Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת עבודה זרה דף ל. We will start from the second line from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא here is still discussing the דינים of which wine of a גוי is אסור, because we know that the חכמים said that סתם יינם is אסור, wine that comes from a גוי is אסור. If you buy wine from a גוי, or wine that a גוי touched is אסור. מדאורייתא, only יין נסך is אסור, only wine that was actually poured for עבודה זרה is אסור, but מדרבנן, even סתם יינם, סתם wine of a גוי is also אסור. But there are certain restrictions and certain דינים and conditions which wine is אסור and which wine is not אסור. And we learned before that wine that was cooked, if it was given to a גוי after it was cooked, then this wine is not אסור. Or if wine was mixed with other things, the דין is it's not אסור. And this is what the גמרא is going to say here: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, יין מבושל, cooked wine, ואלונסית, or wine that was put into אלונסית, and the גמרא is going to explain soon what that means, של עובדי כוכבים, of גוים, אסורין, they are אסור, since the גוי was the one that cooked the wine. In other words, it was in the hands of the גוי while it was still wine before it was cooked, and also before it was turned into אלונסית, that's why it is אסור. But אלונסית כברייתה, but if it was prepared אלונסית, in other words, it was given to the גוי when it was already אלונסית, מותרת, it is מותר, because אלונסית itself is not אסור. The only reason we said before it was אסור because it has wine in it, and the wine was אסור before it was put in. But if it came to the גוי already prepared, then it is not אסור.

ואיזו היא אלונסית? What is אלונסית? And the גמרא says כדתניא גבי שבת, like we learned in a ברייתא concerning שבת, it says עושין אנומלין, you're allowed to make אנומלין on שבת, this is a kind of drink, ואין עושין אלונסית, and you're not allowed to make אלונסית on שבת. ואיזו היא אנומלין ואיזו היא אלונסית? What is אנומלין and what is אלונסית? אנומלין is a mixture of יין, wine, ודבש, and honey, ופלפלין, and pepper. אלונסית is a mixture of יין ישן, old wine, ומים צלולין, and clear water, ואפרסמון, and balsam. As רש״י says, clear water means that it was drawn from the well and stood in the vessel for two days, a day or two, and then you wait till it clears up, and then you just take off the top layer of the water, and you sift it through a sieve, that water is clear water. So this is a mixture that they used to make, mix old wine and clear water and אפרסמון. דעבדי לבי מסותא, this was made for the bathhouse, that they would drink it as a medicine after they would finish with the bath. So on שבת you're allowed to make אנומלין since it's a regular drink, so there is no איסור in making it, in putting these ingredients together, but making אלונסית, since this was made as a medicine, you are not allowed to make it on שבת. So we see here אלונסית means this mixture and it had wine in it, and that's what we said before, that if it was אלונסית made by the גוי, so he put the wine in it, so the wine was אסור before he put it in, therefore we cannot buy or take the אלונסית from the גוי. But if it came to the גוי already as אלונסית, as a mixture, so then there is no איסור in taking it from the גוי, because יין that's mixed already with other things is not אסור. This is the

way רש״י learns פשט here. And תוספות adds that according to this פשט, we have a ראיה from here that if you have a dish, food, which has a mixture of wine in it before it was cooked yet, even if a גוי touched it, you're still allowed to eat it. Because since the גוי touched it after the wine was put in, and we know, as we see here, that a גוי would not pour for עבודה זרה wine that was mixed, so therefore you're allowed to eat that. And this is the ראיה from the fact that אלונסית is מותר if it came to the hands of the גוי already as אלונסית. So that proves that wine which is mixed with other things a גוי would not pour for עבודה זרה, and therefore the חכמים didn't אסר it. So that teaches us that any תבשיל that has wine in it, if it was touched by the גוי after the wine was put in with the mixture, it is מותר. But the רבינו תם asks a קשיא on רש״י, that from the לשון אלונסית כברייתה, it doesn't mean like that. It's not משמע that this is the פשט. רש״י learned אלונסית כברייתה means אלונסית that was already prepared before it came to the גוי, but from the לשון כברייתה, it doesn't seem that that's what it means. כברייתה means like its creation, so what does it have to do with it being prepared? And another thing that תוספות says, that it says in the first פרק of חולין that even without putting wine into it, it is also called אלונסית, because there it says הרי קח יין לתת לתוך אלונסית, you buy wine to put into the אלונסית. So obviously the אלונסית itself is without the wine, and it has the title אלונסית without wine because it says you buy wine to put into the אלונסית. It should have said, according to רש"י, that if a person buys wine to make it into אלונסית, לעשות אלונסית, to make an אלונסית. But the לשון there is you buy wine to put into אלונסית, obviously אלונסית is something without wine. Therefore, רבנו תם learns that אלונסית they used to make first without wine, this mixture was without the wine, and they would put it away, they would store it, when they used to take a little bit at a time to use, that's when they would mix the wine in. Because if they would put it away לכתחילה to store it with wine, it would get spoiled. And this is the פשט in the גמרא here: אלונסית of a גוי, which means, if you see a גוי take this אלונסית out of his jar in order to drink it, and the ייד didn't watch the גוי take it out, so he doesn't know whether the גוי already put in his wine or not, so then we say it is אסור, because maybe he already managed to put the wine in, and his wine is אסור. But if it is אלונסית כברייתה, כברייתה means pure אלונסית, as it is from its creation, meaning from the beginning, meaning to say that you actually watched the גוי take the אלונסית out of the jug, so you know for sure that he didn't mix any wine into it, and before that you definitely don't put wine in because it wouldn't last, so then you're allowed because you know that there is no wine in it. Still תוספות says, even if we're going to learn this פשט, we have a ראיה from here that wine that's put into a mixture is not forbidden. Because it says in תוספתא, אלונסית של עובדי כוכבים אסורה מפני שתחילתה יין, that אלונסית of גוים is אסור because it starts with wine, means that it starts off with wine of גוים. משמע, from there it comes out, that if it had wine of a ייד in it, that the wine that was put into the אלונסית wasn't wine of a גוי but wine of a ייד, it is מותר, even if a גוי touched it. It says the reason it's אסור because it started off with wine that a גוי put in. איז דאך משמע that if the wine first put in was good wine, was כשר wine, not a גויישע wine, so then אלונסית could even be taken from a גוי even though a גוי touched it. Either is wine in it, that is also a ראיה that wine that was put into a mixture is not אסור if a גוי touched it. But then the ריצב"א says that this is only if it was a dish, a food, that wine is not ניכר, you can't tell that there is wine in it. But if you put it into things that you could tell that there is wine in it, it is בעין, so then, even if it's mixed with other things, it is אסור if a גוי touches it. And he says that this is הלכה למעשה, this is the way we have to פסקן לפועל ממש, that wine, even if it's mixed, as long as you could tell the wine, it is אסור. Then the

