Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. עבודה זרה דף ל"א, but we will start two lines from the bottom of דף ל' עמוד ב'. And the גמרא says, אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן, רב אסי said in the name of רבי יוחנן, משום רבי יהודה בן בתירה, in the name of רבי יהודה בן בתירה, שלשה יינות הן, there are three types of wine. There are three דינים concerning different kinds of wine. יין נסך, if it's wine that was actually poured for עבודה זרה, אסור בהנאה, it is forbidden to have any benefit from it, ומטמא טומאה חמורה בכזית, and it makes things טמא with a very strict טומאה if it has a כזית. In other words, if you have a כזית of the יין נסך, it'll make things טמא with a very strict טומאה, because we have many levels in טומאה in the spiritual uncleanliness. The worst level of טומאה is that that comes of a מת. If anything comes in contact with a dead body, it becomes the highest level of טומאה. And the contact is or through touching, or through carrying it even if you didn't touch it, or if you are under one אוהל with the dead body. You are under one roof, or you become the roof of the dead body, or the dead body becomes your roof, so you become טמא. And since we learned earlier that קרבנות of עבודה זרה is like זבחי מתים, has the same דין of a מת, so קרבנות of עבודה זרה are also מטמא the same טומאה as a dead body would be מטמא if there is a כזית of it. And since we learned before that יין נסך has the same דין as תקרובת עבודה זרה, as a קרבן that was brought for עבודה זרה, so by יין נסך also the דין is that if you have a כזית of יין נסך, then this is מטמא a טומאה חמורה, a strict טומאה, like a מת would be מטמא. That if you touch it, or you carry it, or you're under one אוהל with יין נסך, you become טמא with this טומאה חמורה. And the reason we have here a כזית, even though we find in other places, as תוספות says, that נבילה, for instance, which is מטמא, but it is only מטמא ברביעית, that if you have a רביעית of it, that's when it's מטמא. And the reason for that is because if you have a רביעית in liquid, so then when it'll harden, it'll be a כזית, but not that the שיעור of the liquid itself is a כזית. So תוספות says that here the שיעור is a כזית. Why? Because the reason why the יין נסך makes טמא is because it is like תקרובת עבודה זרה, like a קרבן of עבודה זרה. And the דין by תקרובת עבודה זרה is that it's מטמא a טומאה חמורה when it's a כזית, so the יין נסך is also מטמא this טומאה חמורה if there is a כזית of it. This is the

first category of wine. The second category is סתם יינם. If you have סתם wine, which means wine that was touched by a גוי, but it wasn't poured for עבודה זרה, which is also אסור, but it's only אסור מדרבנן. And the reason is they made a גזירה not to have סתם יינם because of יין נסך. So here the דין is אסור בהנאה, it is also forbidden to have any benefit from it, ומטמא טומאת משקין ברביעית. And this would make other liquids טמא if there is a רביעית of it. And as רש"י explains, it means that if a שרץ, which is one of those things that make things טמא if you touch it, would have touched this סתם יינם, so the סתם יינם would become טמא like any other משקין would become טמא, like any other liquid that touches a שרץ becomes טמא. And now this liquid, this סתם יינם, would make other משקין, other liquids טמא, or would make other food טמא. When the גמרא says here that it's מטמא טומאת משקין, it doesn't mean דווקא משקין liquid, it means משקין or אוכלין, because liquid that became טמא of a שרץ cannot make טמא a person or כלים or vessels. The only thing it could make טמא is אוכלין ומשקין, food or drink. And that's what we mean here, that if the סתם יינם touched a שרץ, so this סתם יינם would make other משקין or אוכלין טמא like any משקין which had touched a שרץ, which would be מטמא other משקין and אוכלין. And the שיעור of this יין, סתם יינם, that we say that would be מקבל, would accept the טומאה from the שרץ, is if it has a רביעית. This is the way רש"י learns here, the way תוספות understands in רש"י. But תוספות asks many קושיות on רש"י. One of the קושיות is that if this is what the גמרא is trying to tell us, what is the חידוש? Why should we think that סתם יינם should not have the same דין? Why should we think that סתם יינם would be worse than other משקין? That by other משקין If it touches a שרץ, it becomes טמא, which is able to be מטמא אוכל ומשקין, and סתם יינם we would think would not be able to do it? Since the גמרא here is telling us that סתם יינם, if it became טמא through a שרץ, is able to be מטמא משקין, in other words, סתם יינם is like any other משקין. And since he has to tell us that nevertheless סתם יינם becomes טמא to make other things טמא, it is because we would have thought that by סתם יינם the דין would be different. The question is, why would we think that סתם יינם would be worse, that it shouldn't become טמא? Therefore תוספות learns that that's not what the גמרא means here. The גמרא means that סתם יינם in itself is טמא, even if סתם יינם did not touch a שרץ. The fact that this is סתם יינם has a level of טומאה, that if it will touch אוכל ומשקין, then it would make it טמא. Which is in continuation to the first part. The first part was concerning יין נסך. So there the דין is that it's מטמא טומאה חמורה, that even though it didn't touch any טומאה, but the fact that this is יין נסך, that was poured for עבודה זרה, this itself makes it טמא, and it would be מטמא other things like a מת. סתם יינם, which is a lower level, also has a certain level of טומאה in itself. And what is the level? That if it has a רביעית, it would be מטמא other things in the טומאה of טומאת משקין. That's the way תוספות learns here. But that is the second category of wine. The

