Today's שיעור will be מסכת עבודה זרה דף כ״ט, we will start 10 lines from the top of the עמוד. הגמרא says, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said, מעלין אונקלי בשבת, you're allowed to pick up the אונקלי on שבת. מאי אונקלי? What is אונקלי? אמר רב אבא, רב אבא said, אסתומכא דליבא, it is the cartilage in front of the heart, so on שבת you're allowed to pick it up. מאי אספתיה? What is the cure for it? הגמרא says, מייתי כמונא, you should bring cumin, כרויא, caraway, וניניא, and mint, ואגדנא, and wormwood, וציסרא, and savory, ואבדיסא, and hyssop. So לליבא, if you want to use this as a cure for the heart, בחמרא, then you should put it into wine, mix it with wine and that's how you take it. וסימנך, the סימן to remember that if it's for the heart you mix it with wine because the פסוק says ויין ישמח לבב אנוש, that wine makes happy the heart of a man. So we see that when it comes to the heart, it is connected to wine. ולרוחא, if it is supposed to be used as a remedy for the breathing, במיא, then you mix it with water. וסימנך, the סימן to remember it is because the פסוק says ורוח אלוקים מרחפת על פני המים, and the spirit of השם was floating on the face of the water. But it uses the word רוח, which also has a meaning of wind, of air, so this would remind us that when it comes to רוח, to air, to breathing, it is connected to מים, to water. ולקודא, if it is to help a woman who is giving birth, and she got cold in middle of her giving birth and therefore she needs a remedy, בשיכרא, you would put it in beer. וסימנך, the סימן to remember that for that it is with beer, the פסוק says וכדה על שכמה, she went with her jar on her shoulder. So here the word כדה is the same word as קודא, which is for a woman who is in childbirth, and it says the word שכמה, which is similar to the word שיכרא. So that's how we remember that for קודא, for childbirth, it is with שיכרא, with beer.

הגמרא says רב אחא בריה דרבא שחיק להו לכולהו כהדדי, רב אחא the son of רבא would grind them all together, ושקיל, and he took of them מלא חמש אצבעותיה, full five fingers, a full fistful of them, ושתה ליה, and he drank it. רב אשי שחיק כל חד וחד לחודיה, רב אשי grinded each one separately, ושקיל מלא אצבעו רבתי ומלא אצבעו זוטרתי, and he took a pinchful with his big finger and a pinchful with his small finger. אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, אנא עבדי לכול הני, I did all this, ולא איתסאי, and I wasn't cured, עד דאמר לי ההוא טייעא, till this wandering Arab told me: אייתי כוזא חדתא, you should bring a new jar, ומלייה מיא, and fill it up with water, ורמי ביה טרפא דדובשא, and put in it a spoonful of honey, דתלו ליה בכוכבי, that stood overnight under the stars, ולמחר אשתיה, and drink it the next day. עבדי הכי, I did that, ואיתסאי, and I was cured. Then the גמרא continues:

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, ששה דברים מרפאין את החולה מחליו, there are six things that help a sick person get cured from his sickness, ורפואתן רפואה, and this רפואה, the curing, is a real רפואה, it's an effective medicine. ואלו הן, these are the things: כרוב, cabbage, ותרדין, and beets, ומי סיסין יבשה, and water of dry סיסין, which is a kind of medical herb, וקיבה, and tripe, והרחם, and a womb of a cow, ויותרת הכבד, and the lobe which is above the liver. ויש אומרים, and some say, אף דגים קטנים, also small fish. ולא עוד, and not only that, אלא שדגים קטנים מפרין ומרבין כל גופו של אדם, but small fish keep the whole human body in good condition, and that is generally good. Then it says: עשרה דברים מחזירין את החולה לחליו, there are 10 things that are able to send the sick person back to his sickness, וחליו קשה, and his sickness would be dealt very difficult then. ואלו הן, these are the 10 things: האוכל בשר שור, if someone eats meat of an ox, שומן, if he eats fat, which means the kosher fat that's in the animal, בשר צלי, roasted meat, ציפורים, birds. ציפורים, birds meat, וביצה צלויה, and a roasted egg, ושחליים, and pepperwort, ותגלחת, and shaving, ומרחץ, and bathing, וגבינה, and cheese, וכבד, and liver. ויש אומרים, and some say, אף אגוזים, also nuts, ויש אומרים, and some say, אף קישואין, also melons.

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, they learned in the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל, למה נקרא שמן קישואין, why are these melons called קישואין? מפני שהן קשין לכל הגוף כחרבות, because they are bad for the whole body like swords. And the word קשה means hard, means dangerous, so therefore, these melons are called קישואין to teach us that they are dangerous for the whole body, they are as hard as swords. And now the גמרא continues with explaining the משנה. It said in the משנה, ואין מסתפרין מהן בכל מקום, you shouldn't take a haircut from a גוי in any place. This is the opinion of רבי מאיר, that not even in the רשות הרבים, not even in a public place, are you allowed to take a haircut from a גוי. But the רבנן said that if it is in a רשות הרבים, you are allowed. It's just not בינו לבינו that you are not allowed. That only if it is in private, if you're alone, that's when you're not allowed. And the תוספות explains that it means in a place where not too many people are there. But if you are ממש ממש private, then the משנה wouldn't have to tell us that. It's obvious that if you're ממש private you're not allowed. What the חכמים mean when they say that you're not allowed if you are בינו לבינו, that means even if you are not ממש private, but as long as it's not a רשות הרבים, not too many people are there, you're not allowed. But if it's ממש in a רשות הרבים, if it's in a real public place where a lot of people are there, then the חכמים say you are allowed. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, ישראל המסתפר מעובד כוכבים, a ייד who takes a haircut by a גוי, רואה במראה, he should look in the mirror, and then you are allowed to take. And as the גמרא will explain soon, the reason is because when the גוי will see that you're looking in the mirror, and he thinks you're looking to see if he's giving you a haircut because you care about your appearance, so then that will show him that you are a חשוב a person, an important person, so he will be afraid to hurt you. ועובד כוכבים המסתפר מישראל, and a גוי who is getting a haircut by a ייד, כיון שהגיע לבלוריתו, as soon as he gets to his בלורית, to the extra long hair that the גוים used to wear in honor of their עבודה זרה, שומט את ידו, you must pull your hands away. In other words, you cannot comb and fix and cut and make look nice that בלורית, because that is worn specifically for the עבודה זרה, so you would be helping him do something for עבודה זרה. The