גמרא continues, רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו, רבה and רב יוסף both said, יין מזוג, if it was wine mixed with water, אין בו משום גילוי, there is no דין of גילוי. Now we know that גילוי means that if you leave a liquid without being covered, you're not allowed to drink it, because we're afraid that maybe a snake drank from it. And this is a real איסור דרבנן not to drink מים מגולים, water that was uncovered. The truth is that this does not apply nowadays, as the ראשונים and אחרונים say, because nowadays we don't have snakes around, and the גזירה לכתחילה was made because a snake might have drank from it. And therefore even when the גזירה was made, in those places that there was it wasn't common for snakes to be around, it was מותר. So in our places, where most places it is not common for snakes to be around, it is מותר all over. But in the time of the גמרא in most places it was common to have snakes, so therefore the חכמים made an איסור which was called גילוי. So what they said was that if it was wine mixed with water, then there is no גילוי. Why? Because we assume a snake would not drink from it. יין מבושל אין בו משום ניסוך. They also said that if it was cooked wine, there is no איסור of ניסוך, we're not afraid a גוי would pour it for עבודה זרה, and therefore wine that was cooked doesn't become אסור through a גוי. איבעיא להו, but there is a question asked: יין מבושל יש בו משום גילוי או אין בו משום גילוי? What about cooked wine concerning the איסור of גילוי? He said before that wine that was mixed with water, there is no איסור of גילוי. Wine that was cooked, there's no איסור of ניסוך. But what about wine that was cooked concerning גילוי? Would a snake drink from cooked wine or not? If he would, then it is אסור if it's left uncovered because maybe he drank from it. If a snake would not drink from it, then it wouldn't become אסור. But the

גמרא says, תא שמע, come hear, I will answer your question. העיד רבי יעקב מרידא, רבי יעקב מרידא testified על יין מבושל, concerning cooked wine, שאין בו משום גילוי, that there is no איסור of גילוי of leaving open, and you are allowed to drink it. Then the גמרא says, רבי ינאי בר ישמעאל חלש, רבי ינאי, the son of ישמעאל, got sick. עאל לגביה רבי ישמעאל בן זירוד ורבנן לשיולי ביה, so רבי ישמעאל בן זירוד and the רבנן went to inquire about his health, came to visit him. יתבי וקאמרי, they said, קא מיבעיא להו, and they had a question asked, יין מבושל יש בו משום גילוי או אין בו משום גילוי? It was this question: whether wine that was cooked, and it was left uncovered, is it אסור or not? Is the איסור of גילוי apply to that, or not? אמר להו רבי ישמעאל בן זירוד, so רבי ישמעאל בן זירוד said to them, הכי אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, this is what רבי שמעון בן לקיש said, משום גברא רבא, in the name of a great man. ומנו, who was that great man? רבי חייא. And he said, יין מבושל אין בו משום גילוי, that cooked wine doesn't have the איסור of גילוי. אמרו ליה, so they said to him, נסמוך? Could we rely on this? מחוי להו רבי ינאי בר ישמעאל, so רבי ינאי בר ישמעאל showed them, עלי ועל צוארי, on me and on my neck, it's an expression that says that it is on my full responsibility that you could rely on this. Then the גמרא tells another story: שמואל ואבלט הוו יתבי, שמואל and אבלט were sitting. אבלט was a גוי, he was a learned גוי that שמואל had a lot of doing, dealings with him. So they were sitting together. אייתו לקמייהו חמרא מבשלא, so they brought to them cooked wine. משכיה לידיה, so this אבלט pulled his hand away not to touch it and make it אסור. He knew the דין that if a גוי touches wine it becomes אסור, and a ייד can't drink it. So, in order not to make it אסור, so שמואל shouldn't be able to drink it, he pulled his hand away. אמר ליה שמואל, so שמואל said to him, הרי אמרו, didn't the חכמים say that יין מבושל אין בו משום יין נסך, that יין מבושל, cooked wine, there is no איסור of יין נסך, and therefore you're even allowed to drink it, too. So, he said there was no reason for you to pull your hand away, because since this is cooked wine, even if you would have touched it, you wouldn't have made it אסור. Then the גמרא continues: אמתיה דרבי חייא, the maid of רבי חייא, איגליא לה ההוא חמרא מבשלא, so some wine that was cooked was left uncovered. אתא לקמיה דרבי חייא, she came to רבי חייא to ask whether she's allowed to use it or not. אמר לה, he said to her, הרי אמרו, the חכמים said, יין מבושל אין בו משום גילוי, that cooked wine, there is no איסור of גילוי and therefore you are allowed to drink it. שמעיה דרב אדא בר אהבה, the servant of רב אדא בר אהבה, איגלי ליה חמרא מזיגא, so was uncovered by him some wine that was mixed with water. אמר ליה, so he said to him, הרי אמרו, didn't the חכמים say, יין מזוג אין בו משום גילוי, that if it's wine mixed with water, there is no איסור of גילוי and you're allowed to drink it. אמר רב פפא, but רב פפא said, לא אמרן, this דין was not said, אלא דמזיג טפי, if it's mixed properly. And the way they used to mix it was two parts water and one part wine. So then a snake would not drink it, and therefore it is not אסור for גילוי. אבל מזיג ולא מזיג, but if it's mixed and not mixed, which means that it's not mixed good, a little bit mixed only with water, שתי, a snake would drink from it, and therefore there is an איסור of גילוי if you leave wine that was mixed only with a little bit of water, if you leave it uncovered, it would be אסור because a snake would drink from it. But then the גמרא asks, ומזיג ולא מזיג מי שתי? And if wine is not properly mixed, would a snake drink from it as we just said? והא רבה בר רב הונא, we know the story that רבה בר רב הונא הוה קאזיל בארבא, was going on a boat, והוה נקיט חמרא בהדיה, and he had wine with him, וחזייה לההוא חיויא, and they saw this snake, דצרי וקאתי, was cutting through the water and was coming. אמר ליה לשמעיה, so he said to his servant, סמי עיניה דדין, you should blind the eyes of him, which means do something that he should turn away, that the snake should not not come here and want to drink from the wine. שקל קליל מיא, so he took a little bit of water, שדא ביה, and he started pouring it into the wine, ואזל לאחוריה, and the snake turned back. So we see here, even though it wasn't mixed with a lot of water, he just started pouring a little bit of water in it, and that was enough to cause the snake to turn away. So we see that even if it had a little bit of water in it, the snake already doesn't drink from it. And the גמרא answers, אחיא מסר נפשיה, that if it is raw wine, meaning without being mixed, he will even sacrifice his life, he will even put himself in danger, the snake, in order to drink from it. In other words, even if people are around, if it would be pure wine, then he would go there and drink it, even though he would be putting himself in danger. אמזיגא, if it's mixed with a little bit of water, לא מסר נפשיה, he wouldn't be מוסר himself, he wouldn't put himself into danger. So if there would be no people around, then a snake snake would drink, as long as it's not mixed with a lot of water, he would still drink from it. But if there are people around and it's dangerous for him to do it, and if it has a little bit of water in it, he already wouldn't be מוסר נפש. So, this doesn't prove that a snake would not drink from wine which has a little bit of water in it, because maybe he would drink, but he just wouldn't go on מסירות נפש. But then the