third דין concerning wine is המפקיד יינו אצל עובד כוכבים, if someone deposits wine by a גוי, a ייד who has his wine, כשר wine, and leaves it in the possession of a גוי, אסור בשתיה, that you are not allowed to drink, ומותר בהנאה, and you're allowed to have הנאה, you're allowed to derive benefit from it. And these are the three categories: יין נסך is the worst, it's אסור בהנאה, and also מטמא טומאה חמורה; סתם יינם is also אסור בהנאה, but the טומאה is not that great; and the last case, when you deposit your wine in the possession of a גוי, it is not even אסור בהנאה, it is מותר בהנאה, but you are not allowed to drink it. Then the גמרא asks: ותנן, didn't we learn in the משנה, המפקיד פירותיו אצל עובד כוכבים, if someone deposits, gives his fruit to watch by a גוי, הרי הן כפירותיו של עובד כוכבים לשביעית ולמעשר, so when you come and you take it back, you consider the fruit that you are going to take as if they are the גוי's fruit. So whatever the דין would be concerning fruit that comes from a גוי, concerning שביעית, which is שמיטה, and concerning a דין of מעשר, the tenth that you have to take off, the same דין would apply to this fruit. Even though the fruit is fruit of a ייד, but since it was in the possession of a גוי, we assume that the גוי exchanged it for his own. So when you come and take it back, we assume you are taking now fruit of a גוי, and therefore you have to consider it like a גוי's fruit לגבי the דינים of שמיטה and מעשר. So now if we see here that when you deposit fruit by a גוי, we assume he exchanged it, and therefore it is considered like the גוי's fruit, the same thing should be concerning the wine also, that when you bring wine to a גוי, and then you come, you take it back, you have to consider it as if it is wine of a גוי, because we assume that the גוי exchanged it. So why is the דין that you're not allowed to drink it, but you're allowed to have הנאה from it, the דין should be that you shouldn't even be able to have הנאה from it. The גמרא answers כגון, for instance, שייחד לו קרן זויות, that when the ייד put the wine by the גוי, the גוי gave him a certain corner, he specified a corner, and the ייד had a seal on that corner. And as we see from the גמרא later on, there was one seal there, not two seals, but there was one seal there. So since there was a seal there, here we do not suspect that the גוי exchanged it, and therefore it is מותר בהנאה. But then the גמרא asks: אי הכי, שתיה נמי לישתרי? If so, that he had put it away and it was sealed, so why is it not allowed to be drank? Why is the דין that it's only מותר בהנאה, but still אסור to drink? And the

גמרא is going to prove that it should be מותר to be drank, דהא רבי יוחנן איקלע לפורת, because there is a known story that רבי יוחנן happened to come to פורת, and this was the city where בר קפרא used to live, but this was already after בר קפרא passed away. אמר, so he said, כלום יש משנת בר קפרא? Is there here a משנה, a statement, a דין of בר קפרא? Can you tell me a דין that you remember in the name of בר קפרא? תנא ליה רב תנחום מפורת, so רב תנחום of פורת told him that he remembers a דין that בר קפרא said, המפקיד יינו אצל עובד כוכבים, that if somebody deposits, hides wine by a גוי, מותר בשתיה, you're allowed to drink it. And when he heard that, did קרי עליה, he called on him, he referred to him the פסוק where it says מקום שיפול העץ שם יהוא, that where the wood will fall, the tree will fall, that's where it's going to be. What he meant to say was that in the place where the צדיק lives, where the חכם lives, that's where he is. And this is the place of בר קפרא, so this is where he is. And the גמרא asks what does that mean? שם יהוא סלקא דעתך? What do you mean that's where he is? He wasn't there already. בר קפרא had already passed away. אלא שם יהו פירותיו. What he meant was there his fruit will be. In other words, the חכמה, the learning of the חכם will be in the place where he used to be. In other words, if you want to find out a saying or a דין by a certain חכם even after he passed away, come to the city where he used to live, and there you will find his fruit, meaning there you will hear from people who knew him his תורות. But in the meantime, we see from here that he said that if the wine was deposited with a גוי, you're even allowed to drink it. And the reason is, because as we said before, since you gave him a corner, the גוי gave him a corner, and he had it sealed, so we don't suspect that the גוי exchanged it. And therefore, not only is it מותר בהנאה, but also מותר to drink. So why did we say before that it's only מותר בהנאה, but you can't drink it? אמר רב זירא, so רב זירא said, לא קשיא. There is no קשיא. הא ר' אלעזר, הא רבנן. One of the statements follows ר' אלעזר's opinion, and one of the statements follows the רבנן's opinion. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא that