גמרא says, אמר מר, we just learned, ישראל המסתפר מעובד כוכבים, a ייד who's getting a haircut by a גוי, רואה במראה, should look in the mirror, and then he's allowed to do it. The גמרא asks, היכי דמי? What is the condition, what is the case that we're talking about here? אי ברשות הרבים, if he's taking a haircut from him in the רשות הרבים, in the public place, למה לי מראה? Why does he need a mirror? Didn't we learn in the משנה that if it's done in a רשות הרבים, you're allowed to take a haircut from a גוי without even looking in the mirror? ואי ברשות היחיד, and if you it's done in a private place, כי רואה מאי הוה? What is if he is looking in the mirror, why should looking in the mirror help that you should be able to take the haircut from the גוי in the private place? And the גמרא answers, לעולם באמת ברשות היחיד, we're talking here that he's taking a haircut in a private place, which normally you are not allowed, but כיון דאיכא מראה, since there is a mirror, מיתחזי כי אדם חשוב, so he looks like an important person. When the גוי sees him looking in the mirror, caring about his appearance, so the גוי will assume that he's an important person, and he'll be afraid to hurt him. And the גמרא tells a story, רב חנא בר ביזנא הוה מסתפר מעובד כוכבים בשבילי דנהרדעא,

רב חנא בר ביזנא took a haircut from a גוי on the in the roads of נהרדעא. אמר ליה, the גוי said to him, חנא חנא, יאי כורך לזוגא, your neck is good for my knife, which means he told him that I am able to kill you now. אמר, so he said, תיתי לי, I deserve it, דעברי אדרבי מאיר, because I was עובר, I transgressed what רבי מאיר said. רבי מאיר said that you shouldn't take a haircut from a גוי even in the רשות הרבים, so I was עובר on what רבי מאיר said, so I deserve to be killed. But the גמרא asks, ועל דרבנן לא עבר? And on the רבנן's opinion he wasn't עובר? He said that he was עובר on the רבי מאיר's opinion, but really he was also עובר on the רבנן's opinion, because אימת אמרו רבנן, because when did the רבנן say that you are allowed to take a haircut from a גוי? ברשות הרבים, only in the רשות הרבים. ברשות היחיד מי אמור, but did they say that you could do it in the רשות היחיד? In the רשות היחיד, they also say you can't. And since he was taking it in the רשות היחיד, so he was also עובר on the opinion of the רבנן. So why did he say that he was עובר on the opinion of רבי מאיר? And the גמרא answers, הוא סבר, he thought that שבילא דנהרדעא, the roads of נהרדעא, כיון דשכיחי רבים, since many people are there, כרשות הרבים דמי, it has a דין like a רשות הרבים. So that's why he thought that according to the רבנן he was allowed to do it. That's why he said that he's only עובר on the opinion of רבי מאיר. Then the גמרא continues, ועובד כוכבים המסתפר מישראל, it said in the ברייתא that if a גוי is getting a haircut by a איד, כיון שהגיע לבלוריתו, שמט את ידו, as soon as he gets to that long hair that he wears in honor of the עבודה זרה, you have to push your hand away and don't cut it, don't do anything to it. וכמה? And how far, in other words, how close can you get to the בלורית? When must you stop when you get close to the בלורית?