גמרא asks, והא מזיגא לא מסר נפשיה? And what are you telling me, that if it's mixed with water, the snake would not be מוסר נפש? והא דינאי הוה באכבורי, דבי ינאי was in אכבורי, ואמרי לה, some say, דבהדי הוה באכבורי, דבהדי was in אכבורי. הוו יתבי, they were sitting, והוו קא שתו חמרא מזיגא, and they were drinking wine that was mixed with water. פש ליה חמרא בכוזא, there was a little bit of wine left in the jug. נצרוניה בפרזונקא, so they covered it, they tied around it at the top with some cloth. וחזיו, and they saw, לההוא חיויא, that there was the snake, דשקל מיא, that took water, ורמא בכוזא, and was pouring it into the jug, עד דמלי בכוזא, till the jug was full, וסליק חמרא עלוי פרזונקא, and the wine overflowed over that covering of cloth, ושתיה, and he drank from it. So, we see that even though he put a lot of water in it, nevertheless, he drank from it. So, how could we say we thought from before that if it's wine mixed with water, a snake doesn't drink from it? But the גמרא says, אמרי, I will tell you, דמזיג איהו, שתיה. That if the snake himself mixed it with water, he will drink of it, even if it's mixed. מזיגי אחריני, if others mixed it with water, לא שתיה, he wouldn't drink. אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, ואיתימא רב משרשיא, and some say it was רב משרשיא that said, פירוקא לסכנתא? You're giving a תירץ, an answer to סכנה? So, you have a good excuse, a good תירץ, so you found a good פשט of how to explain what happened with the snake in this case. But because you have a good תירץ, you will endanger your life? In other words, having a good תירץ is not enough that we should rely on that when it comes to danger. And therefore, according to him, even if it's mixed, you are still not allowed to drink from it, because a snake could drink from wine even if it's mixed with water. Even though we are able to be מחלק and say that there is a difference whether he himself pours the water or the water is poured by somebody else, but that is just a תירץ, but it's not enough for us to take a risk. And therefore, he holds that when the חכמים made the איסור of גילוי, even if the wine is mixed with water, you are still not allowed to drink it. Then the

גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא said, הלכתא, the הלכה is, יין מזוג יש בו משום גילוי, that wine that's mixed with water, there is an איסור of גילוי, and also ויש בו משום יין נסך, there is also an איסור of יין נסך because a גוי would pour it for עבודה זרה. יין מבושל, but cooked wine, אין בו משום גילוי, there is no איסור of גילוי because a snake would not drink cooked wine, ואין בו משום יין נסך, and there is no איסור of יין נסך because a גוי would not pour it for עבודה זרה. And תוספות says that this is the הלכה, that if it's wine that's cooked, a גוי is allowed to touch it and you're even allowed to drink it, as we see from the story before, that שמואל was ready to drink the wine that אבולט could have touched, even though he was a גוי, because it was יין מבושל. Then the גמרא continues, שמעיה דרב חילקיה בר טובי, the servant of רב חילקיה בר טובי, איגליא ההוא כיסא דמיא, so a small amount of water was uncovered by him, והוה נאים גביה, but he was sitting next to it and he was dozing off. אתא לקמיה דרב חילקיה בר טובי, so he came to רב חילקיה בר טובי to ask whether he's allowed to drink it or not. He wasn't actually watching it, but he was sitting nearby and he was dozing off. אמר ליה, so they said to him, הרי אמרו, the חכמים said, אימת ישן עליהם, that the fear of a sleeping person is on them. That if a snake would see him sitting nearby, even though he is sleeping, he would be afraid to drink from this water, and therefore, you are allowed to have it, there is no איסור of גילוי. הני מילי, but this is only ביומא, during the day. That's when the snake is afraid of a sleeping person. אבל בליליא, but at night, לא, he is not afraid, and therefore, he would drink from it and there is an איסור of גילוי. But the גמרא says, ולא היא, this is not so, the הלכה is not like that. לא שנא ביומא ולא שנא בליליא, there is no difference whether it's during the day or at night, אימת ישן עליהם לא אמרינן. We never say this כלל that the fear of a sleeping person is on them and they could always drink from it as long as the person sitting nearby is sleeping, and therefore, there is an איסור of גילוי, even if he sat there since he was asleep. Then the גמרא says, רב לא שתי מבי ארמאה. רב would not drink water in the house of a גוי. אמר, he said, לא זהירי בגילוי, because they are not careful with גילוי, because they leave their water uncovered and we are not allowed to drink water that's uncovered, therefore, he wouldn't drink in the house of a גוי. מבי ארמלתא, said, but in the house of a widow, שתי, he would drink. Even though she definitely is not בקי in all the דינים of גילוי, so maybe we should also be afraid that she is not careful with the דינים, and she does leave her liquids uncovered, the reason is because, אמר he said, סרכא דגברא נקיטא. She definitely still continues with the מנהגים of her husband. Since her husband was בקי in the דינים. The men were בקי, did know the דינים. So she used to do as he would tell her, so she

