money of other אידן, או והמומרים, those that don't keep the מצוות. A מומר is a איד who goes against the תורה, doesn't do what the תורה tells him, so by them the דין is, הרי מורידין ולא מעלין. You could throw them in and don't take him out. You could even throw him into the pit, means you could even kill him, and you shouldn't take him out. If they are in the pit, you shouldn't save their life. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אני שונה, but I learned, לכל אבידת אחיך, when the פסוק says that if your friend, another איד, loses an object, you must return it, and the פסוק says that so too you should do לכל אבידת אחיך, to all the lost objects of your brother. What does that come to include? לרבות את המומר, to include a מומר, and if a מומר lost an object, you must return it to him, too. So, he says to him, "I learned that you must even return a lost object of a מומר. ואת אמרת, and you're saying, הרי מורידין, that you should throw him into the pit, which means that you're even allowed to kill a מומר?" Therefore he said to him, סמי מכאן מומר. Take out from here מומר. That when you learned before, that מינים and and מסורים, you're allowed to throw into the pit, and you also mentioned מומרים, take out מומרים. מומרים does not included in that דין, because by a מומר the דין is that you are not allowed to throw him into the pit. On the contrary, you're supposed to save his life and you're even supposed to save his money if he lost it. Then the גמרא asks, ולישני ליה, why couldn't he answer him, כאן במומר אוכל נבילות לתיאבון, וכאן במומר אוכל נבילות להכעיס. He could have said there is a difference. That in this place, where we said that you have to even return a lost object to him, that is a kind of מומר who eats נבילות out of desire, which means he doesn't keep the תורה and he eats נבילה, but he only does it out of desire. He doesn't do it in spite. That if he would have kosher and non-kosher, and both would be equal, he would take the kosher one. If they're not equal, the one that is not kosher tastes better, he will eat that. In a case like that, that kind of מומר, then you must save his money, and you must save him too, and certainly that you're not allowed to throw him into the pit. But כאן, in this place, where it says that a מומר is one of those that you're allowed to even throw into the pit, that is a מומר who eats נבילות להכעיס, in spite. That even if he'd have the same kosher and non-kosher, he would in spite eat a non-kosher. A מומר like that, the דין is that מורידין, that you could even throw him into the pit. But the גמרא says the reason he didn't answer him that, because אוכל נבילות להכעיס מין הוא, that a מומר who eats נבילות in spite, he is in the category of a מין. So therefore, we can't say that when it says there that the מומרים are one of those that you throw into the pit, that this means if he was a מומר who eats נבילות להכעיס, because that would be included in the first category, the מינים. Cuz he started off by saying the מינים and the מסורים and the מומרים, you are מוריד ולא מעלה. So, if a מומר means the one that eats נבילות להכעיס, that is included in the מין. So therefore, when it says מומרים there, it must mean a מומר who eats נבילות not להכעיס, but only out of desire. But that can't be, because we said there you even have to return his object. Therefore, he told him you should take that out, that that is not true, that is not included in that דין, but only That's why he said to take מומרים out from there, because a מומר normally means a מומר who eats נבילות לתיאבון, and by him the דין is that not only can't you kill him, but you also must save him, and also must return his lost object. But תוספות says when רבי יוחנן said here that take out מומרים, because if it's a מומר that is להכעיס, then it's a מין. If he is not להכעיס, he's not included here. It is only in this place where רבי יוחנן meant you have to take him out. But there are other places in the גמרא where we find that it's mentioned מומר and also mentioned מינים. For instance, תוספות says it says in the first פרק of ראש השנה: המינים והמומרים והמסורות יורדין לגיהנם. The מינים and the מומרים and the מסורות, they go to גיהנם. Or it says in פרק השולח in גיטין: ספר תורה שכתבו מין or a מומר or a מסור וכולי, then the דין is so and so. So there we do say there is a מין and a מומר, and they're two separate categories. It's only in this place