אמר רב מלכיה, so רב מלכיה said, אמר רב אדא בר אהבה, in the name of רב אדא בר אהבה, שלש אצבעות לכל רוח ורוח, three fingers to all sides. When you get close in the size of three fingers to each side, that's when you must stop and you can't continue cutting that hair. אמר רב חנינא בריה דרב איקא, so רב חנינא the son of רב איקא said that we find in the גמרא many times that there is an opinion given by רב מלכיו, which is spelled מ, ל, כ, י, ו. Then we have certain things said by רב מלכיה, מ, ל, כ, י, ה. So he wanted to tell us exactly what, which things were said by רב מלכיו and which were said by רב מלכיה. So he said like this: שפוד, שפחות וגומות. The three דינים that are concerning the דין of a שפוד, and the דין of a שפחה, and the דין of the גומות, that is רב מלכיו. The דינים of בלורית, which is the דין that we just spoke about here, and the דין of אפר מקלה concerning the ashes of the oven, וגבינה, the דין of cheese, that was רב מלכיה. אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, he gave a different כלל to remember which things רב מלכיו said and which things רב מלכיה said. מתניתין ומתניתא, if it was an explanation to something that said in the משנה or in the ברייתא, then we know it was רב מלכיה with a ה at the end. שמעתתא, if it was an independent statement that we heard in his name, then we should know it's רב מלכיו. וסימנא, and the סימן to remember that, is מתניתא מלכתא. It says that the מתניתא, which is a משנה or a ברייתא, is like a queen. So that is to remind us that if it was an opinion given concerning a משנה or a ברייתא, it's the one that his name sounds לשון נקבה, sounds feminine. That is the one with the ה at the end, רב מלכיה. But the other things, which are not concerning a משנה or a ברייתא, that was said by רב מלכיו. And the גמרא says, מאי בינייהו? What is the difference between the way the גמרא said before for רב חנינא בריה דרב איקא, and the way רב פפא gave the כלל? That רב חנינא בריה דרב איקא said it was שפוד, שפחות and גומות רב מלכיו; בלורית, אפר מקלה and גבינה was רב מלכיה. And רב פפא gave a כלל that it depends whether it was on a משנה and ברייתא, or it was an independent statement. So the גמרא says, איכא בינייהו שפחות. The difference is concerning שפחות. That according to רב חנינא, it was said by רב מלכיו, and according to רב פפא, it was said by רב מלכיה, because this was concerning saying פשט in a משנה or a ברייתא. So therefore, according to רב, רב פפא, it was said by רב מלכיה. Now, if according to him it was said by רב מלכיה, he would exchange it for אפר מקלה. That this is exchanged, and אפר מקלה was said by רב מלכיו, because these three, שפוד, and אפר מקלה, and גומות, these are independent statements, and they are not said on a משנה or on a ברייתא. But שפחות, that is concerning a משנה and a ברייתא, because רב מלכיה just said that the הלכה is like רבי אלעזר that said in the משנה concerning the דין of שפחות. He said, אפילו הכניסה לו מאה שפחות, כופה לעשות בצמר, that a wife, even if she has a hundred maids, certain things she has to do herself. So רב מלכיה said הלכה כרבי אלעזר. So this was concerning a משנה. So therefore, this would be included in the one that was said by רב מלכיה. Now, בלורית that we spoke about in our גמרא, this is also פשט in the ברייתא, because in the ברייתא, it said before that when you get to the בלורית you have to move your hand away, and the גמרא asked, וכמה, how close can you get? So רב מלכיה said that it's three אצבעות. So he, so it is explaining a ברייתא. And also concerning גבינה that we mentioned, it's also concerning a משנה where it says אלו דברים האסורים, and the גמרא asks, why did the חכמים אסר גבינה, cheese of גוים So רב מלאכי said, whatever the reason is. So concerning the דין of בלורית, and the דין of גבינה, there is no מחלוקת between רב חנינא and רב פפא. Because if רב חנינא said that these two were said by רב מלאכיה, and since these two are a פשט on a משנה and a ברייתא, it also is true according to רב פפא that it was said by רב מלאכיה. The only difference is concerning שבחות and אפר מקלה. And according to רב חנינא, שבחות was said by רב מלאכי, and אפר מקלה by רב מלאכיה. And according to רב פפא it would be different, that שבחות was said by רב מלאכיה, cause that's concerning a משנה, and the דין of אפר מקלה was said by רב מלאכי. But then the question that comes up is, so why did the גמרא say איכא בינייהו שבחות? Why didn't the גמרא say that איכא בינייהו שבחות and אפר מקלה? So רש״י answers, because really the גמרא here is referring to רב פפא's statement, where he gave a סימן that מתניתא מלכתא, that the one that said the explanation of the משנה, that is רב מלאכיה. And that the גמרא asks מאי בינייהו, what is the difference, which thing would be a a ברייתא and therefore would be said by רב מלאכי according to רב פפא, while according to רב חנינא it wouldn't? The answer is it is שבחות. אוודאי, at the same time, there will be a change in אפר מקלה also. But then it would be an opposite change, that according to רב חנינא אפר מקלה was said by רב מלאכיה, and according to רב פפא it was said by רב מלאכי. But the גמרא was asking which other thing that we thought was not said by רב מלאכיה is really said by רב מלאכיה according to רב פפא? So the גמרא answers that it's שבחות. But in truth, the difference is also concerning the דין of אפר מקלה.

Concerning this ענין here, תוספות brings from the תוספתא in the sec- in the third פרק, and also from ירושלמי in our מסכתא here in this פרק of עבודה זרה, that a ייד who's taking a haircut from a גוי has to look into the mirror, otherwise he's not allowed. But if he takes a haircut from a כותי, then you don't have to look in the mirror. And the reason is, because the whole שאלה is because we're afraid the גוי might kill you, but the כותים are not חשודים על שפיכות דמים. They weren't suspected of murder. And the people who belong to the house of רבן גמליאל, they had to look into a mirror even from כותים, because they had dealings with the government. And תוספות explains what does that mean? That means that since when you take a haircut from a כותי you don't have to look into the mirror, so automatically you're not allowed to look in the mirror, because there is an איסור for a man to look into the mirror. And that is the חידוש, that the בית רבן גמליאל were able to look into the mirror because they had to make sure the haircut is nice, because they had to go to the government. But otherwise, since by a כותי there is no חשד that he might kill you, so you don't have to look into the mirror, and therefore you are not allowed to look into the mirror. And תוספות says, what would be the reason why a person is not allowed to look into the mirror? So תוספות says, because of לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה. It says that a man should not wear the clothes of a woman, and the תרגום says ולא יתקן גבר בתיקוני איתא, a person shouldn't, a man should not even act like a woman. And therefore, since it is a ענין of a woman to look into the mirror, a man is not allowed to look into the mirror. איי, we learned in a ברייתא in מסכת שבת: אין רואין במראה בשבת. And on שבת, a person should not look into the mirror. And the גמרא gives the reason, because it's talking about a mirror of metal, and that could take out some hair. Comes out from that ברייתא that only on שבת there's an איסור in looking into the mirror, and also in a case where it could cause you to tear out some hair, but in the weekdays you are allowed. But we just said that בכלל a person, a man is not allowed to look into the mirror. So תוספות says over there we are talking about a woman. And a woman, טאקע, is only not allowed on שבת because of the חשש of the hair, but in the weekdays she is allowed. איי, the לשון in the גמרא there it says מפני שאדם עשוי להסיר בה נימין המדולדלות, that a man is able to tear out hair. So he says, sometimes when we use the לשון אדם, which means person, but it doesn't mean only a man, it could be talking about a woman also. And that's really what it means there: the woman is not allowed to look into the mirror on שבת, but a man is not allowed to look into the mirror even in the weekdays. And תוספות says that that's the way it's משמע in ירושלמי. Because the ירושלמי says that אין רואין במראה, you shouldn't look into the mirror, why? דפעמים שהאשה רואה נימא אחת לבנה ותולשה, that sometimes if you look into the mirror the woman will see a white hair and she will pull it out, ובאה לידי חיוב חטאת, and that'll bring her to a חיוב חטאת, because tearing out a hair is an איסור דאורייתא. And the ירושלמי finishes off, והאיש אף בחול אסור, that a man is not allowed to do it, not allowed to look into the mirror even in the weekdays, because it is not דרך כבוד. So we see that for a man to look into the mirror is an איסור even in the weekdays. Then it says there further, that there were three things that they were מתיר to the household of רבי. One of the things is that they are allowed to look into the mirror. And also also that they were allowed to take a special type of haircut, and they were allowed to teach their children חכמת יון, the philosophy of the Greeks, and the reason was because they are זקוק למלכות, because they have to go to the government. So we see that otherwise, if not for being from the house of רבי, they are טאקע not a person is not allowed to look into the mirror. But then תוספות says, maybe we could answer it, when it says that a man is not allowed to look into the mirror even בחול, maybe it doesn't mean concerning looking in the mirror. Cuz there in the ירושלמי it says, a woman should not look into the mirror in שבת, because she might pull out a white hair, which will be an איסור דאורייתא on שבת. A man shouldn't even look in the mirror in the weekdays. So maybe it is not because there is an איסור in looking in the mirror, maybe it is because by a man there is an איסור in pulling out a white hair from the black hair even in the weekdays, because of the איסור of לא ילבש. So maybe that's what the ירושלמי means there. And it טאקע says in פרק המצניע, that anybody who is מלקט לבנות מתוך שחורות, takes out, pulls out a white hair from black hair, even if you do it once, one hair on שבת you're חייב, and in the weekdays you're not allowed to do it either משום לא ילבש. So we see that a man is not allowed to pull out a white hair from the black hair, even in the weekdays. So maybe that's what the ירושלמי means, that you are not allowed to look into the mirror in the weekdays is not because of the איסור, looking in the mirror itself is an איסור of

