Introduction
After three and half daf in which the Talmud barely addresses the Mishnah, we now turn our attention to the Mishnah which prohibited engaging in business with non-Jews for three days before the festival.
ג’ ימים אסור לשאת ולתת עמהם וכו’: ומי בעינן כולי האי? והתנן בארבעה פרקים בשנה המוכר בהמה לחבירו צריך להודיעו אמה מכרתי לשחוט בתה מכרתי לשחוט. ואלו הן עיו"ט האחרון של חג עיו"ט הראשון של פסח וערב עצרת וערב ר"ה וכדברי ר’ יוסי הגלילי אף ערב יוה"כ בגליל.
On the three days preceding their festivals it is forbidden to do any business transaction with them.
Is such a long period necessary? Have we not learned: At four periods of the year one who sells cattle to another for slaughter must let him know if its mother had been sold or if its young had been sold to be slain [the same day]. And these are the dates: the eve of the last day of Sukkot, the eve of the first day of Pesach, the eve of Shavuot, and the Eve of Rosh Hashanah and, according to R. Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur in the Galilee.
The assumption here is that it is prohibited to sell an animal to a gentile before his holiday because he might slaughter it that day and use it for a sacrifice. But why do we need three days before. A mishnah from Hullin (5:3) teaches that four (or five, according to one opinion) times a year a person can assume that an animal being sold today will be slaughtered today. Therefore, if he is selling a mother he must let the buyer know if the young had been sold to be slaughtered on that day. This is in order to prevent one from accidentally transgressing the prohibition of slaughtering a mother and her young on the same day. But again, the requirement is for one day. One can sell a mother on Tuesday if its young was sold the day before, because the two animals will not end up being slaughtered on the same day.
התם דלאכילה סגיא בחד יומא הכא דלהקרבה בעינן תלתא יומי.
In those cases where the animals were bought for eating, one day is enough, but here where they were bought for sacrifice, three days are needed.
The mishnah in Hullin referred to selling animals for food. The assumption is that people would buy the animal and slaughter it the same day. Our mishnah refers to sacrifice. People might by the animal three days ahead of time.
ולהקרבה סגי בתלתא יומי והתנן שואלין בהלכות הפסח קודם הפסח שלשים יום רשב"ג אומר שתי שבתות.
אנן דשכיחי מומין דפסלי אפילו בדוקין שבעין בעינן תלתין יומין אינהו דמחוסר אבר אית להו בתלתא יומי סגי
But are three days enough in the case of sacrifices? Have we not learned: The laws relating to Pesah [should be learned] for thirty days before Pesah; R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says two weeks.
We, for whom there are many blemishes that disqualify [animals for sacrifice], even in the lids of the eye, require thirty days. They, who have laws regarding animals missing limbs, require only three days.
If the animal is being sold for sacrifice, then maybe the prohibition needs to be longer than three days. After all, Jews are supposed to start preparing for the Pesah sacrifice thirty days (or at least two weeks) before Pesah. The answer is that Jews need more time because there are more rules for us about what flaws disqualify animals from being sacrificed. Non-Jews have fewer rules and therefore three days is sufficient.
דא"ר אלעזר מנין למחוסר אבר דאסור לבני נח דכתיב (בראשית ו, יט) "ומכל החי מכל בשר שנים מכל" וגו’ אמרה תורה הבא בהמה שחיין ראשי אברים שלה.
As R. Elazar said: How do we know that [an animal] missing a limb is forbidden to Noahides [for use as a sacrifice]? As it is written, Of every living thing of all flesh two of every kind (Genesis 6:19). The Torah says. Bring such cattle whose principal limbs are living.
The derashah here seems to be on all flesh. For Noah to use the animal he brings on the ark as a sacrifice, it must have all of its flesh, meaning not missing any limbs.
האי מיבעי ליה למעוטי טריפה.
דלא טריפה מלחיות זרע נפקא.
But is not this phrase needed to exclude such animals that are trefa?
The exclusion of the trefa is from the phrase, to keep seed alive (Genesis 7:3).
The Talmud believes that this verse is needed to exclude the trefa an animal that will soon die. Such an animal cannot be sacrificed. But perhaps one missing a limb can be sacrificed by Noahides?
The resolution is that the prohibition of sacrificing a trefa is derived from a different verse, to keep seed alive.
הניחא למאן דאמר טריפה אינה יולדת אלא למ"ד טריפה יולדת מאי איכא למימר?
אמר קרא אתך בדומין לך
This answer works well for the one who said that an animal which is trefa cannot bear any offspring; but according to the one who said that a trefa animal can bear offspring what can you say? The verse says, with you implying similar to you.
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.
ודלמא נח גופיה טריפה הוה?
תמים כתיב ביה
ודלמא תמים בדרכיו היה
צדיק כתיב ביה
דלמא תמים בדרכיו צדיק במעשיו הוה
לא ס"ד דנח גופיה טריפה הואי דאי ס"ד דנח טריפה הוה א"ל רחמנא כוותך עייל שלמין לא תעייל
But how can we tell that Noah himself was not a trefa? Because it is written about him perfect (Genesis 6:9).
Perhaps this means that he was perfect in his manners?
It is also written about him that he was righteous.
Perhaps he was perfect in his manners and righteous in his deeds?
You should not think that Noah was a trefa; for if you thought that he was a trefa, would God have said, sacrifice one like yourself but do not sacrifice one whole?
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.
והשתא דנפקא ליה מ"אתך""לחיות זרע" ל"ל? אי מאתך הוה אמינא לצוותא בעלמא ואפילו זקן ואפילו סריס כתב רחמנא זרע
Now that we deduce this from the phrase with you , why do we need the phrase to keep seed alive? If it had just said, with you I might have thought that the purpose was just to keep him company, even if they be old or neutered, therefore the Torah wrote seed.
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).