probably continues to follow the customs as she used to do when he was alive, and therefore probably she is careful with גילוי. But שמואל לא שתי מיא מבי ארמלתא. שמואל would not drink water by a widow. אמר he said, לית לה אימתא דגברא, she doesn't have fear of a man, ולא מכסיא מיא, and she doesn't cover the water. As long as her husband was alive, she definitely did it, because she was afraid of her husband. Now that her husband is not alive, she is not careful because she has nobody to be afraid of. אבל מבי ארמאה שתי, but from a גוי he would drink. And he said like this: נהי דגילוי לא קפדי, even though they are not careful with גילוי, they don't follow the דין of גילוי, and therefore they wouldn't cover it because of the דין, but אנקרוסתא מיהא קפדי, but they're careful with cleanliness. So he assumed that they probably had the water covered anyway so no dust should fall in, it should stay clean, and therefore he would drink the water. איכא דאמרי, some say, רב לא שתי מיא מבי ארמאה, that רב would not drink water by a גוי, אבל מבי ארמלתא שתי, but by a widow he would drink. שמואל לא שתי מיא לא מבי ארמאה ולא מבי ארמלתא, that שמואל would not drink water, not by a widow and not by a גוי. Not like the לשון we said before, that it was reverse of רב, that he would drink from a גוי and not drink by a widow, but according to this לשון he wouldn't drink, not by a גוי and not by a widow. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said, שלש יינות הן, there are three kinds of wine, ואין בהן משום גילוי, and there is no איסור of גילוי on these three wines. ואלו הן, and these are the three kinds of wine: חד, if it's strong wine; מר, if it's bitter wine; מתוק, if it's sweet wine. And he explains the different kinds. חד, when we say it's strong wine, what does it mean? היליק חריפא דמצר זיקא, a very sharp wine and sour wine which almost tastes like vinegar, and since it is strong, so a snake would not drink from it. And it's so strong, דמצר זיקא which means it'll crack the skin of the jugs in which it's in. מר, the second one we said was the bitter wine, יניקא, that means that it was made from unripe grapes. מתוק, when we said sweet wine, that means חליא, that means wine that was sweetened by the heat of the sun. רב חמא מתני לעילויה, רב חמא learned also these three kinds of wine, but for good, that they are good wine. חד, when we say there's sharp wine, that is good, that's חמר פלפלין, that is wine mixed with pepper. מר, when we said it's bitter wine, that is אפסינתין, that is wine mixed with wormwood. מתוק, when we said it's sweet wine, that is מייבג, it is sparkling wine. And even though, according to his opinion, it is good wine, nevertheless a snake wouldn't drink from it because of its taste. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, רבי שמעון בן לקיש said, קרינה אין בה משום גילוי, that קרינה doesn't have the דין of גילוי. מאי קרינה? The גמרא asks, what is קרינה? אמר רבי אבהו, רבי אבהו said, חמרא חליא דאתי מאסייא, it's sweet wine which comes from אסייא, and because of the taste it had, a snake wouldn't drink from it, and therefore there is no דין of גילוי. אמר רבא, רבא said, ובמקומה, but in its local place, יש בה משום גילוי, there is a דין of גילוי there. מאי טעמא? חמר מדינה הוא, the reason is because this is the drink of the locality, and therefore the snakes of that place would drink from it. But if it's taken someplace else and the snakes from the other places are not used to the taste, they wouldn't drink from it. אמר רבא, רבא said, האי חמרא דאקרים, this wine that started becoming sour, but it didn't become fully sour, עד תלתא יומי, until three days, יש בו משום גילוי, there is still an איסור of גילוי that you are not allowed to leave it uncovered, ומשום יין נסך, there is also an איסור of יין נסך, that if a גוי touched it, you're not allowed to drink it. מכאן ואילך, after three days, אין בו משום גילוי, there is no איסור of גילוי, ואין בו משום יין נסך, and there is no איסור of יין נסך. ונהרדעי אמרי, but in נהרדעא they said, אפילו בתר תלתא יומי חיישינן משום גילוי, that even after three days, they're also afraid of גילוי. In other words, you're still not allowed to drink it if it was left uncovered. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? זימנין דמקרי ושתי, it could happen sometimes that a snake would drink from it even if it was left over after three days. Then the גמרא continues,

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, יין תוסס says, wine in the first stage of fermentation, אין בו משום גילוי, there is no איסור of גילוי. וכמה תסיסתו? And how long does this stage last? So it says: ג' ימים, for three days. חשיחלאים, a cress dish, this was chopped cress mixed with wine, אין בו משום גילוי, there is no איסור of גילוי of being uncovered, ובני גולה, but the people from the גולה, which means outside of ארץ ישראל, נהגו בהן איסור, still had a מנהג of making that אסור. ולא אמרן, and this דין was not said, אלא דלית בה חלא, if it doesn't have any vinegar in it. Then in the גולה they would make it אסור. אבל אית בה חלא, if it has vinegar in it, מגרי בהו. The vinegar teases the snakes, the serpents. That means that then they are afraid to drink it, and therefore there is no reason to have an איסור of גילוי in it. כותח הבבלי, the כותח of בבל, and כותח that was made of sour milk, and it was made with crumbs of bread, and it had also other things in it, so אין בו משום גילוי, there is no איסור of גילוי if you leave it open, ובני גולה נהגו בו איסור, but the people from the גולה did apply the איסור to it. אמר רב מנשיא, רב מנשיא said, אי איכא נקורה, if it has signs that it was bitten into, חיישינן, then we also have to be חושש and we are not allowed to eat it.

אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר שמואל, רב חייא בר אשי said in the name of שמואל, מי טיפטוף, water which is dripping, אין בו משום גילוי. That doesn't have a איסור of גילוי, even though it's left uncovered, you're still allowed to drink it. And the reason for that is because the noise of the dripping will not allow the snakes to come close because they will get scared. אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, והוא דעביד טיף להדי טיף טיף. That's if it drips and drips after a drip, which means that it constantly drips. But if it stops a little bit, then we're afraid that at the time that it stopped, that's when the snake drank from it. אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר שמואל, רב חייא בר אשי said in the name of שמואל, פי תאנה אין בו משום גילוי. The opening of a fig doesn't have the דין of גילוי. And even though the דין is that any food which has some kind of liquid in it and it is open that a snake might be able to suck some juice out, it is forbidden because of גילוי, but the opening of a fig doesn't have the דין of גילוי. Even though when you take it off the tree and it's still fresh, there is an opening there, but it doesn't have the דין of גילוי. כמאן, according to who does this go? כהאי תנא, this goes like a certain תנא that we learned. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, רבי אליעזר אומר, רבי אליעזר says: אוכל אדם ענבים ותאנים בלילה, a person is allowed to eat grapes and figs at night, ואינו חושש, and he shouldn't care, משום שנאמר, because the פסוק says, שומר פתאים ה', ה' watches over the fools. Which means that ה' will watch over the person who does it and he shouldn't be afraid. Even though normally those foods that we suspect a snake might have eaten from it, you're not allowed to eat from it at night, you first have to check into it to see if it had a bite in it or not, and at night that you can't see, you can't eat from it, but grapes and figs you're allowed. So this is the מאן דאמר it fits to what we said before, that by the opening of a fig there is no דין of גילוי.

אמר רב ספרא משום רבי יהושע דרומא, רב ספרא said in the name of רבי יהושע from דרום, שלשה מיני ארס הן, there are three types of venom that come from the snake or the serpent. של בחור, from a young one, שוקע, that goes all the way to the bottom. If he drinks from a liquid, from water let's say, and he leaves some venom inside, and this is the reason why you're not allowed to drink liquid that was left uncovered, because we're afraid that a snake drank from it and left some of his poison in it, so the venom of a snake that is young, it'll go all the way to the bottom. של בינוני, if it's from a middle-aged, מפעפע, it'll stay in the middle. ושל זקן, if it's from an old snake, צף, it's going to float on top. And it seems that the reason is because if it's a young snake, so he is stronger, so when he gives out his venom, it has more strength, so it goes all the way to the bottom. If he's middle-aged, then it stays in the middle, it only can go down up to the middle. If he is old, then it stays on top. So the גמרא says: למימרא, let us say, דכמה דקשיש כחיש חיליה? So the גמרא asks: למימרא, let us say, דכמה דקשיש כחיש חיליה, that the older a snake gets the weaker its strength gets? והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, שלשה, there are three, שכל זמן שמזקינים, as long as they get older, גבורה מתוספת בהן, their strength gets added, they become stronger. ואלו הן, these are the three: דג, fish, נחש, and a snake, וחזיר, and a חזיר. So we see at least here that one of the three that the older it gets the stronger it gets is a snake. And before it seems that we were saying that the older it gets is the weaker it gets. And the גמרא answers: כוח איתוסופי הוא דקא מוסיף, the truth is that its strength becomes stronger, but זוהמא, its venom, קליש gets weak. Then the גמרא says, we just said before של בחור שקיע, that if it's from a young snake it goes all the way to the bottom, למאי הלכתא? To which הלכה? Why is it important for us to know that the venom of a snake, if it's young, will go down all the way to the bottom? What is it for? So they said the reason is דתניא, we learn in a ברייתא: חבית שנתגלה, there was a there was a jar that was uncovered, and we said before you're not allowed to drink from it because maybe a snake drank from it. So אף על פי ששתו ממנה תשעה ולא מתו, even if you saw that nine people drank from it and they didn't die, so לכאורה this should prove that even though it was uncovered probably no snake drank from it, still לא ישתה ממנה עשירי, a tenth person should not drink from it. And the גמרא says מעשה there was a story, מעשה היה ששתו ממנה תשעה, that nine drank from it ולא מתו and they didn't die, ושתה עשירי and the tenth did drink, ומת and he did die. אמר רבי ירמיה, so רבי ירמיה said: זהו שקיע, this is the דין of שקיע that we said before that if he is young then it'll go all the way to the bottom. And this is probably what happened: the reason the first nine didn't die because the venom went all the way to the bottom, so when they drank it was pure water, and the tenth person who drank, he drank the venom. So this is the דין that it's נפקא מינה to know that from a young snake it goes to the bottom, so we should know that we can't rely on the fact that other people drank from the water and they didn't die, because maybe he was a young snake and it went all the way to the bottom. וכן אבטיח, the same דין applies to a melon שנתגלה that was uncovered. Because the דין is that if you cut open a melon and you leave it open that way without being covered, you're not allowed to eat from it, since it is very juicy, so we're afraid that a snake drank from it and its venom went in and a person who will eat it will die. So here we say the same thing: אף על פי שאכלו ממנה תשעה בני אדם, even if you saw that nine people ate from this melon ולא מתו and they didn't die, לא יאכל ממנה עשירי, a tenth person should not eat from it. מעשה שהיה, there was a story, ואכלו ממנה תשעה, nine people ate from such a melon, ולא מתו and they didn't die, ואכל עשירי, and the tenth person ate from it, ומת and he did die. אמר רב, רב said: זהו שקיע, this is the דין of שקיע, that the reason that the first nine didn't die because probably a young snake ate from it, so the venom went down all the way, so the tenth person that he ate from it, that's when he died. Then the גמרא says,