לא ילבש, but this could bring you to pull a white hair out of the black, and that is לא ילבש. So תוספות says, this could not be the פשט, because since in connection to that the ירושלמי brings that they were מתיר for בית רבי to look into the mirror, is משמע that the איסור is looking in the mirror itself, because they say that בית רבי was allowed to look into the mirror in the weekdays, is משמע that this thing itself of looking in the mirror is which is אסור for other people other than the בית רבי. So it is that itself which is אסור. But then תוספות adds that this איסור that we say that a man is not allowed to look into the mirror is only if he wants to look in להתנאות, to look nice. But let's say he wants to look into the mirror for other reasons: while he's taking a haircut, so he wants to make sure that he doesn't hurt himself, or he doesn't hurt his eyes, or in a case where his eyes hurt, he wants to make sure that it doesn't bother him, that it won't do any harm to him, certainly you're allowed. Ay, who knows why you're looking into the mirror, whether it is because you want to make sure you shouldn't get injured, or it is because you want to look at your appearance and look nice? So

תוספות says, ובוחן לבות הוא יודע, the אייבערשטער, השם, who looks into the hearts of people, He will know whether you do it for a reason that you're allowed or for a reason which is אסור. And then תוספות ends off, הלכה למעשה, that you're not allowed to take a haircut from a גוי unless you're looking into the mirror, and even if it's in רשות הרבים. Since here in our גמרא we saw that רבי יוחנן said that I deserve to die because I was עובר on רבי מאיר, is משמע that we פסקן like רבי מאיר, and רבי מאיר says that even in a רשות הרבים you're not allowed to take a haircut from a גוי. But then תוספות says that this is only if you take a haircut with a razor, cuz then it's easy to cause היזק, to cause damage. But if it's a haircut with a scissor, then it's harder to cause damage, it's not so שכיח, not so common, so then if there's somebody else with you, you are allowed to take a haircut, תוספות says, from a גוי. And now we'll continue with the משנה. The משנה says: אלו דברים של עובדי כוכבים אסורין, these are the things that are of גוים and they are forbidden, ואיסורן איסור הנאה, and the איסור also applies to הנאה, that not only can't you eat it, but you're not allowed to derive any benefit from these things. Which are they? היין, wine of גוים, והחומץ של עובדי כוכבים שהיה מתחלתו יין, or the vinegar of גוים that was originally wine. In other words, when it came to the גוי it was still wine, and it got sour in the hands of the גוי. So even though now it's vinegar, but since it came to him as wine and it became אסור, it still remains אסור, and it is also אסור בהנאה. וחרס הדרייני, and the earthenware of הדרייני. The גמרא will explain what it is, but the איסור is because they used to soak it in water, and when you soak it in water, wine that was absorbed in this earthenware would come out, and the wine is forbidden. ועורות לבובין, and skin, animal skin that there was a hole cut in the place of the heart, cuz this used to be the דרך of the גוים that they used to cut open in the place of the heart and would take out the heart through the skin. So if you see a skin that has that hole in it, so you know that this was used for עבודה זרה, and therefore it is אסור, and also אסור בהנאה. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, בזמן שקרעו עגול, if the cut is round, then אסור, it is forbidden, cuz then it shows that the heart was taken out in a way they used to do it for the sake of עבודה זרה. משוך, but if it's long, מותר, it is allowed, because this is not the way they used to do it for עבודה זרה, and therefore this doesn't show אמר ליה, so he said to him, is it really אסור, and he was going to prove that the קיבה of נבילה, the rennet that is taken from the stomach of the נבילה, is not really אסור. It is not considered food, it is only considered פירשא בעלמא, only waste, and therefore there is no איסור on it. So there shouldn't be an איסור in using the cheese of גוים because they mixed into it, they curdled it with the rennet of נבילה, because that rennet is not really אסור. And

