But if they performed their sins in public, society does not accept them. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa say: Both in this case, where they sinned in private, and in that case, where they sinned in public, society accepts them, as it is stated: “Return, you backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jeremiah 3:22). Rabbi Yitzḥak of the village of Akko says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that pair, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, i.e., penitents are accepted, regardless of whether they sinned in public or in private.

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and on the three days after them, it is prohibited to engage in business with those gentiles. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals.

GEMARA: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avdimi says that Shmuel says: With regard to a Christian, according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael it is always prohibited for a Jew to engage in business with him. Since his festival takes place every Sunday and the three days before and after Sunday constitute the entire week, one cannot engage in business with a Christian on any day of the week.

The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna in the mishna on 2a, who said that it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles during the three days before their festival. The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to the question of whether the three days includes only them, i.e., the three days, without their festival, or if the festival is counted as one of the three days. The first tanna holds that the three days is referring to them, the days preceding the festival, without their festivals, and the later Rabbis cited in this mishna hold that the three days include them and their festivals.

If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to one who ignored this injunction and engaged in business with gentiles before their festival. The first tanna holds that if one engaged in business, it is permitted to derive benefit from the profits, and the later Rabbis hold that if one engaged in business, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the profits.

And if you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: In the Diaspora it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on their festival day itself. The first tanna is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and the later Rabbis are not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to a statement of Naḥum the Mede. As it is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: It is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on the day before their festival. The first tanna is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum the Mede, and the later Rabbis are of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum the Mede, as they do not mention how many days before the festival are included in the prohibition.

Having mentioned Naḥum the Mede’s opinion, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Naḥum the Mede says: It is prohibited only on the day before their festival. The other Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the later Rabbis, who hold in accordance with his opinion? The Gemara answers: Who are these Rabbis? This is referring to Naḥum the Mede himself, but the other Sages disagree.

§ The Gemara cites additional statements of Naḥum the Mede. It is taught in another baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: Although it is prohibited to sell large livestock to gentiles, one may sell a male and elderly horse to them during a war, as it cannot be used for battle. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there ben Beteira, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (14b): Ben Beteira permits selling a horse to gentiles. The Gemara answers: Since ben Beteira does not differentiate between male and female horses, and Naḥum the Mede does differentiate between male and female horses, it is clear that Naḥum the Mede holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one is generally not permitted to sell a horse to a gentile, only he permits it in this specific circumstance. And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated.

The Gemara cites a similar dispute. It is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: The dill plant is subject to tithes, whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Rabbi Eliezer, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (Ma’asrot 4:5) that Rabbi Eliezer says: The dill plant is subject to tithes whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Eliezer is referring to the garden variety of dill, which is of such a high quality that its seeds, vegetable, and pods are eaten. By contrast, in the case of wild dill, only its seeds and vegetable are eaten, not the pods.

Apropos the discussion between Naḥum the Mede and the other Sages, Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi said to Abaye: A great man came from our place, i.e., from Media, and in response to every matter that he said, the Sages said to him that it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated. Do they wish to erase all the halakhot taught by the Sages of Media? Abaye said: There is one instance in which we act in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: During the Amida prayer a person may request his personal needs that are not included in the standard formulation of the Amida prayer, in the blessing that ends: Who listens to prayer.

Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi said to Abaye: Apart from this halakha, i.e., this does not serve as proof that a statement of Naḥum the Mede was ever accepted by the other Sages, as this halakha is dependent on the dispute between great trees, i.e., great authorities, who expressed their opinions with regard to the halakha before Naḥum the Mede.

Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person should request his own needs first and afterward recite the Amida prayer, as it is stated: “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out siḥo before the Lord. O Lord, hear my prayer” (Psalms 102:1–2). These verses indicate that one first requests help concerning his afflictions and pains, and only afterward pours forth his siḥa. And siḥa means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: “And Isaac went out to meditate [lasuaḥ] in the field” (Genesis 24:63).

Rabbi Yehoshua says: One should pray first and afterward request his own needs, as it is stated: “I pour out siḥi before Him, I declare before Him my trouble” (Psalms 142:3), which teaches that first one pours forth his siḥa, and only afterward speaks of his own troubles.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, isn’t it written: “I pour out siḥi before Him, I declare before Him my trouble”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, this is what the verse is saying: I pour out my siḥa before Him when I have already declared before Him my trouble. The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn’t it written: “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out siḥo before the Lord”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, this is what the verse is saying: When is there a prayer of the afflicted? When he has already poured out siḥo before the Lord, and now requests his own needs.

The Gemara notes: Now it is clear that the verses themselves do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of this Sage and do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, as one verse indicates that prayer is recited before stating personal requests, while the other suggests that first one states personal requests and then prays. Evidently, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is not based on the verses, but depends on some other issue. Therefore, the Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree?

They disagree with regard to that which Rabbi Simlai taught. As Rabbi Simlai taught: A person should always set forth praise of God and only then pray for his own needs. From where do we derive this? We derive it from Moses our teacher, as it is written: “O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness, and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth, that can do according to Your works, and according to Your mighty acts?” (Deuteronomy 3:24). Here Moses praises God, and it is written afterward, in the following verse, that then Moses requested from God: “Let me go over, I pray You, and see the good land” (Deuteronomy 3:25).