there is a מחלוקת concerning this דין between ר' אלעזר and the רבנן. It says, אחד הלוקח ואחד השוכר בית בחצירו של עובד כוכבים, whether a person buys or a person rents a house in the yard of a גוי, ומילאהו ייין, and he filled it with wine, the ייד put his wine there, ומפתח או חותם ביד ישראל, but the key or the seal was in the hands of the ייד, ר' אלעזר מתיר, ר' אלעזר says that it's מותר, you're allowed to drink it, וחכמים אוסרין, and the חכמים say it is אסור. So we see clearly that there's a מחלוקת between ר' אלעזר and the חכמים, whether you suspect in a case like this that the גוי exchanged it or not. ר' אלעזר says we don't suspect, and the חכמים say we do suspect. So that is the difference between the two opinions before. רב יהודה בן בתירא, who said that it's אסור בשתיה but מותר בהנאה, follows the רבנן, because the רבנן say that we do suspect, and that's why they say it's אסור. And as רש"י says, it means it's אסור בשתיה, you can't drink it according to the רבנן, but nevertheless, it is מותר בהנאה. So רב יהודה בן בתירא follows the opinion of the רבנן, but the story of בר קפרא where he said that it's מותר, because he followed the opinion of ר' אלעזר. And ר' אלעזר is מתיר because he doesn't suspect that the גוי will exchange it, since the key or the seal is in the hands of the ייד. This is the way רש"י learns the פשט in the גמרא here. But תוספות asks לכאורה, since the רבנן say that it's אסור, so obviously the רבנן suspect that he did exchange it, so why is it מותר בהנאה? Why are you allowed to have הנאה from it? And תוספות טאקע learns that according to the רבנן, when the רבנן say אוסרין, the חכמים hold it's אסור, they טאקע mean it's אסור בהנאה also. But if that's what the גמרא means, then what is the opinion of רב יהודה בן בתירא? Because the גמרא said here that רב יהודה בן בתירא holds it's אסור בשתיה, you can't drink it, but it's מותר בהנאה. And the גמרא said that this depends on the מחלוקת ר' אלעזר and the רבנן. So ממה נפשך, if רב יהודה בן בתירא holds like ר' אלעזר, it should be מותר בשתיה, you should be able to drink it also. If he holds like the רבנן, it should be אסור בהנאה also. Because as we said, תוספות learns that when the רבנן say it's אסור, they mean אסור בהנאה also. So where does the opinion of רב יהודה בן בתירא come in? How does he hold that it's אסור to drink and מותר בהנאה? And תוספות says that רב יהודה בן בתירא follows his own opinion that he said later on in the גמרא in פרק רבי ישמעאל דף נ"ט עמוד ב', where he says like this: יין של ישראל שנגע בו עובד כוכבים, wine of a ייד that a גוי touched it, מותר בהנאה, he holds it's מותר בהנאה. You can't drink it, but it's מותר בהנאה. And he says חדא, one reason is דאין מנסכין יין אלא בפני עבודה זרה, that a גוי would only pour wine for עבודה זרה if he was standing in front of the עבודה זרה. But if it's not in front of the עבודה זרה, then it is not considered that he had in mind for עבודה זרה. And another thing, because the ייד could tell him, "I don't believe you," or "I have you have no right to make my wine אסור against my will." So even though we're afraid that he might exchange it—now, if he exchanged it, that's worse. If he would have just touched it, then we say רב יהודה בן בתירא holds that it doesn't make it אסור בהנאה. But if he exchanged it, maybe it's his own wine, which is ממש אסור בהנאה. So תוספות says רב יהודה בן בתירא is not מחמיר so much to be חושש that he changed the ייד's wine for the גוי's wine in order to make it אסור בהנאה. Since the whole איסור of סתם יינם is only an איסור דרבנן, so רבי יהודה בן בתירא wasn't מחמיר that much to say that we suspect that he actually exchanged it עד כדי כך that it should be also אסור בהנאה. Therefore, he says that even though there is a חשש maybe he exchanged it, but we only use the חשש as far as making it אסור בשתייה, but to make it אסור בהנאה, we don't. So the truth is, he טאקע follows the opinion of the רבנן, that we do suspect that maybe he exchanged it, but how far do we suspect? Since it's only a דין דרבנן, we only suspect it concerning drinking, but to make that חשש so strong עד כדי כך that we should make it אסור בהנאה, that we don't do. Then the גמרא continues that אמר רב חייא בריה דרב חייא בר נחמני, that רב חייא the son of רב חייא בר נחמני said, אמר רב חסדא אמר רב, in the name of רב חסדא in the name of רב, ואמרי לה, some say, אמר רב חסדא אמר זעירי, that רב חסדא said this in the name of זעירי, ואמרי לה, and some say אמר רב חסדא, that רב חסדא said, אמר לי אבא בר חנה, אבא בר חנה told me, that הכי אמר זעירי, this is what זעירי said. But what did they all say? הלכה כרבי אלעזר, that הלכה is like רבי אלעזר who holds that it is מותר, we don't suspect that a גוי exchanged it as long as there is one seal, as we will see from the גמרא later on. Then the גמרא says, אמר רבי אלעזר, רבי אלעזר said, הכל משתמר בחותם אחד,