how does he prove it? And he said like this, והלא קיבת עולה חמורה מקיבת נבילה. To eat the rennet of a קרבן עולה is worse, stricter than the rennet of a נבילה. In other words, he is saying to eat a קרבן עולה is worse than eating נבילה. An עולה, we know, was all all brought to the מזבח. There was no part of the קרבן עולה that was eaten. Other קרבנות, part of it went to the מזבח, was burned to השם, and part of it was eaten by the כהנים, or by the owner of the קרבן. A קרבן עולה was כולו להשם, it's a hundred percent to השם, it's wholly on the whole thing is burnt. To eat anything of an עולה is a big איסור. It's a worse איסור than eating נבילה. And still ואמרו, the חכמים still said, כהן שדעתו יפה, a כהן that his mind was good, which means a כהן that wasn't particular, and could eat things which some people couldn't, שורפו חיה, he could he would burn down, which means he would eat this קיבה of the עולה while it was raw. Some people couldn't eat it because it was disgusting, but if a person didn't care, so a כהן was allowed to eat the קיבה of the עולה. Even though the קרבן עולה had to be brought completely on the מזבח, but the קיבה wasn't brought on the מזבח, and if a כהן wanted to eat it, he was able to eat it. So the truth is the משנה says, ולא הודו לו. The חכמים did not agree to it. אבל אמרו, they said, אין נהנין ולא מועלין. You are not allowed to have הנאה from the קיבה of an עולה. On the other hand, if you do have הנאה from the קיבה of an עולה, then you are not מועל. By this we know there is a דין of מעילה בהקדש. If a person has benefit from things which belong to הקדש, you are מועל בהקדש. It's a special דין of מעילה, and a special קרבן you have to bring, etc. Now, wherever it says אין נהנין ולא מועלין, the כלל is it means that מדאורייתא you're allowed to have benefit, and that is the reason that if you did have benefit you are not מועל. Because if מדאורייתא you wouldn't be allowed to have any benefit from it, so then the דין would be that if you did have benefit you would be מועל. Since it says that you are not מועל, that proves that מדאורייתא you are allowed to have a benefit from it. And when it says אין נהנין, that you are not allowed to have a benefit, it's only מדרבנן. So we see here that it is only מדרבנן, even according to this opinion, that you are not allowed to have any benefit from the קיבה of an עולה, but מדאורייתא you are allowed to have הנאה and even eat the קיבה of an עולה. Now, since having הנאה or eating part of the עולה is worse than having הנאה or eating a נבילה, so if you are allowed מדאורייתא to eat the קיבה of an עולה, you certainly are allowed to eat the קיבה of a נבילה. So how can you say that the reason why they said you're not allowed to eat cheese from גוים is because they curdled it with the rennet of נבילה, but the rennet of נבילה is not אסור! And the reason actually why it's not אסור, because it is not food. It is really waste of the בהמה. And waste is not אסור. To eat waste from a non-kosher animal is not אסור, and therefore it is not אסור to eat the קיבה of נבילה. אמר ליה, so he said to him, there is a different reason why the חכמים אסר'ד the cheese of גוים: מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבה של עגלי עבודה זרה, because they curdle it in the rennet from the calves of עבודה זרה. Now, by עבודה זרה the דין is that not only food is אסור, but even the waste of an animal that was brought as an offering to עבודה זרה is also אסור. Every part of עבודה זרה is אסור. And therefore, if they use the rennet of עבודה זרה to make the cheese, that is why it's אסור. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אם כן, if this is the reason why the חכמים אסר'ד cheese of גוים, למה לא יאסרוה בהנאה, why didn't they also say it is אסור to derive from it benefit? Because we know עבודה זרה is not only אסור באכילה, but it is also אסור בהנאה. So the cheese of גוים should also be אסור בהנאה. And we know that the חכמים did not make it אסור בהנאה. השיאו לדבר אחר, so he took his attention away to something else. In other words, he didn't answer him on this, he just started discussing something else. And what did he say? אמר ליה, he said to him, ישמעאל אחי, my brother ישמעאל, היך אתה קורא, how do you read the פסוק where it says, כי טובים דודיך מיין, או כי טובים דודיך? The פסוק says there, it's a פסוק in שיר השירים, and it says: ישקני מנשיקות פיהו, the יידן say to השם, "You should kiss me with the kisses of your mouth, כי טובים," and here it could be either דודיך מיין or דודיך מיין. דודיך would mean in masculine, would mean לשון זכר, and דודיך would be לשון נקבה, feminine. And the שאלה is what does the פסוק mean? This is a פסוק that כלל ישראל, the יידן are saying to השם. So you could learn that they said to השם, ישקני מנשיקות פיהו, "Kiss me with the kisses of your mouth, כי טובים דודיך מיין, because your love is better than wine." So they are saying it to השם, so it is לשון נקבה because כלל ישראל are referred to as in the נקבה, as the woman who is speaking to השם who is the husband, and they are saying, "Kiss me with the kisses of your mouth, because your love, your love השם to us, is better than wine." Or you could learn that they're saying to השם, "Kiss me with the kisses of your mouth, because you had said to us that your love is better than wine." So then we are quoting what השם had said to us. Then if he is speaking to us, and since we are like the נקבה, we are like the woman, the wife, so then the לשון should have been not טובים דודיך מיין, which is said to a זכר, but טובים דודייך מיין, that your love, saying it to a נקבה, that is better than wine. So that's what he asked him, and by asking this question, he took away his attention from what he asked him before, and brought it to this. אמר לו, so he said to him, אין הדבר כן, it is not so, שהרי חבירו מלמד עליו, because his friend, which means the other part of the פסוק, teaches us what this part of the פסוק means. The פסוק says לריח שמניך טובים, that so the smell of your oil is good, and the פסוק there continues: עלמות אהבוך, that the maidens loved you. So here it couldn't be לשון נקבה. So here these are all לשונות that we, כלל ישראל, כנסת ישראל is saying to השם. So therefore, this is also not כי טובים דודייך מיין, but כי טובים דודיך מיין. This is the משנה. And the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, the first thing that is mentioned, which is אסור and is אסור בהנאה, was wine. And the גמרא asks: יין מנלן? How do we know that wine is אסור and is אסור בהנאה? אמר רבה בר רב אבוה אמר קרא: so רבה בר אבוה said, the פסוק says, אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו ישתו יין נסיכם. This is the פסוק in the שירה of האזינו, where השם is saying that the fat of their קרבנות they will be eating, and this refers to the פשטות that the יידן worship עבודה זרה, and they eat the fat of their קרבנות, ישתו יין נסיכם, and they drink the wine that was poured for עבודה זרה. So this פסוק compares the wine that was poured for עבודה זרה to the קרבנות that was brought to עבודה זרה. And we say: מה זבח אסור בהנאה, just like a קרבן brought to עבודה זרה is אסור בהנאה, אף יין נמי אסור בהנאה. So the wine that is poured for עבודה זרה is also אסור בהנאה. But then the גמרא asks: וזבח גופיה מנלן? How do we know the קרבן itself that it's אסור בהנאה? We learned now that just like the קרבן is אסור בהנאה so is the wine, how do we know the דין by the קרבן itself? And the גמרא answers: דכתיב, because the פסוק says: ויצמדו לבעל פעור, that they got connected to the בעל פעור which is עבודה זרה, ויאכלו זבחי מתים, and they ate the offering, the קרבנות of מתים, of dead people. So we see that the פסוק compares the קרבנות for עבודה זרה to the ענין of a מת. And we say: מה מת אסור בהנאה, just like a dead body is אסור בהנאה, you're not allowed to derive any benefit from a dead body, אף זבח, also a קרבן for עבודה זרה, נמי אסור בהנאה, is also אסור בהנאה. But then the גמרא asks: ומת גופיה מנלן? How do we know a מת itself, how do we know that a dead body is אסור בהנאה? The גמרא says: אתיא, we learn it out, שם שם מעגלה ערופה, a גזירה שוה from the word שם that says by מת and the word שם which says by עגלה ערופה, which is a calf that has to be brought in the case where you found a dead body and we don't know who killed him. So then the דין is you have to measure that area where the dead body was found to the closest city, and then the סנהדרין have to come to a certain place and they have to take a calf and chop off the head and say certain things. So we have a גזירה שוה from the word שם that says by עגלה ערופה and the word שם that says by דין of מיתה. כתיב הכא, concerning death it says: ותמת שם מרים, that מרים died there, and the תורה uses the word שם. וכתיב התם, it says by עגלה ערופה: וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל, that you should chop off the head of the calf over there in the נחל. So it also says the word שם. So that's a גזירה שוה to tell us, to compare both, and we say: מה להלן, just like by the דין of עגלה ערופה it is אסור בהנאה, אף כאן, also by מת, where it says ותמת שם, is נמי אסור בהנאה, it's also אסור בהנאה. But then the גמרא asks: והתם מנלן? How do we know there itself, how do we know that an עגלה ערופה is אסור בהנאה? אמרי דבי רבי ינאי, so they said in the ישיבה of רבי ינאי: כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים, because concerning עגלה ערופה the תורה says that this will bring a כפרה, השם will forgive for the sins. So it is the same expression that we find by קדשים, by קרבנות. So we say that just like קדשים is אסור בהנאה, so is an עגלה ערופה אסור בהנאה. And since we compare מת to עגלה ערופה, so we say מת is also אסור בהנאה, and since we compare a קרבן of עבודה זרה to a מת, so then we say a קרבן of עבודה זרה is also אסור בהנאה, and since the תורה compares wine that was poured for עבודה זרה to the קרבנות that was brought for עבודה זרה, so we know that the wine that was brought for עבודה זרה is also אסור בהנאה.

