Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this means he has no humbleness, as most weavers are brazen.

Explanation#2: The Aruch has the text, "A weaver who is cursed is a curse" meaning that his Mazal s cursed, and therefore one year is worse than the next. This is like the saying, "After the poor go poverty."

Explanation: This means that even in the domain of a Jewish woman, a Nochris may not nurse a Jewish child. The argument of nursing is similar to the argument regarding midwives, and the case of a midwife is presumably in the house of the Jewish woman giving birth. Even so, we say a Nochris may only be the midwife if others are standing over her.

Explanation (cont.): However, if a Jew is going in and out of the room, it is permissible, as this is called standing over her back, as indicated later (61a). Accordingly, one must be careful not to allow a Jewish woman who is going out of the city to leave her child alone in the house with a Nochris woman, unless there is a Jewish woman who constantly going in and out of the house. Even with such a woman going in and out, one cannot allow the child to be by himself with the Nochris (as she will not go in and out as much during the night, and this will give the Nochris opportunity to kill the child).

Opinion: Regarding a boy and girl who stay in a Nochri's house in order to become healthy from sickness, the Ri said that this is forbidden for many reasons. The Nochrim are suspected to kill them, and if the children are older they are suspected of turning the children into heretics.

Observation: The Yerushalmi states that a Nochris woman may nurse the son of a Jew, as the Pasuk says, "And kings will be your workers, and the wives of their officers will be your nursemaids." The Beraisa states that a child can nurse from a Nochris and an unkosher animal, and they can bring him milk from anywhere. We do not say that there is a problem with nursing from someone who eats unkosher crawling creatures (see Ran), or suspect that the milk is from an unkosher animal. (See Ran who discusses whether this leniency is only regarding a sick child.)

Implied Question: The questioner in our Gemara did not think that the Mishnah was saying that a Jewish woman cannot help a Nochris give birth for free. (Why not? This would be a simple answer to the question!)

Answer: This is because he thought the reason of the Mishnah is that a Jewish woman may not help a Nochris bring a child into the world who will serve idols. Rav Yosef's conclusion is that even so, this is permitted due to the hatred it would otherwise promote.

Question: It is difficult to understand how Rav Yosef could have thought this was permitted. According to Abaye as well, who answers that there is no hatred in this case, the implication is that if there was hatred it would be permitted. How can we permit committing a Torah prohibition due to possible hatred? We say in Shabbos (107b) that if a person stuck their hand into an animal and detached the fetus that is in its uterus on Shabbos, he is liable for uprooting something from its place of growth, which is a Toldah of Gozez (shearing).

Answer#1: The case is where she has already sat on the birthing stone and the baby has already detached itself in order to come out.

Answer#2: Alternatively, being that the child is full term, it has already stopped growing.

Explanation: This refers to shepherds who are shepherding their own animals. If they are shepherding other people's animals, we say in Bava Metzia (5b) that a person does not sin for someone else's benefit.

Question: Why were the Rabbanan so stringent regarding the shepherds who are only unfit to testify according to Rabbinic law, and who are even fit to testify to permit a woman to remarry, as stated in Rosh Hashanah (22a)? They were not stringent regarding thieves, who are unfit to testify according to Torah law for all testimony! Similarly, a person who purposely eats Neveilos (improperly slaughtered animals) due to his desires (i.e. it is cheaper), according to all opinions, is someone who we must be careful about his body and money. We are obligated to save him from a pit, and may not lower him into a pit!

Answer: The Ri answers that the logic of this question is in fact the reason we are so stringent with the shepherd. Being that he is only unfit according to Rabbinic law, the Chachamim strengthened their words about him in order that he should repent. Beis Din has the right to hit and punish even if it is not required by Torah law.

Observation: This is even the law according to Rebbi Meir (20a) who says that one may give a Nochri a Neveilah as a present.

Question: Don't we say in Meseches Sofrim (ch.15) that the good Canaanite should be killed?

Answer: The Yerushalmi in Kidushin explains that this is only during wartime.

Proof: It brings a proof to this from the Pasuk, "And he took six hundred choice chariots" (Shemos 14:7). Where were these from? They were obviously from the Egyptians who feared Hash-m (and brought their horses into the house before the plague of Barad).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regular Canaanites are idolaters, and they transgress the Sheva Mitzvos. (Why isn't this a reason that we should be able (or be commanded to) kill them?)

Answer: Even so, we do not kill them, as the Pasuk included them (to live) when it said, "And they will be for you for taxes, and they will serve you."