everything could be guarded, could be watched with one seal, in other words if you give things to a גוי, and you have it closed with one seal, we regard that as watched, and you're allowed to take it back from the גוי and eat it, and we don't suspect that the גוי exchanged it for something which is not כשר. חוץ מן היין שאין משתמר בחותם אחד, except wine, it is not considered guarded if there is only one seal. That's the opinion of רבי אלעזר. ורבי יוחנן אמר, but רבי יוחנן says, אפילו יין משתמר בחותם אחד, that even wine is also considered guarded if it has one seal. And the גמרא says, ולא פליגי, really they don't argue, הא כרבי אלעזר הא כרבנן, one follows the opinion of רבי אלעזר, who holds that we do not suspect that a גוי exchanged it even if there was one seal, and the other one goes according to the רבנן who says that even with one seal we suspect that maybe the גוי exchanged it. And what the גמרא means when it says ולא פליגי, that really they don't argue, but the truth is they do argue, they just argue in the same מחלוקת as רבי אלעזר and the רבנן, one follows the opinion of רבי אלעזר, and one follows the opinion of the רבנן. So it's not the פשט that they don't argue. Usually the לשון they don't argue in the גמרא is used when there is no argument, one is speaking in one case, and one is speaking in another case, but there is no מחלוקת in the דין. While on this גמרא there is a מחלוקת in the דין, one follows the opinion of רבי אלעזר, and one follows the opinion of the רבנן. So תוספות explains that what the גמרא means they don't argue, it means they don't argue according to one מאן דאמר. It's not a פשט that they are talking within one מאן דאמר and they are arguing פשט in that one, but one goes like רבי אלעזר, and one holds like the רבנן. That's what we mean, not that there is no מחלוקת, but they don't argue within one opinion. That's one פשט תוספות says. Another פשט תוספות says that when it says they don't argue, it טאקע means they don't argue, and they all go according to רבי אלעזר, which means they both פסקן like רבי אלעזר that we don't suspect that a גוי exchanged it. Why should they go like that? Because רב פסקנט that way. But what the גמרא means that one goes according to רבי אלעזר and one goes according to the רבנן, it means that one explains רבי אלעזר's words, and one explains the words of the רבנן. So they are not arguing in הלכה what the דין would be, they are just explaining the two different opinions. One of them explains the opinion of רבי אלעזר, and therefore he says that even wine, one seal is enough, and the other one is explaining the opinion of the רבנן, and therefore he says that by wine, one seal is not enough either. But not that they פסקן that way, להלכה they don't argue. איכא דאמרי, and some say it was different, that what רבי אלעזר and רבי יוחנן were arguing about wasn't concerning whether one seal is enough by wine or not, but אמר רבי אלעזר, רבי אלעזר had said, הכל משתמר בחותם בתוך חותם, everything else is guarded if you have a seal within a seal, which means if you have two seals, then we don't suspect that a גוי exchanged it. That is by everything else. חוץ מן היין שאין משתמר בחותם בתוך חותם, except wine, that there, even if you have a seal within a seal, even if you have two seals, it still is not enough. That's the opinion of רבי אלעזר. ורבי יוחנן אמר, but רבי יוחנן says, אפילו יין משתמר בחותם בתוך חותם, that even wine is considered guarded if you have a seal within a seal. ותרווייהו כרבנן, and they both follow the opinion of רבנן, that the רבנן say that we do suspect a גוי exchanged it. But what is the מחלוקת? מר סבר, one of them holds holds, כי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אלעזר, when did the רבנן argue against רבי אלעזר and say that we do suspect that a גוי exchanged it? בחותם אחד. If you only have one seal, that's when רבי אלעזר says that we don't suspect the גוי in exchanging it, and the רבנן hold that since there is only one seal, we do suspect the גוי exchanged it. אבל בחותם בתוך חותם, שרו, but if there's a seal within a seal, if there are two seals, the רבנן admit to רבי אלעזר that it's all right, because then we don't suspect the גוי exchanged it. This is the opinion of רבי יוחנן. That's why רבי יוחנן says that even wine, if you have it a seal within a seal, it's okay. ומר סבר, and the other one holds, which is רבי אלעזר, that אפילו חותם בתוך חותם אסרי, that the רבנן, when they argue against רבי אלעזר and they say that we do suspect that a גוי exchanged it, they argue even if there was a seal within a seal. But even if there are two seals, we still suspect that a גוי exchanged it. And therefore the אמורא, רבי אלעזר, holds that in the case of wine, even two seals, the רבנן would אסר. But then the גמרא says, היכי דמי חותם בתוך חותם, what is considered a