תוספות asks a קשיא: when the גמרא לכתחילה starts off by saying יין מנלן, how do we know that wine that is poured for עבודה זרה is אסור? So תוספות says, what kind of a question is it? Our משנה is not speaking about wine that was poured for עבודה זרה. Our משנה is speaking about סתם יינם. סתם יינם means wine that was in the possession of a גוי or that a גוי touched. And that is אסור מדרבנן. It has nothing to do with wine being poured for עבודה זרה. So it's a גזירה דרבנן. And the reason for the גזירה It is, because the חכמים didn't want that we should socialize with the גוים, because if you drink wine, then you socialize, because the way you socialize is over wine, and if you socialize with the גוים, it'll bring you to marry the daughters of the גוים. So what is the גמרא's question, מנלן? מנלן usually is a question asked, from which פסוק do we know it? In this case it has nothing to do with the פסוק, it's a גזירה דרבנן. So the question of תוספות is on the גמרא's שאלה, what is the גמרא's question, יין מנלן, how do we know wine? There was no פסוק for it, because it's only a גזירה דרבנן, and also the question is on the answer of the גמרא. The גמרא quotes פסוקים to tell us that the wine that was poured for עבודה זרה is אסור, but that wasn't our question, because our משנה is not speaking about wine that was poured for עבודה זרה, but it is speaking about סתם יינם, just גויישע wine. And תוספות answers that אינה חינמי, we are speaking here about סתם יינם, and the reason why the חכמים made an איסור for סתם יינם was a גזירה, because we come, might come to marry their daughters. But still, the חכמים would not have made wine אסור בהנאה if not that it is also connected to the איסור of wine that was poured for עבודה זרה. Just like we see that the חכמים had אסר'ד פת עכו''ם, to eat bread that was baked by a גוי, or there was originally an איסור to drink oil or use oil that was used, made by a גוי. And nevertheless, even when they made that איסור, it wasn't אסור בהנאה, because there the whole איסור was not to socialize, so that is not an איסור to have הנאה from it. There's no reason to make an איסור הנאה. So then why did the חכמים say that סתם יינם, which is also based on the ענין of not coming to marry their daughters, why should that be אסור בהנאה? So therefore we must say that since wine has an איסור הנאה in a certain case, if it was poured for עבודה זרה, then it is אסור בהנאה מדאורייתא, so therefore, the חכמים, when they said that סתם יינם is also אסור, even though the reason for the איסור was because of not marrying their daughters, but they already connected it to the איסור of יין נסך. And therefore, just like יין נסך, which was poured for עבודה זרה, is אסור בהנאה, so the סתם יינם, they also made אסור בהנאה. And this is the גמרא's question here. That since the reason why סתם יינם is אסור בהנאה is because it's connected to the איסור of יין נסך, so the שאלה of the גמרא is, how do we know יין נסך itself is אסור בהנאה? And that's what the גמרא means with the question יין מנלן. And the גמרא's answer is, because it's compared to the קרבנות, etc. Then תוספות asks a קשיא: if the question is concerning יין that was poured in front of עבודה זרה, what is the גמרא's question? Why do we need a פסוק special for that? Why should it be different than a regular קרבן? We know that a קרבן of עבודה זרה is אסור בהנאה, so wine that was poured for עבודה זרה is like a regular קרבן, because this is the idea of pouring the wine, that this is used as a קרבן. So why does the גמרא feel that you need a special פסוק for it? And תוספות answers that אינה חינמי, that a קרבן and pouring of the wine are two separate ענינים. If not for the פסוק, specially, that is מרבה that wine is also considered like a קרבן, it's אסור בהנאה, we really would not know that. The גמרא later on has to bring a ראיה to be מרבה that wine is like a קרבן, but otherwise they are טאקע two separate things. And that's why the גמרא asks, how do we know that wine that was poured for עבודה זרה is אסור בהנאה? And the answer of the גמרא is because we have a פסוק where it says, אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו ישתו יין נסיכם, they drink the wine that was poured for them, and the תורה compares that to the קרבן, חלב זבחימו, so just like the קרבן is אסור בהנאה, so is the wine אסור בהנאה. תוספות asks a שאלה, that we find in the גמרא in גיטין that there are two opinions concerning who this פסוק goes on. One opinion is that it refers to the אידן, and one opinion is that it refers to the גוים. Now if you hold that this refers to the גוים, then it's understood that this refers to the עבודה זרה, that they brought the קרבנות to the עבודה זרה, and the wine that they poured for עבודה זרה. But according to the opinion that it refers to the אידן, and they're talking about the קרבנות that were brought on the מזבח, and they're talking about the wine that was poured on the מזבח for השם, so how can the גמרא use this פסוק as a ראיה that the wine poured for עבודה זרה has the same דין as the קרבן that was brought for עבודה זרה? And תוספות answers according to the one that says that this פסוק refers to the קרבנות of the אידן, it is a פשט that this is what the גוים were saying and trying to insult the אידן about their קרבנות, and the insult that they used to the אידן about the קרבנות of the אידן, they used to use similar to what they used to do to their עבודה זרה. So they were saying it concerning the קרבנות that were brought on the מזבח for השם, and the wine that was poured to השם, but they used it כנגד what they did to עבודה זרה. So from here we see that also the גוים used to pour for עבודה זרה similar to the קרבנות that they used to bring. So that teaches us that יין that was poured for עבודה זרה is the same as the קרבן that was brought for עבודה זרה. Then later on the גמרא says that we learn out a גזירה שוה שם שם from עגלה ערופה, that just like by עגלה ערופה it says שם and the דין is it's אסור בהנאה, so too a מת is also אסור בהנאה because by a מת it also says שם, it says ותמת שם מרים. And after we know that a מת is אסור בהנאה, and since קרבנות of גוים are considered זבחי מתים, so we know that the קרבנות of גוים of עבודה זרה is also אסור בהנאה.