Question: This is difficult. What is the Gemara's question? Perhaps I will tell you that while we do lower them into a pit, we still return his lost object. This is similar to the fact that a person is not allowed to take away the money of a Moser (meaning he directs bandits to the money of other Jews), because perhaps he will have a son who is righteous, as the Pasuk says, "An evildoer will prepare and a righteous person will wear." Even so, the law is that we lower him into the pit.

Answer: Our case is different, as from the Pasuk that we learn that he should include the return of his lost object, we also derive that a regular Jew's body should be returned (i.e. one should heal him). This is as the Pasuk says, "And it will be returned to him," including the returning of his body. Just as a Jew is included, they are all included (even a purposeful sinner), whether regarding their money or health.

Answer (cont.): We even have to bring him up from the pit and redeem him. This is as implied in Gitin (47a) that Rebbi Ami would have wanted to redeem a captive if he was someone who purposely sinned due to his desires (i.e. ate unkosher instead of kosher because it was cheaper). However, being that he was someone who sinned to upset Hash-m, he said that he could not redeem this person. It is also forbidden to lend him money with interest, as implied in Bava Metzia (62a) that one must return Ribis in order that the borrower can "live with him." This seems to include a purposeful sinner due to desire, who one is commanded to make live.

Observation: However, the purposeful sinners in the time of the Gemara were people who did so on purpose to upset Hash-m. They would not eat (readily accessible and cheap) kosher food in order to specifically eat unkosher, and mix amongst the Nochrim. We are not commanded to give life to anyone who sins on purpose to anger Hash-m. This is as is indicated in Gitin (47a) that we do not redeem such a person, and one may even take interest from them.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that it is forbidden to give them interest because of the Pasuk of "Lo Sashich" and "Lifnei Iver." It would therefore seem that we should invoke the teaching that wherever we are commanded "Lo Sashich" we are also commanded "Lo Sashuch." (How, then, can we say that one can take interest from them (Lo Sashuch), but not give them interest (Lo Sashuch)?)

Answer: However, being that you are not commanded to give him life, you are not commanded to give him a loan without interest, as regarding him the Pasuk does not say, "And your brother should live with you."

Answer (cont.): We say in the Yerushalmi that it is permitted to lend the Kusim of Caesaria money with interest.

Implied Question: We say that Ovadiah borrowed from Yehoram ben Achav with interest in order to support the prophets (who Ovadiah was hiding), even though Yehoram was a purposeful sinner to whom he was not allowed to pay interest. (How, then, was he able to borrow from him with interest?)

Answer: The reason that was permitted was because it was a life threatening situation, and it was a Mitzvah to save them.

Observation: However, a Moser is worse than a purposeful sinner. A Moser is always associated with a heretic, and is not usually included as someone whose lost object we must return. Perhaps the one who holds that one cannot destroy the money of a Moser also holds that we return a lost object to him, due to the reasoning of the Pasuk, "An evildoer will prepare and a righteous person will wear."

Explanation: It appears that Rebbi Yochanan says to take away the text, "a purposeful sinner" specifically regarding lowering him into a pit, as he holds he should not be listed together with the heretics. However, regarding other things we find that heretics and purposeful sinners share the same list.

Explanation (cont.): For example, in Rosh Hashanah (17a) the Gemara states that heretics, purposeful sinners, and a Moser go down into Gehinnom. Similarly, in Gitin (45b) the Gemara says that a Sefer Torah that a heretic, purposeful sinner, and a Moser wrote etc.

Question: This is difficult, as the Beraisa states in Horayos (11a) that if he ate forbidden fats he is a purposeful sinner. What is a purposeful sinner? It is someone who eats Neveilos, Treifos, Shekatzim, and Remasim. The Gemara asks, what does this mean? (How is this a definition?) The Gemara answers, this means that if he eats forbidden fats because he likes them, he is a purposeful sinner (due to desire). If he does it to anger Hash-m, he is a heretic.

Question (cont.): How do we assume that someone is a purposeful sinner who is really a heretic? In other words, we cannot decide a person's status if he eats forbidden fats, as he might have eaten them just because they taste good. This is why it describes a purposeful sinner who is like a heretic by saying that he eats Neveilos and Treifos, meaning [a Neveilah in this case is] an animal that died due to sickness and [a Treifah in this case is] an animal whose spine was broken and it then died. If he ate these animals, he is clearly eating them to anger Hash-m. The Beraisa is not referring to healthy animals that were merely not slaughtered with a knife (or slaughtered by a Nochri), as this would not clearly categorize him as a heretic, as perhaps he ate them because they tasted good.