that he says, in this ברייתא, that you have to take out the word מומר, but in other places it could say the word מומר, as we see. Then the גמרא continues: איתמר, we learned: מומר, what is the meaning of a מומר? פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא, there's a מחלוקת between רב אחא and רבינא. חד אמר, one said: לתיאבון מומר, if he eats נבילה only out of desire, he is considered a מומר. But if he eats להכעיס, in spite, מין הוי, then he's a מין, like we said before. וחד אמר, and one said: אפילו להכעיס נמי מומר, that even if he eats נבילה in spite, he's also only a מומר. אלא איזהו מין? What is considered a מין? זה העובד עבודת כוכבים, that's the one that worships idols. But by not doing the מצוות, or even doing the עבירות in spite of the תורה, you're still not a מין, it's only a מומר. Then the

גמרא asks: מיתיבי, I will ask you a קשיא, we learned in a ברייתא: אכל פרעוש אחד או יתוש אחד, if he ate one flea or one mosquito, הרי זה מומר, then this person is considered a מומר. Because you're not allowed to eat them, but if he ate them, he's a מומר. And the question is: והכא דלהכעיס הוא, here it's definitely in spite, because there is no reason why he would have a desire to eat a flea or a mosquito. So it's definitely in spite. וקתני, and still we learned, מומר, that he's a מומר. So here we see that even if you do it להכעיס, you're still a מומר. But the גמרא answers it's not in spite, התם בעי למיטעם טעמא דאיסורא, he could also do it out of desire. He wants to taste what an עבירה tastes like, and that's why he ate it, but not because he wants to להכעיס, go against the תורה, do in spite of the תורה. Then the גמרא continues: אמר מר, we learned before that the other category of people, היו מורידין אבל לא מעלין, you could throw them into the pit, but you should not take them out. So the גמרא asks: השתא אחותי מַחתינן, if you're even allowed to throw them in, אסוקי מיבעיא? Not to take him out, you have to tell us? Why does it have to say that you should throw him in, but don't take him out? Certainly, if you have to throw them in, certainly you shouldn't take them out! אמר רב יוסף בר חמא אמר רב ששת, רב יוסף בר חמא said in the name of רב ששת: לא נצרכא, it didn't have to tell us, but שאם היתה מעלה בבור, that if there was a step in the pit that you threw him in, מגררה, you have to take it away. That not only should you throw him into the pit, but also you should make sure that he shouldn't be able to come out. That's what it means ולא מעלין. You should even take away the step. אי, if you take away the step, it'll cause hatred, because the fact that you threw him in, he might not know, he'll think it's done by accident. But now that you'll be taking away the step, it'll be clear to him that you want him to die, it'll cause hatred. Why should you do that? So he says: דנקיט ליה עילא, you have a good excuse. ואמר, you could say: לא תיחות חיותא עליה, the reason I'm taking away the step is because I don't want my animals to walk down on it, and they will get killed in there, but that's a good excuse. רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו, רבה and רב יוסף both say that what did the ברייתא mean where it said that you should throw them in and not take them out, לא נצרכא, it is not told, but שאם היתה אבן על פי הבור, that if there was a stone right next to the hole, מכסה, you could even cover it to make sure he doesn't get out. And what kind of excuse will you use? אמר, you could say: לעבורי חיותא עליה, I want to put it down so my animals should be able to walk over it. רבינא אמר, רבינא says that what does it mean: שאם היה סולם, if there was a ladder there, מסלקו, you take it away. אמר, you could say: בעינא לאחותי ברי מאיגרא, I need the ladder to take my son off the roof. So therefore this won't cause hatred, and on the other hand, you will not be saving his life. Then the

גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: ישראל מל את עובד כוכבים לשום גר, a איד is allowed to circumcise a גוי for the sake of גרות, to become a גר, to become a convert. לאפוקי, this comes to exclude: לשום מורנא, for the sake of cutting off the sickness that he has. If a גוי has a kind of sickness on his foreskin, you are not allowed to circumcise him. דלא, that you're not allowed to do. And the reason is because you are not allowed to cure a גוי for free. As we said before that a גוי, you're not allowed to throw him into the pit, but if he's there, you're not allowed to take him out, you shouldn't save him. By curing him, you're saving him, so you're not allowed to do that. And therefore, you're not allowed to circumcise a גוי if he has the sickness on his foreskin, you're not allowed to do it. ועובדי כוכבים לא ימולו ישראל, and you shouldn't let a גוי circumcise a ייד, מפני שחשודין על שפיכות דמים, because they are suspected of murder. So if you let them circumcise you, they might kill you. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, עובד כוכבים מול את ישראל בזמן שאחרים עומדים על גביו, that a גוי could מל a ייד as long as others are standing there and watching. אבל בינו לבינו, but amongst themselves, just he and that ייד, לא, you're not allowed. רבי מאיר אומר, but רבי מאיר says, אפילו אחרים עומדים על גביו נמי לא, that even if others are standing next to him and watching, you're also not allowed to let him to circumcise the ייד, דזימנין, because sometimes, דמצלי סכיניה, he will move his knife, ומשוי ליה כרות שפכה, he will make the ייד into a כרות שפכה. He will sterilize the ייד and turn him into a כרות שפכה, and that's why you're not allowed to let him do it, even if others are watching, because he could do it in such a way that no one should notice. Then the גמרא asks: וסבר רבי מאיר, does really רבי מאיר hold עובד כוכבים לא, that you're not allowed to let a גוי מל a ייד? ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא. We learned: עיר שאין בה רופא ישראל, a city that has no Jewish doctor, ויש בה רופא כושי ורופא עובד כוכבים, but there is a doctor, a כושי there, and a doctor, a גוי. And the כושים were those people who converted, and there's a מחלוקת in גמרא whether they are גרי אמת or not, whether they are true converts or not. But whatever it is, they did not keep all the מצות. On the contrary, they built themselves a house in הר גריזים, and they worshipped a certain עבודה זרה. So if you have a doctor, a כושי, or a doctor, a גוי, ימול עובד כוכבים ואל ימול כושי, you should better let the גוי circumcise you and not the כושי, דברי רבי... and the reason for that is because the כושים also used to be מל, while the גוים didn't. Now if the

כושי is מל, he will circumcise it the way he does it normally. And since when they used to do their circumcision, they used to do it לשם their עבודה זרה, which a kind of יונה on that הר גריזים. So when he will do it for the Jewish child, he will also have in mind the same עבודה זרה, while the גוים, they don't circumcise at all. So if you will ask him to circumcise, he will do it the way you want. So therefore it's better to let the גוי circumcise the child than the כושי. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, ימול כושי ואל ימול עובד כוכבים, that better the כושי do it and not the גוי. And the reason is because a גוי is suspected of שפיכות דמים, he might kill the child. So here we see that רבי יהודה is the one that suspects that he might kill him, while רבי מאיר doesn't suspect. That's why רבי מאיר says you should let the גוי be מל rather than the כושי. So this is a contradiction to what we said before, that רבי מאיר holds that you should never let a גוי do מילה even if there are others watching. And here we see that רבי מאיר holds that you could let the גוי do the מילה. The

גמרא says, איפכא, change it around, that רבי מאיר אומר ימול כושי ולא ימול עובד כוכבים, but it's supposed to say that רבי מאיר is of the opinion that says that let the כושי do it and not the גוי, because he's afraid that the גוי will kill him, and רבי מאיר is the one that suspects the גוי of murder. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says that עובד כוכבים, you should rather let the גוי do it, ולא כושי, and not the כושי, for the reason we said before, because the כושי will do it the way he normally does it for his עבודה זרה, while the גוי will not do it that way. But then the גמרא asks: וסבר רבי יהודה, does רבי יהודה hold עובד כוכבים שפיר דמי, that it is okay for a גוי to מל? Because the way we changed around now, it comes out that רבי יהודה holds you should let the גוי do the מילה. Is it true that רבי יהודה holds that you're allowed to let the גוי do a מילה? והתניא, didn't we learn a ברייתא: רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, מניין, how do we know דמילה בעובד כוכבים שפסולה, that מילה if it's done through a גוי is פסול? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ואתה את בריתי תשמור, that you should keep, should guard, should watch my covenant. And from there we learn out it has to be you, אברהם, or anybody else who is commanded to do the מצוה of מילה. But a גוי who doesn't have to do מילה is פסול for מילה. And that is the opinion of רבי יהודה. So how can we say that we change around the ברייתא and we'll say that רבי יהודה holds you should let the גוי do the מילה better than the כושי? אלא, therefore, the גמרא says, לעולם לא תיפוך, don't change it around. And let it say as we said before, that רבי יהודה is the one that says that we should let the כושי do it and not the גוי, and the reason would be because a גוי is not allowed to be מל. And רבי מאיר is the one that holds that you could let the גוי do it and not the כושי. אי, the קשיא will come back, that how can רבי מאיר say that you should let the גוי do it when we learned before that רבי מאיר holds that we suspect the גוי might kill, and therefore you shouldn't let a גוי do the מילה? And even if it's a case where others are watching, you still shouldn't let him, because we suspect maybe he'll make him into a כרות שפכה? הכא במאי עסקינן, here we are talking in a

case ברופא מומחה, the doctor is an expert, and therefore we don't suspect he's going to do anything wrong because he won't want to ruin his reputation as being a doctor, as being a good doctor. In a case like that, רבי מאיר holds You're allowed to let him do it. דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן, because when רב דימי came, he said in the name of רבי יוחנן, אם היה מומחה לרבים, if he was a famous, expert doctor, מותר, he's allowed. Why? Because then we don't suspect that he's going to kill him or turn him into a כרות שפכה. And this doesn't mean that he must be an expert for מילה דוקא. Could be for מילה he's not דוקא an expert, but if he's an expert doctor for other things, then we also don't suspect, as תוספות says, that he will do anything wrong with the מילה, because if he does something wrong with the מילה, that's going to spoil his reputation for everything else. So, therefore, in a case like that, you are allowed. But then the גמרא asks, וסבר רבי יהודה כותי שפיר דמי? Does רבי יהודה hold that a כותי is allowed to do מילה? Because the way we said now that we don't change it around, so it remains that רבי יהודה is the one that said let the כותי do it, and don't let the גוי do it. But is it true that רבי יהודה holds you are allowed to let a כותי do the מילה?

והתניא, didn't we learn, ישראל מול את הכותי, a איד is allowed to be מל the כותי, וכותי לא ימול ישראל, but a כותי should not circumcise a איד, מפני שמל לשם הר גריזים. He will do it for the sake of הר גריזים, and as we said before, they had עבודה זרה on הר גריזים. So whenever they used to מל their own children, they would do it for the sake of that עבודה זרה. So if he will be מל a Jewish child, he will also have in mind for the sake of their הר גריזים of the עבודה זרה. So, therefore, you are not allowed to let a כותי do the מילה. דברי רבי יהודה, that's the opinion of רבי יהודה. אמר לו רבי יוסי, so רבי יוסי said to him, וכי היכא מצינו מילה מן התורה לשמה, where do we find in the תורה that when you do מילה it has to be done לשמה, has to be done for the sake of השם, for the sake of the מצוה of השם? אלא מול והולך עד שתצא נשמתו. He could let him be מל till his נשמה goes out, which means there is no limit, he could do it even if he doesn't do it לשמה for the sake of the מצוה. So, in the meantime we see here that רבי יהודה is the one that holds that a כותי is not allowed to do the מילה. And before, we said that רבי יהודה holds that if you have a choice of a גוי or a כותי, then you should let the כותי do it and not the גוי. אלא לעולם, therefore the גמרא says, באמת איפוך כדאפכינן מעיקרא. We do have to change it around like we said before, that רבי יהודה is the one that says that you should let the גוי do it and not the כותי. And the reason is, as we said before,