תוספות asks the שאלה: Why do we have to learn out the קרבנות of עבודה זרה from מת and a מת from עגלה ערופה? Let's learn out מת itself from עבודה זרה itself. Why do we have to learn out מת from עגלה ערופה? Let's learn מת from עבודה זרה itself. Now, עבודה זרה itself is אסור בהנאה, that is simple. The whole שאלה here is, what about a קרבן brought to עבודה זרה? But that the עבודה זרה itself is אסור בהנאה is פשוט. Now, by עבודה זרה itself it says the word שם, by מת it says שם, so we could learn out a מת directly from עבודה זרה itself. And this is actually what the גמרא says in סנהדרין דף מז. It says if a person weaves a בגד, a garment for a מת, and the question is whether just by setting it aside, being מזמין it for a מת, whether it is already אסור בהנאה or not. And the גמרא says that רבא learns out that it's not אסור בהזמנה just by setting it aside, he learns it out from עבודה זרה. Because by מת it says שם, it says ותמת שם מרים, by עבודה זרה itself it says אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם, you should destroy all the places that they worshiped there. So we compare a מת to עבודה זרה. So just like we use that גזירה שוה for that דין, we could use the same גזירה שוה for this also, and say that just like עבודה זרה itself is אסור בהנאה, so too is a מת אסור בהנאה, and then we'll compare the קרבן to עבודה זרה to the מת. But

why do we have to also bring in an עגלה ערופה? And תוספות answers that the פסוק where it says אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם doesn't speak about עבודה זרה itself. There it's speaking about the משמשים to עבודה זרה, things which are used for עבודה זרה. So we could compare the the ענין of משמשים to a מת, which is the תכריכין, the בגד made for a מת, to the משמשים to עבודה זרה. But here we have to compare it to the עבודה זרה itself, because we're looking for it to be אסור בהנאה. So we have to find a פסוק by עבודה זרה where it says שם concerning עבודה זרה itself, and that we don't find. So the only way we could know that a מת is אסור בהנאה by comparing it to עגלה ערופה. Then the גמרא went on to say that how do we know עגלה ערופה itself is אסור בהנאה? Because it says כפרה by עגלה ערופה. So the word כפרה really applies to קדשים, so this tells us that an עגלה ערופה is like קדשים. Just like קדשים is אסור בהנאה, so is an עגלה ערופה אסור בהנאה. תוספות asks a קושיא, why do we have to come onto that? It says in the first פרק of כריתות, from the words וערפו שם we דרשנ'ן that you should chop off its head there, so we say שם תהא קבורתה, there you have to bury it. There's nothing you could do with it, you must bury it there. So that itself tells us that it's אסור בהנאה. So why do we also have to come onto this ענין of כפרה by קדשים in order to know an עגלה ערופה is אסור בהנאה? And תוספות answers that we need both. We need the word כפרה and we also need this idea that you must bury it there, that you can't do anything with it. Why? Because if we would just learn out from the fact that it has, it says כפרה, then I would think that this is only before you chopped off its head, before you did the מצוה with it. But after you did the מצוה with it, then it could be מותר בהנאה, because we have a rule אין לך דבר שנעשית מצותו ומועלין בו, there's nothing that the מצוה was done with it and you still should be מועל. So, therefore, since you already chopped off its head, you did the מצוה, I would think you're not מועל, it's not אסור בהנאה anymore. Therefore, we must have the וערפו to tell us שם תהא קבורתה, that even after it's killed, you must bury it there, it's still אסור בהנאה. And if we would just have the פסוק וערפו שם, I would think that it's only אסור בהנאה after it's killed, but it's not אסור בהנאה before, because the לימוד would be שם תהא קבורתה, you must bury it there. But how do we know it's אסור בהנאה before also? That's why we also have to have the פסוק כפרה to tell us that it's like קדשים. Just like קדשים is also אסור בהנאה while it's alive, so too is עגלה ערופה אסור בהנאה while it's alive. And תוספות says באמת there's another reason why we need this comparison to קדשים with the word כפרה, to tell us that just like קדשים is done during the day, קרבנות is only brought during the day, so is an עגלה ערופה done during the day, and also that if it became טריפה, by an עגלה ערופה it's פסול. Just like טריפה is פסול by a קרבן, so there's טריפה פסול by the עגלה ערופה. Now we'll continue with the גמרא.