seal within a seal? אמר רבא, so רבא said, אדנא דפומא דחביתא שריק וחסים, that if you have a basin placed over the opening of a barrel and joined to the barrel with a seal on it, הוי חותם בתוך חותם, that is considered a seal within another seal. ואי לא, לא הוי חותם בתוך חותם, and if not, it is not considered a seal over a seal. דיקולא ומהדק הוי חותם בתוך חותם, or if you have a basket fastened over the stopper, that is considered a seal within a seal. לא מהדק, but if it is not fastened, לא הוי חותם בתוך חותם, it's not considered a seal within a seal, because it's easy to take it off, so it's as if it's not there, that's why it's not considered a seal within a seal. Or נוד בדיסקייא חסים פיו למטה הוי חותם בתוך חותם, if you have a skin bottle within a bag with the closed opening of the skin bottle inside, that is considered a seal within a seal. פיו למעלה, but if the opening is on the outside, לא הוי חותם בתוך חותם, is not considered a seal within a seal. And also ואי כאיף פומיה לגאו וצייר וחתים הוי חותם בתוך חותם, if he bends in the closed opening of the skin bottle within, and then ties the bottle up again and seals it, that is also considered a seal within a seal. Then the גמרא continues,

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, בראשונה, in the beginning, היו אומרים, they used to say, ייין של עין כושי אסור מפני בירה סריקא, that the wine that comes from עין כושי would be אסור because of the place called בירה סריקא. Now, the city עין כושי was a place where they had a lot of כותיים. Now, כותיים were not suspected in pouring the wine for עבודה זרה, and therefore the wine that we bought from כותיים should really be allowed, because there's nothing to suspect. Nevertheless, it was אסור, because since that city עין כושי was close to בירה סריקא, and בירה סריקא was a place of גוים who did worship idols, so we were afraid that the כותי would let the גוי touch it. And since the גוי touches it, it makes it אסור, so that's why we weren't able to buy לכתחילה the wine from עין כושי either, because they were close to the city of the גוים. And also ושל ברקתא אסור מפני כפר פרשאי, the wine that came from ברקתא, which is again a city of כותיים, was לכתחילה אסור because it was close to the כפר פרשאי, and there they had גוים, idol worshipers, so the כותיים would allow the גוים to touch it, so we couldn't even buy the wine by the כותי. And also ושל זגדור אסור מפני כפר שלם, the wine that came from זגדור, which is again a city of כותיים, was אסור because it was close to כפר שלם, where there's a city of idol worshipers of גוים. חזרו לומר, but later they changed and they said,

חביות פתוחות אסורות, if they are open barrels, it is טאקע אסור. סתומות מותרות, but if they were closed barrels, you could buy from the כותיים. The גמרא asks, מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר, what did they think in the beginning that they said that you can't buy anything from the כותיים, even if it's closed, and later they changed and they said that if it's closed you are allowed? So the גמרא says, מעיקרא סבר, לכתחילה they thought, אין כותי מקפיד על מגע עובד כוכבים, that a כותי doesn't care if an idol worshiper will touch his wine, and לא שנא פתוחות ולא שנא סתומות, the כותי would not care, not by the open barrels and not by the closed barrels. And therefore we thought that even closed barrels you're not allowed to buy from the כותי because they would let the גוים touch it. ולבסוף סבר, but later on they held, כי לא קפיד אפתוחות, when don't the כותים care if a גוי touches it? If they are open barrels. אסתומות מיקפד קפיד, but on closed barrels the כותים were מקפיד that the עובדי כוכבים should not touch it, and therefore we were allowed to buy the closed barrels from the כותים. And the גמרא asks, וסתומות מותרות? What are you telling me? That closed barrels you are allowed to buy from the כותים, and we don't suspect that they let עובדי כוכבים touch it?

ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא. We learned in a ברייתא, השולח חבית של יין ביד כותי, if someone sends a barrel of wine in the hands of a כותי, through a כותי. And as רש״י says, that the ברייתא just mentions כותי, but it means כל שכן if it's through a גוי. Or if you send a package of של ציר ושל מורייס, ציר is the juice of fish, מורייס is a kind of pickled thing which they mix wine in, so if you send that ביד עובדי כוכבים in the hands of a גוי, so in all these three cases, אם מכיר חותמו, the איד recognizes the seal, או סתמו or סתמו, if he recognizes the place where he closed it up, so then מותר, you're allowed to eat these things, whether it's the wine that you sent or the ציר or the מורייס, because... But אם לאו, if you don't recognize the seal, then אסור, it is אסור. And the reason it is אסור, in the first case when you send the barrel of wine in the hands of the כותי, the reason it's אסור is not because we suspect that the כותי exchanged it, because we don't suspect this thing by כותים that they exchange it. And the כותי itself doesn't make the wine אסור. The reason is because we are afraid that the כותי let a גוי touch the wine, because as we know the כותים are not מקפיד if עובדי כוכבים would touch the wine. So that is the reason why if you send a barrel of wine in the hands of a כותי it is אסור, if you don't recognize the seal. Certainly if you send it in the hands of a גוי it is certainly אסור because the גוי himself touched it, or by the גוי he might even exchange it, so if you don't recognize the seal it is אסור. In the