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: מים שנתגלו, water that were uncovered, הרי זה לא ישפכם ברשות הרבים, you shouldn't pour them in a public place. ולא לא ירבץ בהם את הבית, you shouldn't clean the house with it. You shouldn't pour it on the floor of your house to make sure that the dust doesn't go up. That used to be the custom, that since they had floors made of sand it always used to get dusty, so they used to pour water over it to make sure that the sand doesn't go up into the air. So you shouldn't pour this water on the floor. ולא יגבל בהם את הטיט, you shouldn't knead the mud, the cement with it. ולא ישקה מהם לא בהמתו, you shouldn't give this to drink, not to one's own animal, ולא בהמת חבירו, and not to the animal of his friend. ולא ירחץ בהם פניו ידיו ורגליו, and you shouldn't wash with them your face, your hands, and your feet. אחרים אומרים, others say: מקום שיש סריטה אסור, a place where there is a cut or there is an opening, that's when you're not allowed to use this water, because the venom that's in it might penetrate through that cut into the body and then it could cause you to die. But אין סריטה, in a place where there is no opening, מותר, you are allowed to use this water to wash. A part of the body which has no opening, you're allowed to wash with this water. Then the גמרא asks: אחרים היינו תנא קמא, isn't what אחרים said the same thing as תנא קמא said? Because the תנא קמא said you're not allowed to wash your face, your hands, and your feet. And these are the places that have openings: the face there are openings, that in the ears and in the nose and other places where there are cracks, and the hands also, and the feet between the fingers there are openings. So we see that the first opinion, the תנא קמא, also brings such things which have openings that you're not allowed. So when אחרים said only a place which has openings you're not allowed, it seems as if he's saying the same thing as the first תנא said. And the גמרא answers: איכא בינייהו, there is a difference. The difference is גב היד, the back part of the hand, וגב הרגל, the back part of the foot, ורומי דאפי, and the upper part of the face, because these are places that don't have any openings. Now according to אחרים, you would be able to use the water for these places. But according to the תנא קמא, since he says you can't wash your face with it, that includes all parts of the face, even the upper part. When he says you can't wash your hands or your feet, so it includes also the back part of your hand and of your foot. And this is where there is a difference between these two opinions. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר מר, we said before לא ישקה מהם לא בהמתו ולא בהמת חבירו, you can't give this to drink, not to your animal and not to the animal of your friend. But the גמרא asks: והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא אבל משקהו לבהמת עצמו, where it says you shouldn't give it to your friend's animal, but you could give it to your own animal. The גמרא answers, כי תניא ההיא, לשונרא, where it says that you could give it to your own animal, that means by a cat, because a cat wouldn't be harmed with drinking the venom of a snake. As רש״י says, that we find in פסחים, that a cat would be able to eat a snake itself. So therefore, if you give it to a cat, it doesn't matter. But the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if we're talking about a cat, דחבריה נמי, why can't you give it to your friend, you should be able to give it to the animal of your friend too. So the גמרא answers, דחבריה כחיש, because even though it doesn't die from this, even a cat, but it could get weak. So that's why you shouldn't give it to the cat of your friend, because it'll make it weak. But then the גמרא asks, דידיה נמי כחיש. His animal also gets weak. Why should he give it to his own if we say it makes it weak, so his own cat will get weak. So the גמרא says, הדר ברי, but afterwards it'll get strength again, it'll get cured. So then the גמרא asks, דחבריה נמי הדר ברי. So if so, you should be able to give it to your friend's cat also, because even though it'll become weak, but that'll go away, and it'll become healthy again. The גמרא answers, זימנין דבעי לזבונה. It could be sometimes that he'll want to sell it in between, before it'll get cured again, ומפסיד ליה מיניה, and he'll have some loss from you. Since it'll be weak, it won't be worth as much as it should be worth, so he'll lose some money on it. So on your own, if you want to lose money, that's your business. So therefore, we don't mind if you give it to your own. But your friend's you're not allowed to cause him any damage, therefore, you can't give it to his cat to drink, cuz even though in the long run there will be no damage, but in the short run there will be. And if he wants to sell it at that time, there will be a loss of money for him.

Concerning what we learned in the גמרא in the דין of שחליים, that שחליים, it said, has no דין of גילוי. But the בני גולה did have a custom of making it אסור. And we said before that this is the cress that is mixed with liquid, with wine or with water, etc. So תוספות asks a קושיא, here in the גמרא it says that שחליים doesn't have a דין of גילוי, but in the end of the גמרא in נדרים, is משמע that there is a דין of גילוי, because there's a story there that one person said to the other, "Don't eat from this because a snake tasted it." And there it's talking about שחליים. So if a snake tasted from it, obviously a snake does eat from it. Now, if a snake eats from it, there should be an איסור of גילוי. And תוספות says that we can't say that this is a different kind of שחליים than there. That the שחליים we're talking about here is a dish made of beans, as we find later on there in the second פרק, where it says that in ציפורי they used to put חומץ into the גריסין, they used to put vinegar into the beans, and they used to call it שחליים. So maybe this is a שחליים that we're talking about here too. But תוספות says this can't be, because over there it was called שחליים only after the vinegar was put in. In our גמרא it was called שחליים without having any vinegar in it, because the גמרא itself says that when is it אסור, only if it has no vinegar, but if it has vinegar, then the snake is afraid of it. So we see that without vinegar it's called שחליים. So it can't be the שחליים from there. אלא מאי, it's the same שחליים as the גמרא in נדרים says that this person said to the other, "Don't eat from it because the snake tasted from it." So we see here that to taste, a snake would taste from that שחליים. So תוספות says that באמת the שחליים here and there is the same thing, but sometimes it happened that a snake could taste from it. So normally to suspect, to say it's אסור because a snake might have tasted from it, we can't make it אסור. But since it is a possibility, sometimes it happens, so in the case over there, he knew it happened, that's why he said don't eat from it. And this also explains why the בני גולה had a custom to make it אסור. Now, if it would be definite that a snake would never eat from the שחליים, then what would be their reason to have the מנהג of אסור? But because sometimes a snake would eat from it, so therefore, they had a custom of making it אסור. But על פי דין it's not אסור because it was very not common for a snake to eat from it. Concerning when the גמרא said that the water that was left uncovered, that you're not allowed to drink from it, you also can't give it to your own בהמה to drink, and also not לבהמת חבירו, to the בהמה of your friend. So לכאורה you could ask a קושיא here, why does it have to say both? If you cannot give it to your own בהמה, you certainly can't give it to your friend's בהמה, because your friend's בהמה should be more חמור, because you're I mean, you're causing damage to somebody else. So if it would say just that you can't give it to your בהמה, we would know of ourselves that you can't give it to the בהמה of your friend. Why does it have to say בהמתו and also בהמת חבירו? So תוספות says that's not a קושיא, because it is in the form of זו ואין צריך לומר זו. It is the custom of a תנא in the משנה or in the