גמרא says, it said in the משנה: והחומץ של עובדי כוכבים שהיה מתחלתו יין, that vinegar of גוים that was originally wine in the hands of the גוים, so even if it's vinegar now, it's still אסור בהנאה. The גמרא asks: פשיטא, isn't this simple? משום דאחמיץ פקע ליה איסוריה? What would I think, that because it became sour the איסור left? Since it was wine in the hands of the גוי, so it was אסור already. So why would I think that if it became sour it should become מותר? Where did the איסור go? אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said, הא אתא לאשמועינן, this comes to teach us that חומץ שלנו ביד עובדי כוכבים We have vinegar in the hands of גוים, אין צריך חותם בתוך חותם, you don't have to have a seal within a seal, it doesn't have to have two seals. If you have wine in the hands of a גוי, if a איד wants to put wine in the hands of a גוי, you must have a seal within a seal. Then you're allowed to drink that wine after you take it back from the גוי. But if you give vinegar that is made of wine to the גוי, you don't have to have a seal within a seal. Why? אי משום נסוכי, if we're afraid he's going to pour it for עבודה זרה, לא מנסכי, since it's sour, it's vinegar, he won't pour it for עבודה זרה. ואי משום אחלופי, if we're afraid he might exchange it, in other words, he'll put his own vinegar into our bottles, כיוון דאיכא חותם, since there is a seal, לא טרח ומזייף, he's not going to go through the trouble and falsify it. And this דין we know from the fact that the משנה had to tell us that if the vinegar became vinegar in the hands of the גוי, it is still אסור. So from this we understand that since it's necessary for the משנה to tell us that if it became vinegar in the hands of the גוי, it is still אסור. Obviously, if it became vinegar before it got to the גוי, it wouldn't be אסור. So that tells us that a גוי does not pour vinegar for עבודה זרה. Now, when we understand that, this teaches us this דין, that if you have vinegar that became in the hands of a איד and you want to give it to the גוי, it doesn't have the same דין like wine, and you don't need a חותם בתוך חותם, because we are not afraid, as we see from the משנה, that he will pour it for עבודה זרה, and therefore you don't have to have two seals. One seal you still must have for a different reason, because he might exchange it for his vinegar which became vinegar in his hands, which is אסור. So for that, if you have one seal it's enough because we don't assume he's going to go through the trouble and falsify it just to exchange it. But concerning pouring for עבודה זרה, that were we afraid maybe he would do it, but now that the משנה tells us that a גוי doesn't pour vinegar for עבודה זרה, so for that we're not afraid, so that's why for that we don't need the extra seal, and with one seal it's enough.

אמר רבי אלעאי, רבי אלעאי said, שנינו, we learned, יין מבושל של עובדי כוכבים, if a גוי had wine that he cooked, שהיה מתחלתו יין, but originally it was wine, not cooked, he had it when it was wine before it was cooked, and it was cooked while it was by the גוי, אסור, it is אסור. It still remains אסור. And the גמרא asks the same שאלה, פשיטא, it's simple, משום דאיבשול פקע ליה איסוריה? What would I think, that because he cooked it, the איסור that it was already should have left? אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said, הא אתא לאשמועינן, here it comes to tell us, that יין מבושל שלנו ביד עובדי כוכבים, that if we have our cooked wine, meaning that it was cooked in the hands of a איד before it got to the גוי, and then you put it, give it to the גוי, אין צריך חותם בתוך חותם, you don't have to have a seal within a seal. For the same reasons: אי משום נסוכי, if it is because we're afraid that he might pour it, לא מנסכי, they won't pour it, as we see from רבי אלעאי's דין, that only if it was wine originally it's אסור. Obviously, if it was cooked before it got to the גוי it's not אסור. That tells us that he wouldn't pour it. So therefore, when we give our cooked wine to a גוי, we're not afraid he's going to pour it. So for that, we don't need any seal at all. אלא מאי, the only reason we would need is maybe he will exchange it, אי משום אחלופי, if we're afraid he'll exchange it, כיוון דאיכא חותם אחד, as long as there is one seal, לא טרח ומזייף, he will not go through the trouble and falsify it. And therefore, one seal is enough. So, in

essence, what the גמרא is really saying in the last two cases is that the חידוש of the משנה, that where it says that if the wine was in the hands of the גוי before it got sour and then it got sour it still remains אסור, and also the דין of רבי אלעאי that if it got it was wine in the hands of the גוי before it was cooked and then it was cooked, it's still אסור. So, in essentially, what the גמרא means to say the חידוש is, just the mere fact to tell us that a גוי would not pour vinegar or a גוי would not pour יין מבושל. And since we know that, that already leads us to understand that it is enough to have one seal if you give your vinegar to a גוי or if you give your cooked wine to a גוי. So באמת, this is really what the גמרא could have said. In both cases, when the גמרא asks what is the חידוש, so the גמרא could have answered, in the first case, the גמרא could have said the חידוש is that a גוי does not pour vinegar to עבודה זרה, and that's why only if it was wine in his hands before it got sour, that's when it's אסור. And the same thing the גמרא could have said about רבי אלעאי, that from his words we understand that a גוי does not pour יין מבושל to עבודה זרה, and that's why only if it was wine not מבושל when it was in the hands of the גוי and then he cooked it it's אסור, but otherwise it's מותר. So the גמרא could have said that. But what the גמרא did, the גמרא said something which includes this and goes on to a second step. The גמרא says that really what we learn out from there is this דין, but this דין leads us to another דין, that if we give our יין מבושל or our vinegar to a גוי, we only have to have one חותם. It's all based on the כלל that we learn out from the משנה or from רבי אלעאי that a גוי would not pour vinegar to עבודה זרה or יין מבושל to עבודה זרה. וממילא, this leads us to the דין that there is nothing to be afraid of of נסך, and therefore we don't need any seal at all for that, certainly not two seals. The only reason we would need a seal is like anything else, that we're afraid maybe the גוי will exchange it, but for that, one seal is enough. The only reason we would need a seal is like anything else that we're afraid maybe the גוי will exchange it. But for that, one seal is enough. And that