case of the ציר and the מורייס, there if you would send it in the hands of a כותי, it טאקע wouldn't be אסור, because a כותי is not suspected of exchanging it. Touching it doesn't make it אסור. The only thing is if you send it in the hands of a גוי, that's when it's אסור, because a גוי might exchange it. Now what might he do? Concerning ציר, it is not a question that he might exchange it with other ציר which has the גוי's wine in it, or he would have the ציר of the איד and just put some wine in it, take off some of the ציר and exchange it for wine, that they wouldn't do because ציר was cheaper than wine. So why would we suspect that he should take out some of the ציר and exchange it for wine when wine is more expensive? So there the חשש is that maybe he exchanged the whole ציר, and instead of ציר from כשר fish, he would put ציר of non-כשר fish. And in the case of מורייס there we're afraid that maybe he exchanged it for wine, because מורייס was more expensive than wine. So we suspect maybe he took out some of the מורייס and put in instead some wine, and that is cheaper so he would make some money on it, and that we suspect. And that is the reason that if you don't recognize the seal, you are not allowed to use it, you're not allowed to either drink it, because we're afraid maybe he exchanged it. And the same thing is concerning the barrel of wine that you sent with the גוי or even with the כותי, that we're afraid that maybe the גוי exchanged it, and if it's in the hands of a כותי, then we're afraid maybe he allowed a גוי to touch it. Even though we don't suspect that the כותי himself would exchange it for non-כשר wine. But in the meantime we see here that we suspect that the כותי allowed a גוי to touch it, and it doesn't make a difference whether it's an open barrel or not, which seems to be saying and even if it was a closed barrel, we still suspect that the כותי allowed a גוי to touch it. So this contradicts what we learned before, because before we said that only open barrels the כותי were not מקפיד to allow גוים to touch it, but closed barrels they were מקפיד. And here it seems as if that even closed barrels also they were not מקפיד and they allowed גוים to touch it. So the גמרא says,

אמר רב זירא, רב זירא said, לא קשיא, there is no קשיא. כאן בעיר, כאן בדרך. In place where we say that they were מקפיד and they wouldn't allow the גוי to touch it is in the city. Since in the city are a lot of people, so they wouldn't want גוים to touch it, because maybe a איד will see it, and then the אידן won't buy this wine. So there they were מקפיד and they wouldn't allow גוים to touch it. כאן, but here we're talking בדרך, on the way. In the way where there are not too many people, there they didn't care if גוים touched it because no one would see it anyway, so this wouldn't spoil their business. So then even closed barrels they would allow גוים to touch. But the גמרא asks, מתקיף לה רב ירמיה, רב ירמיה asked a question, מתיב רב ירמיה, רב ירמיה asked a קושיא: מידי הנך דעיר לאו בדרך אתו? Isn't it that those that are in the city, didn't they come through the road? So טאקע, while it's in the city they will not allow a גוי to touch it. But when they brought it through the road into the city, there maybe they allowed a גוי to touch. So what difference does it make that now in the city they won't allow a גוי to touch it, but still it should be אסור, because it came through the דרך and there there was nobody to see, so there maybe they allowed a גוי to touch it? אלא אמר רב ירמיה, therefore רב ירמיה said, בין הגתות שנינו. But this דין refers to barrels who were closed in the vicinity of the wine presses. So therefore, כיון דכולי עלמא, of course, since all the people are there, there are many people there, מרתת, he would be afraid to let a גוי touch it. אמר, he would say, השתא אי חזו לי, now someone will see me, מפסדו לי, they will spoil it for me, I will lose because if someone will see me letting a גוי touch it, the יידן won't buy it. And here there is no חשש of, well, maybe he let a גוי touch it בדרך, because this didn't go through the דרך, because this came straight from the place where they press the wine. Then the גמרא continues, איתמר,