because the כותי will do it for his עבודה זרה, while the גוי who doesn't usually do the מילה, so in this case he will do it for the sake that the father of the child wants, which will be for the sake of the מצוה. So therefore, רבי יהודה is the one that holds that you should let the גוי do it and not the כותי. And רבי מאיר is the one that holds that you should let the כותי do it and not let the גוי. ודקא קשיא, and we asked the קשיא before, דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה, there was a contradiction between רבי יהודה and רבי יהודה, because before we brought where the ברייתא where רבי יהודה says that a גוי is not allowed to perform מילה. And if we're going to change around, it'll come out that רבי יהודה is the one that says that the כותי should not do it, but the גוי should, so we will answer: ההיא דרבי יהודה הנשיא היא, that that ברייתא where it says that רבי יהודה said that a גוי is not allowed to perform מילה, this is not the same רבי יהודה, that is רבי יהודה הנשיא who was in a later generation. This is רבי who wrote the משניות, he was called רבי יהודה הנשיא, and he is the one that says that a גוי is not allowed to do מילה, while the other רבי יהודה, he holds a גוי is allowed. Where do we find that רבי יהודה הנשיא holds a גוי is not allowed to perform מילה? דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, רבי יהודה הנשיא אומר, רבי יהודה הנשיא says, מניין למילה בעובד כוכבים שפסולה, how do we know that מילה done by a גוי is פסול? תלמוד לומר, because the פסוק says, ואתה את בריתי תשמור, that you should watch my ברית, so anybody who is under the ברית, who is commanded to perform מילה is able to do it, but a גוי who is not commanded to do it, he is not allowed to do it. So here we see clearly that it says who said that? רבי יהודה הנשיא said that. And therefore, there is no contradiction. אמר רב חסדא, רב חסדא said, מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה, what is the reason of רבי יהודה? And this goes back to the מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and רבי יוסי before. That רבי יוסי said that a כותי is allowed to perform מילה, while רבי יהודה said that a כותי is not allowed to perform מילה. In other words, the מחלוקת was whether מילה has to be done לשמה or not. So what is the reason of רבי יהודה who holds that מילה must be done לשמה? דכתיב, because the פסוק says, לה' המול. This is a פסוק in פרשת בא, קפיטל י"ב פסוק מ"ח, where it says, וכי יגור אתך גר, if a גר will live with you, which means if a גר, a גר will be מתגייר, ועשה פסח לה', he should make a פסח לה', המול לו כל זכר, he should have every זכר circumcised to him. So he דרשנ'ס the word לה' which really goes for the words before, ועשה פסח לה', but he דרשנ'ס that word as if it goes ahead, as if the פסוק says לה' המול, that you have to be מל for the sake of השם. And that's where he knows that מילה has to be done לשמה. But then the גמרא asks, ורבי יוסי, what does רבי יוסי do, where does he take his דין that you don't need לשמה? So he says, המול ימול, the פסוק says, המול ימול, you should circumcise every זכר And the פסוק uses a double לשון המול ימול, which comes to tell us you should circumcise in any way, as long as the act is done. ואידך, but the קשיא is on him, הכתיב לשם המול? Even though רבי יוסי has the פסוק המול ימול, which proves that you don't have to do it לשמה, but still there is the פסוק לשם המול, which teaches us that you have to be מל for the sake of השם. So he says from there is no ראיה. ההוא בפסח כתיב. That is speaking by קרבן פסח. The word לשם doesn't refer to the מילה, it refers to פסח. ועשה פסח לשם, then the פסוק continues, המול לו כל זכר. ואידך נמי, הכתיב המול ימול? Now the קשיא is on רבי יהודה, how can you say that it has to be לשמה when the פסוק says המול ימול, an extra לשון, a double לשון to stress the point that the main thing is the act of מילה, but the כוונה לשמה is not important? So he says, no, from there is no ראיה, because דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. The תורה speaks in the way of people. Since that is the way people speak, that they use an expression of המול ימול, a double expression, so the תורה also uses a double expression, but the תורה doesn't mean for us to דרשן anything out of it. And therefore, from there it's no ראיה, but he has a ראיה from the words לשם המול that you do have to do it לשמה. But in this גמרא we see that the reason רבי יהודה holds a כותי is פסול from מילה, because it has to be done לשמה, and a כותי does not do it לשמה. Nevertheless, רבי יהודה holds a גוי could do it, because a גוי would be doing it לשמה. A כותי, who always is מל and he does it לשם עבודה זרה, will do it here also לשם עבודה זרה. So therefore, a איד is not allowed to let him do it. A גוי who is never מל, so if he will be מל for you, he will do as you want, and he will do it לשמה. That's how it comes out from this גמרא.