Question (cont.): This is understandable according to Rebbi Yochanan, as he says that a purposeful sinner who eats Neveilos to anger Hash-m is a heretic. However, according to the opinion that he is a purposeful sinner, how can he explain the Beraisa in Horayos? This person is an eater of Shekatzim and Remasim, meaning he is a heretic!

Answer: The opinion here that holds that he is a purposeful sinner explains the Beraisa in Horayos as follows. If he ate forbidden fats, he is a purposeful sinner who presumably acts on his desires, as forbidden fat tastes good. We announce the lost object of such a person, and we do not lower him into a pit. Who is a purposeful sinner who presumably wants to anger Hash-m, and who we therefore would not announce his lost object and would lower him into a pit? This is someone who Neveilos and Treifos that are disgusting, as they are similar to Shekatzim and Remasim (however, it does not indicate that he is a heretic).

Observation: Our Gemara implies that a Jew who purposely commits idolatry is called a heretic. In Chulin (13a), the Beraisa states that the slaughtering of a heretic is assumed to be to an idol, and his bread is like the bread of a Nochri etc.

Question: This is difficult. In Chulin (13b), we say that Nochrim are not classified as heretics. The Gemara asks, what is the halachic significance of this classification? The Gemara answers that it is regarding slaughtering and Yayin Nesech. The Gemara asks, if the slaughtering of a Jewish heretic is forbidden, certainly the slaughtering of a Nochri idolater is forbidden!

Question (cont.): What is the question? We indeed find that a Jew who is an idolater is worse than a Nochri idolater! A Jewish idolater is considered a heretic, and according to everyone the implication here is that we lower him into a pit. Nochrim, despite the fact most of them are idolaters, are not lowered into a pit. Even regarding slaughtering, the Beraisa states that when a Jewish heretic slaughters he slaughters for idolatry. However, regarding a regular Nochri, only Rebbi Eliezer holds that his slaughtering is for idolatry.

Answer: It is possible to answer that when we say "a heretic for idolatry" we are referring to a priest of idolatry who is very into his idolatry. However, the slaughtering of a Jew who serves idols is not the same as the slaughtering of a heretic.

Answer (cont.): Proof to this can be found in Chulin (39a). The Gemara says that if someone slaughtered an animal in order to sprinkle its blood for idolatry, Rebbi Yochanan says that the animal is forbidden from benefit, while Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish says that one can have benefit from the animal. Rashi there explains that Rebbi Shimon holds that one can even eat the animal, despite the fact that the one who slaughters it is killed. This is as stated in Sanhedrin (61a) that Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish was only referring to the animal. The person who slaughtered it is killed. This is akin to someone who bows down to a mountain. One can still have benefit from the mountain, despite the fact that the one who bowed down is killed by the sword. This implies that even someone who serves idols does not cause an animal that he slaughters to become forbidden when he slaughters in general (without stating his intent or it being obvious that it is for idolatry).

Question: This is difficult. How is someone who eats a flea or mosquito different than someone who eats Shekatzim or Remasim who is classified as a heretic in general in the Beraisa in Horayos (11a) which I quoted earlier?

Answer#1: The case here is where the person says explicitly that he is doing so to anger Hash-m.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the case there is where he eats Shekatzim and Remasim, implying he is eating a lot of them, one after the other (in order to satisfy his hunger). He already tasted the first one. However, our case is where he only ate one flea or mosquito.

Explanation: This implies that he says this in order to give himself an excuse, in order not to cause hatred.

Question: Why is hatred relevant here? We say one should lower him into the pit Lechatchilah!

Answer: This is only when our hands are stronger. However, we do not bring him out of the pit even when we are not stronger, as long as we have an excuse.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara originally asked that if we lower him down when our hands are stronger, is there a question regarding whether or not we should bring him up, being that he can give an excuse and go?!

Explanation: The correct explanation is like Rashi, that it is forbidden to heal for free. However, for pay it is permitted due to hatred.

Proof: There is proof to this in Gitin (70a). Rav Simi bar Ashi healed a Nochri who suffered from leprosy. This implies that it is permitted to heal a Nochri. It must be that he received wages for doing so.

Proof (cont.): It is possible to explain that Rav Ashi did so for free. However, it is possible that to do so in order to learn how to heal is permitted. The implication there indeed is that he did so because he was not yet an expert in healing.