we learned, מפני מה אסרו שכר של עובדי כוכבים? Why did the חכמים אסר beer of גוים? And this תוספות says that we don't find, not in the משנה and not in the ברייתא, the איסור of גויישע beer. But nevertheless, תוספות says, מסתמא it was אסר in the time of the אמוראים, and therefore it's not in the ברייתא, not in the משנה. And the גמרא's question is, what is the reason, why did the חכמים אסר beer of גוים? רמי בר חמא אמר רב יצחק, רמי בר חמא said in the name of רב יצחק, משום חתנות, because of marriage. Because beer is also something you socialize over, and therefore the חכמים didn't want that they should socialize with the גוים, and it would come to intermarriage. And that's why they said we shouldn't drink beer of גוים. רב נחמן אמר, רב נחמן said, משום גילוי, we're afraid they leave it uncovered. And as we learned before, that liquid that's left uncovered, we're afraid maybe a snake drank from it. So when a person will drink it, it could poison him and he will die. That's why it is אסור to drink מים מגולים, liquid that was left uncovered. And that is why you can't drink beer of a גוי, because they leave it uncovered. But then the גמרא asks, אגילוי דמאי? What are we afraid of, at what point do they leave it uncovered? אילימא, if you'll say גילוי דנזייתא, that they leave the vat of the beer uncovered, אנן נמי מגלינן, we also leave it uncovered. And that doesn't matter, because בכלל we assume or we know that snakes do not drink from beer. And that's why we also leave it uncovered.

ואלא דחביתא, אלא you'll say not at a vat, but when it's already in the barrel they leave it uncovered, אנן נמי מגלינן, we also leave it uncovered. So what do we care if the גוי leaves it uncovered? The גמרא answers, לא נצרכא, you have to tell us, באתרא, in such a place, דמצלו מיא, that they let the water clear up, that the water they would put into the beer, they put it in כלים and they let it stay for a day or two and let it clear up, and that's the water they use in the beer. So therefore we're afraid that that water that's going to be used in the beer was left uncovered, and we are not allowed to drink water that was left uncovered. Then the גמרא asks, אלא מעתה, if so, ישן תשתרי, old one should be מותר, that if it matured already, it should be מותר, because if there was venom of a snake in it, the venom of the snake would not let it become matured. Now if it was matured, then we know that there is no poison of a snake in it, so it should be מותר. דאמר רב, because רב said, ישן מותר, any liquor that was matured you're allowed to drink, because אין מניחו ליישן, that if it had venom of a snake, it wouldn't allow it to get matured. And the same applies also to wine, החמיץ מותר, if the wine was fermented, you're allowed to drink it, because אין מניחו להחמיץ, the venom of the snake would not allow it to be fermented. So in that case, why is the דין that you're not allowed to drink any beer from a גוי, if the reason is because we're afraid they left the water uncovered before they put it into the beer, but if it was matured, that it would prove that there was no venom in it, and you should be able to drink it? The גמרא answers, גזירה ישן אטו חדש, it's a גזירה that you're not allowed to drink even if it was matured, because you might come to drink new ones. And by new ones, we don't know whether the snake drank from it or not, and then we are definitely not allowed to drink it. So the חכמים said you're not even allowed to drink ישן where we are sure that the snake didn't drink from it, because if we allow you to drink ישן, you might also come to drink חדש. Then the גמרא

continues רב פפא, מפקין ליה לבבא דחנותא. רב פפא, they used to bring out to him the beer to the door of the shop, ושתי, and he drank it. רב אחאי, מייתי ליה לביתיה ושתי. רב אחא, they used to bring it to his house, and he would drink it, but he would not drink it even the outside of the store. And the גמרא explains, תרווייהו משום חתנות. They both hold that the reason the חכמים אסר to drink beer of a גוי is because of intermarriage, and therefore, only if it's in the place of the גוי, that's where you're not allowed to drink it, but other places you are. But if so, why wouldn't רב אחא drink it at the door of the shop? Why did he only have it brought to his house? איהו רב אחא עביד הרחקה יתירה. רב אחא made an extra precaution, so that's why he wanted it should be brought דווקא to his house. Then the גמרא continues, רב שמואל בר ביסנא איקלע למרגוואן. רב שמואל בר ביסנא happened to be in מרגוואן. מרגוואן was a place of יידן, but יידן who were not careful in drinking wine of גוים. אייתו ליה חמרא, they brought to him wine, ולא אשתי, and he didn't drink it. אייתו ליה שיכרא, they brought beer to him, ולא אשתי, he didn't drink it either. And the גמרא asks, בשלמא חמרא, we understand why he didn't drink the wine, משום שמצה, because of suspicion. He suspected that maybe this was wine of גוים. שיכרא משום מאי? Why didn't he drink the beer? And the גמרא says, משום שמצה דשמצה, a suspicion of a suspicion. In other words, it's like a גזירה לגזירה, that he didn't want to drink the beer, because if he would drink the beer, it could bring to also drink wine, and drinking wine you're really not allowed. Then the גמרא says,