ברייתא many times to say a thing which would have been understood by itself from something else he said, but nevertheless, he would say it, and in a form of זו ואין צריך לומר זו. That means that he would say one thing, and then mention the second thing that that, of course, is אסור. Or in the case of היתר he would say, that this thing is מותר and the other thing is of course מותר, and that's exactly what he's doing here also. He's saying that you're not allowed to give it to your own בהמה, and of course אין צריך למימר, you don't even have to say that you cannot give it to the בהמה of your friend. Now what would be the reason you shouldn't be able to give it to your own בהמה? לכאורה, the whole problem is that the בהמה might die, but if it's your own בהמה, you are not מזיק anybody. So the חשק שלמה says that probably the איסור is of בל תשחית, you're not allowed to spoil your own things. So therefore, you're not allowed to give it to your own בהמה because you're עובר on the איסור of בל תשחית, and if you spoil something which is useful, there is בל תשחית. Now, if you do it to your friend's בהמה, then in addition to the איסור of בל תשחית, there is also a איסור of being מזיק someone's property. And that's why that is even more חמור. But then he asks:

Later on in the גמרא it brings a ברייתא where it says that you are allowed to give it to your own בהמה. לכאורה, the גמרא could answer very simple, that in that ברייתא we're talking in a case of a בהמה העומדת לשחיטה שחיטה מיד, that it's ready to be slaughtered and be געשאכטן right away. So there is no בל תשחית, because it's not going to die through the venom that it's going to get of this water, because you're going to שחט it anyway. On the other hand, you are allowed to eat it, because it says in the גמרא in חולין דף נ"ח that if it drank מים הרעים, if a בהמה drank מים הרעים, bad water, you're still allowed to eat it. And it means מים מגולים, as רש"י explains there and the ר"ן explains there, that it means water that was uncovered. If a בהמה drank from it and you שחט'ed it, you're still allowed to eat the בהמה. So then maybe that's the reason why you're allowed to give it to your own בהמה. And he says that this is no קשיא, because we know there is a דין of מסוכנת. If a בהמה is מסוכנת, is sick and is dying, so then if you שחט it right away, there is a way to check to see whether the בהמה is כשר or not. If it does certain movements after the שחיטה, you know it's כשר. Now, if a בהמה drank this bad water, the water that was left uncovered, and it might have venom of a snake in it, it definitely would turn the בהמה into a מסוכנת, because the effect of the venom could be right away. So this בהמה is like a מסוכנת. Now, a מסוכנת, as we said before, there is a way to find out whether it is כשר or not, but one thing is for sure: to לכתחילה cause a בהמה to become a מסוכנת and then to rely on the ראיות later on that it's כשר, that we're not allowed to do. And therefore, the גמרא couldn't answer that here we're talking about a בהמה that's עומדת לשחיטה, and that's why you're allowed to give it, because you still wouldn't be allowed to give it this water, because this water would definitely cause it to become a מסוכנת, and to make לכתחילה a בהמה a מסוכנת and to rely on the proof after the שחיטה, that we don't do, and that's why you're not allowed to give it even if you are going to שחט it right away.

Concerning this דין that we learn in our גמרא, that if wine was mixed into a dish already into other food, there is no דין of יין נסך, so in connection to that, the ר"ן here quotes the רמב"ם that he says in הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י"א הלכה י', and this is his לשון: הורו גאוני המערב, that the גאונים from מערב פסק'נט, שאם נתערב ביין ישראל, if in יידישע wine got mixed in מעט דבש או מעט שאור, a little bit honey or a little bit of yeast, הואיל ואינו ראוי למזבח, since it's not fit for the מזבח, הרי הוא כמבושל, has the same דין like cooked wine, או כשכר, or like beer, ואינו מתנסך, and they wouldn't pour it for עבודה זרה, and therefore מותר לשתותו עם העכו"ם, you're allowed to drink it with the גוי. In other words, what they say is that any wine that is אסור for the מזבח, that it would be פסול to be used on the מזבח to השם, the גוים would also not have used it as יין for the נסך for their עבודה זרה. And since we know that for the מזבח it is אסור דבש or שאור, the פסוק says כי כל דבש וכל שאור לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה', that a drop of honey or even a drop of שאור is אסור for the מזבח, so wine that has some דבש or שאור is אסור for the מזבח, so would also would not be used as יין for עבודה זרה, and therefore there is no דין of יין נסך there. But the ר"ן says that they asked a קשיא on the רמב"ם, meaning a קשיא on these גאונים who פסק'נט that way, because it's possible that even though it is פסול to be used as יין on the מזבח, but nevertheless not always does that mean that the גוים would not use that wine for their עבודה זרה. Because we see that יין מזוג, in our גמרא it said, wine that's mixed with water, there is still a דין of יין נסך, and we know that it's פסול to be used for the מזבח. Like it says in the ספרי: ונסכו יין רביעית ההין לכבש האחד, so he says, חי אתה מנסך ואי אתה מנסך את המזוג. From there we learn out that you could only pour regular wine, but not מזוג. And it's also מוכח like that in פרק המוכר פירות, that יין מזוג is not used on the מזבח, and nevertheless יין מזוג is אסור because of יין נסך, because not everything that is אסור for the מזבח would be פסול according to their laws for their קרבנות. As we see that they used to be מקריב the פירות of דקל טבא, of a good דקל, which is honey, and they would מקריב it on their מזבח, even though the תורה אסר'ד it. So we see that not always when it's אסור for the מזבח, they would not use it for their קרבנות. And he says even more, another reason why we should אסר the wine that has a mixture of some honey or some שאור in it, because אפילו if you're gonna say that there is no חשש in this wine that it was used for עבודה זרה, but still it should be אסור because of בנותיהן, because we know that the whole reason why the חכמים אסר'ד סתם יינם is because this might bring us to socialize with them and we might marry their daughters. And as wrong, long as it has the טעם, the taste, and the smell of wine, there is still a possibility that this should be used for a social gathering, so therefore, even though it has some wine, some honey or some שאור in it, which could not be used, let's say, for their קרבנות on the מזבח, but nevertheless, because of בנותיהן, it should be אסור. But concerning that קשיא, the ר\"ן says, we could answer that even though the חכמים אסר'ד סתם יינם because of בנותיהן, but this is, as we learned in תוספות before, it is all based on the איסור of יין נסך. That that wine that would be אסור because of יין נסך, the חכמים made אסור סתם יינם because of בנותיהן. And therefore we could say that if they would not use דבש or שאור in their wine, and it wouldn't be יין נסך, it also wouldn't be אסור of סתם יינם. But the other קשיא that he asked is a קשיא that who says that whatever is אסור for the מזבח is אסור by them also for their pouring for their עבודה זרה? And באמת, the רדב\"ז on the רמב\"ם also says the same thing. On this דין that the רמב\"ם quotes in the name of the גאוני המערב, the רדב\"ז says that the אחרונים did not rely on this פסק. And he says that the רא\"ש writes that the whole עיקר גזירה is משום בנותיהן, but they were מחמיר to make it אסור בהנאה like יין that was poured for עבודה זרה. So therefore, since the main איסור is משום בנותיהן, therefore even if it has some honey or some שאור mixed in it, it's still אסור. The רדב\"ז just writes that he would rely on the פסק דין of the גאוני המערב only in a case where there was ספק נגע עכו\"ם. If it's a ספק if the גוי touched it, and it was wine that had a mixture of honey or yeast in it, then he would be מתיר. Even though normally he wouldn't rely on their פסק, but in the case of a ספק, he would rely on their פסק. And also the כסף משנה says the same thing. The כסף משנה says that the רמב\"ן and the רא\"ש and the רשב\"א and the ר\"ן, they all write that you should not rely on this פסק, and for the same reason that we just said from the ר\"ן, because who says that because we don't use it for the מזבח, they also wouldn't use it for their קרבנות? And he quotes, the ראיה is that they are מקריב בני שוח and פירות לעבודה זרה that we know that we are not מקריב for it, so we see that there are certain things that they bring for their עבודה זרה that we don't. And he also brings a ראיה from יין מזוג, which is פסול to the מזבח, and nevertheless the גמרא says here that there is an איסור of יין נסך. And he says that this is also the opinion of the רבינו יונה. And then he says that the ריב\"ש and the רשב\"ץ write בפירוש that you should not rely on this הוראה that פסק'נד the גאוני המערב, because all the אחרונים, he says, pushed it away בשתי ידים.