תוספות ask the קשיא, why is this different than גט? The דין by גט is that it has to be done לשמה, and the דין is that a גוי is פסול to write a גט, as the גמרא says in פרק המביא. And the reason is, because a גוי אדעתא דנפשיה קא עביד. We say whenever a גוי does it, he will be writing for his own sake, not for the sake of לשמה. So how come over there where we need לשמה, we assume that the גוי will not do it לשמה, and by מילה where we need לשמה, we say a גוי will do it לשמה? And תוספות answers that it's not the same. And באמת a גוי does it סתם. He doesn't have a mind לשמה, but he doesn't have a mind not לשמה. He does it סתם. And therefore, by מילה where סתם it is לשמה, there is no other reason a איד should want to do the מילה, so when you are מל, usually it's לשמה. So therefore, a גוי as long as he doesn't do it for a different reason, like the כותי who does it בדווקא for הר גריזים, but a גוי who doesn't do it for הר גריזים, for עבודה זרה, he does it סתם, it is considered that it's done לשמה and it's כשר. But by a גט, if you do it סתם, it's not כשר, because a woman is סתם not לגירושין עומדת. She's not ready usually standing for גיטין, for גירושין, for getting a divorce. Therefore, by a גט, the only way it will be כשר, unless it is done בדווקא לשמה. And since by a גוי we say he doesn't do it בדווקא לשמה, he doesn't do it בדווקא against, but he doesn't do it בדווקא in a positive way לשמה, he does it סתם. And therefore, by a

גט which סתם is not for לשמה, it is פסול if a גוי does it. And from here תוספות takes out that when you write a גט, it is not enough just to write לשמה, you always have to say that I am writing לשם פלונית, לשם this and this woman. And the same thing when you write a ספר תורה, you have to say בפירוש in the beginning of the writing, I am writing לשם תורת ישראל, because there has to be a positive ענין of לשמה. And you also have to say that you are writing the אזכרות, the names of השם, לשם קדושה, because if you don't do that, סתם when you write, it is not לשמה. And it is משמע also from פרק הנזקין in גיטין, when one person there says that I, the אזכרות of the ספר תורה I didn't write לשמה, what is the פשט I didn't write לשמה? Meaning I didn't say it was written לשמה. Because if it would mean that I didn't בדווקא make it לשמה, but I wrote it סתם, then the לשון should have been I wrote them שלא לשמה. But the לשון of the גמרא is I didn't write them לשמה, that means he didn't do anything against it, he just didn't write it לשמה and it was סתם, and it was פסול. So we see that when you write the שם, you must in a positive way say that you are writing לשמה. And that's also משמע like that from פרק השולח, also there in גיטין, where it says that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was מתיר in צידון to buy ספרי תורה from גוים. And the גמרא asks, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says there that you have to work out the parchment of the ספר תורה לשמה, but he doesn't hold that you have to write the ספר תורה לשמה? Because he said that you could buy it from a גוי, and a גוי doesn't do it לשמה. That's the גמרא's קשיא. Now from there we see that what's the פשט a גוי doesn't do it לשמה? It means that a גוי doesn't in a positive way do it לשמה. But סתם is not enough, because if סתם would be enough, then it would be כשר to buy it from a גוי, because buying from a גוי is considered לשמה if סתם is considered לשמה, because a גוי does it סתם, as we said here in this גמרא by מילה. And since over there the גמרא says that a גוי does it שלא לשמה, obviously that over there it's not enough סתם, but you must do it in a positive way לשמה. But then תוספות ask the קשיא, if by a ספר תורה סתם is not לשמה, so how come there in פרק השולח, by a ספר תורה, תפילין ומזוזות, it says that says that if a מין wrote it, or a מוסר wrote it, or a גוי wrote it, or an עבד wrote it, or an אשה wrote it, or a קטן, or a כותי, or a ישראל מומר, the גמרא says they're all פסול, because the פסוק says וקשרתם וכתבתם. It has וקשרתם לאות על ידך, then it says וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך. You should tie it, and you should write it, and we learn out anybody who is בקשירה, which means who is in the מצוה of tying, of putting on תפילין, he is in the מצוה of writing. And since these don't put on תפילין, they are פסול to write a ספר תורה, or תפילין, or מזוזות. But the question is: why do we need a פסוק for a גוי? A גוי would be פסול anyway, since a גוי does it סתם, and by a ספר תורה, מזוזות, and תפילין, we said before, סתם is not enough, but it has to be done in a positive way לשמה, and a גוי doesn't do it that way, so a גוי would be פסול for that even without this פסוק of וקשרתם וכתבתם. And תוספות answers that באמת טאקע there a גוי is just put in אגב the others. But really what we mean is that a אשה, and a קטן, and the rest need the פסוק, but a גוי doesn't טאקע need that פסוק. Without that