Concerning the איסור of גילוי that we learned in the גמרא before, that if water, for instance, was left uncovered, then you are not allowed to drink from it, because we are afraid a snake drank from it. And the reason we gave before that nowadays this doesn't apply is because nowadays snakes are not מצוי. So we hinted earlier to the explanation of this דין, because לכאורה one could ask a question: we have a כלל, אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חבירו אלא אם כן גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין, that as soon as תקנה was made, so then the second בית דין that wants to be מבטל the תקנה of the בית דין that made it, you are not allowed to do it unless you are greater than the first בית דין בחכמה ובמנין, and you have more people and they are greater חכמים. But otherwise, you cannot be מבטל the words of the earlier בית דין. Even if the earlier בית דין did it because of a reason, and the reason doesn't apply now, nevertheless the תקנה remains a תקנה. As the גמרא brings a ראיה from the case of משה רבינו, where השם said to משה to tell all the יידן that they should separate themselves from their wives before מתן תורה. And after מתן תורה, השם said, tell them, שובו לכם לאהליכם, you should all go home, go back to your wives. Even though לכתחילה when השם said separate yourself from the wives it is for the reason of מתן תורה, when the reason went away they automatically should have to go back to their wives, there should be no איסור, nevertheless השם went along and was מתיר it, because as long as you are not מתיר it, the תקנה remains. And who could be מתיר a תקנה? Only if the בית דין is greater than the previous בית דין בחכמה ובמנין. So how can we say that since we don't have snakes around. Therefore, the איסור of מים מגולים doesn't apply, but לכאורה, since there was a תקנה made, in order to take off that תקנה, you must have another בית דין which is גדול from the first בית דין בחכמה ובמנין. Now the answer that is given to this in many of the ראשונים and then later on in the אחרונים is that there depends what type of תקנה it was. Certain תקנות were made לכתחילה in such a way that this is a תקנה without the reason, even though the חכמים had a reason why they made a תקנה. But the reason wasn't part of the תקנה. The reason was a reason for the תקנה. The תקנה was a תקנה to do so-and-so. Why did they want that people should do so-and-so? So, they had their reasons. In a case like that, later on, even if the reason falls off, but since the תקנה was made, you can't take away that תקנה, you can't מבטל it unless you are greater than the previous בית דין בחכמה ובמנין. But if a תקנה was made לכתחילה that the reason was part of the תקנה, when the חכמים said a תקנה, they said a תקנה with the reason, that this is why we want this תקנה. In other words, the reason wasn't just a reason of the תקנה, but the reason was like a condition in the תקנה. So then, if the condition isn't there, then the תקנה automatically falls off, because this is not what the תקנה was. So, it's not the פשט that it was a תקנה, we are being מבטל the תקנה because there is no reason. לכתחילה the תקנה wasn't made in these circumstances because there was a reason as part of the תקנה, and this reason doesn't apply, so the circumstances are different, so לכתחילה the תקנה wasn't here. And that's how it was done concerning the דין of גילוי. That when the חכמים said that if water was left uncovered, it should be אסור, they said it should be אסור because snakes drink from it. So they לכתחילה made a condition to the תקנה if snakes drink from it. But if it's a place where there are no snakes to drink from it, then there is no תקנה. And as the ראשונים say, that even at the time when this תקנה did apply, not in all places did it apply. In those areas where there was no snakes מצוי, even at that time there was no תקנה, because part of the תקנה was this idea that it is because snakes drink from it. So, just like even at that time, in those places where there were no snakes, there was no תקנה, so nowadays, when in most places it's like that, so in most places there is no such תקנה. So, it's not the פשט that we are מבטל the תקנה of the חכמים, but the פשט is that לכתחילה this was a condition in the תקנה, and when the condition isn't there, then automatically we understand the תקנה isn't there.