פסוק, it also would be פסול because because he doesn't do it לשמה. Just like over there one of the things mentioned is a מין, and a מין definitely we don't need the פסוק to make him פסול, because he does סתמא לעבודה זרה, and nevertheless the גמרא puts it in, so it is אגב. Since we mentioned many things, we mentioned that also. But not that for this we need the פסוק the גמרא brings there. Concerning what the גמרא said here that גוים is לא מעלין ולא מורידין, that you don't take him out of the pit to save his life, but you're also not allowed to throw him into the pit, the תוספות has a קשיא. It says in מסכת סופרים פרק ט״ו, כשר שבכנענים הרוג, that the best one of the גוים of the כנענים you should kill. So we see that there is an ענין in killing them. And תוספות answers, it says in ירושלמי קידושין that that is only בשעת מלחמה. At time of war you can't trust any גוי, but other times you could. And he brings a ראיה that it says ויקח שש מאות רכב בחור. It says when פרעה chased the יידן after they left מצרים, it says he took 600 chosen chariots. But from where was it? We know that all their animals died. So it says there it was מהירא את דבר ה׳. Because those that were afraid of the word of ה׳ kept their animals inside, because the גזירה of דבר and by ברד, it was only that those animals that were outside would get killed, but those that were inside would not get killed. So those that were afraid of the words of ה׳ took the animals in, and they were safe. But later on when they had to chase the יידן, so פרעה took it from them. So from here we see that even the best of the גוים you should kill, because these people who gave the chariots to chase the יידן were the best גוים, they were the ones that were afraid of the words of ה׳, and nevertheless at that point, they gave the chariots to פרעה to chase the יידן. But on the other hand, we see from here, from this ירושלמי, that it's only a time of war, because at that time, when it was a time of war, that's when you couldn't trust them. But other times, this דין doesn't apply that you should kill them. And then תוספות says that even though סתם כנענים worship עבודה זרה, and they are עובר on all the שבע מצות, still the דין is that you are not allowed to kill them, because the פסוק says והיה לך למס ועבדוך, that they should be to you for a tax and they should work for you, so we see that you shouldn't kill them. If they are in danger, then don't save them. But סתם to kill them, even if they don't keep the שבע מצות, still you are not allowed to kill them. And also the end of the גמרא that we learned today, where the גמרא says that the reason he doesn't learn out from the words המול ימול that you don't have to do it לשמה, is because he holds דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, that the תורה speaks the words, the לשון of people, and there is no special דיוק in the fact that the תורה repeated itself by saying a double לשון, המול ימול. So לכאורה it would come out that the one that says here that we cannot דרשן anything from the words המול ימול, accepts that כלל in the whole תורה, because many times we find in the תורה such an expression: השב תשיב, העבט תעביטנו, etc. And there also, we find a מחלוקת whether we דרשן something from this extra word or דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. Now the one that says here that we say דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, obviously he accepts as a rule that wherever the תורה uses a double לשון, we cannot דרשן it. So probably we would think that the same applies to all other פסוקים, that he holds that in all those פסוקים we cannot דרשן anything. Nevertheless, תוספות says that it's not so, that the ר״י says that even the one that holds here that we say דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם is still able to דרשן the other דרשות that we דרשן from השב תשיב, and הוכח תוכיח, etc. Because we don't find anywhere where a תנא should argue on those דרשות. And a ראיה is that רב שמעון says in פרק מציאת האשה concerning the פסוק העבט תעביטנו, that the reason the תורה repeats itself is because דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, and he doesn't want to דרשן anything from it. The same רב שמעון in פרק קמא דראש השנה דרשנס from עשר תעשר a דרש. So obviously we see that by the fact that in one place we say דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם is no proof that that's how we're going to hold in every other place. But then תוספות says that it's צריך עיון, we have to really think about it: what is the כלל? When do we say דברה תורה לשון

בני אדם, and when don't we? In other words, what is the reason that we should assume that in this פסוק the תורה didn't mean that we should darshen it, but the תורה just used it because that's how the לשון בני אדם, or this is a פסוק that the תורה did mean to darshen? And תוספות doesn't give the כלל when we say it.