אמר רב, רב said, האי שיכרא דארמא שרי. He said beer of a גוי is מותר, but וחייא ברי לא נשתי מיניה, but my son חייא should not drink from it. The גמרא asks למימרא דשרי? אי שרי, if it's allowed, לכולי עלמא שרי, it's מותר for everybody. Why shouldn't his son חייא drink from it? אי אסיר, if it's forbidden, and that is the reason he didn't want his son to drink from it, לכולי עלמא אסיר, it's forbidden to everybody. Why could other people drink it? אלא, therefore the גמרא says, the פשט is like this: רב סבר משום גילוי. רב held that the reason why the חכמים אסר beer of גוים is because they leave it uncovered. ואזיל מרירא דכשותא וכלי ליה לזירא. But still you're allowed to drink it, because the bitter taste of the hops counteracts any venom that might be in it. So therefore, you are allowed to drink it, but ודלקי מילקי ליה טפי, but somebody who is sick will get even sicker. So somebody who is healthy, even if a snake drank from it, it won't hurt him, because the bitter of the hops counteracts the poison of the snakes. But if somebody is sick, it'll make him even more sick. וחייא ברי, and my son חייא, he says, הואיל ודלקי, since he is sick, לא נשתי מיניה, he shouldn't drink from it. From this גמרא here where the גמרא tells us that רב אחא and רב פפא both didn't drink from beer in the place of the גוים, just that רב פפא would drink it outside of the store and רב אחא would drink it in his own house, but inside the place of the גוים they both didn't drink it, so תוספות says from here we see that a person should be careful not to drink beer in a house of a גוי, because רב פפא and רב אחא both were בתראי, they were from the latest אמוראים, and we always פסקן like the בתראי, like the latest ones, and they didn't drink in the place of the גוי. But someone who is staying, תוספות says, in the house of a גוי, it's possible that he's allowed to send somebody to the city to buy beer from a גוי, because this would have the same דין as the house of a ייד, because he is buying it someplace else, and he's not drinking it in the place where he bought it. Now the fact that he's bringing it back to him and he stays in the house of a גוי, still, since he bought it, he's allowed. And even if the גוי himself, תוספות says, gave him his own, you're still allowed to drink משום איבה, because if you don't drink the beer that a גוי who is your host will give you, it'll cause hatred amongst you, that's why you're allowed to do it. Because when the חכמים אסר beer to drink it's משום חתנות, as we said, because we're afraid of intermarriage, so this איסור was only if you are going to establish drinking in the store, or if you drink steady in the house of the גוים, but if it just happens once, once in a while, then you are allowed. And תוספות says this דין of beer that we are talking about here makes no difference whether it's beer made of dates or beer made of תבואה. Now תוספות says if it's beer made of תבואה, you shouldn't be able to drink it for a different reason, because it's בישולי עכו"ם. We know that food that was cooked by a גוי, you are not allowed to eat. Now if the beer was made by a גוי and it's beer made of תבואה, then it's beer which is like food, so you shouldn't be able to drink the beer because of בישול עכו"ם. So תוספות says that this גמרא holds like the other לשון of רב, which says later on that anything which is not עולה על שולחן מלכים, אין בו משום בישולי עכו"ם, and if it's not an important dish, that could be put on the table of a king, there we don't have the דין of בישול עכו״ם. And we know that רבי יוחנן holds later on in פרק רבי ישמעאל this כלל, and also in פרק החולץ, so therefore, concerning beer, the דין of בישול עכו״ם doesn't apply. Then תוספות says there's another reason why we should allow beer and there is no בישול עכו״ם there, because just like we say that the תבואה that it's made from is בטל לגבי the water לגבי the ברכה, because on the beer we make a שהכל, even though it's made of תבואה, we still don't make a בורא מיני מזונות, because now it's a liquid and it became liquid through water, so the תבואה is בטל לגבי the water concerning the ברכה of שהכל נהיה בדברו, so too is it בטל לגבי the איסור of בישול. And therefore there is no בישול עכו״ם. But still תוספות says the איסור of drinking it constantly in a house of a גוי that still remains, and we have to be careful with that. Then the גמרא continues:

אמר שמואל, שמואל said, כל השרצים יש להן ארס, all reptiles have venom. של נחש ממית, the venom of a snake could kill. של שרצים of the other reptiles, אינו ממית, it doesn't kill. אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב, שמואל said to רב חייא בר רב, בר אריא, the son of a lion, or בר אריא means the son of a scholar. If the גירסא is בר אורייא, then it means the son of a scholar. בר אריא could mean the son of a lion, because he was the son of רב. So שמואל said to him, תא ואמא לך, come and I will tell you מילתא מעלייתא דהוה אמר אבוך, a good thing that your father רב had said. הכי אמר אבוך, this is what your father said: הנך ארמאי זקוקי, these swollen גוים, דקא שתו גילוי, that they drink things which are left uncovered, ולא מתו, and they didn't die, the reason is because איידי דאכלי שקצים ורמשים, since they eat all kinds of insects, all kinds of שקצים ורמשים, חביל גופייהו, so now they become immune to it, and therefore the venom of the snake doesn't poison them. But a ייד who doesn't eat שקצים ורמשים, he is not immune to it, and therefore a ייד is not allowed to drink or eat things which are בגילוי.

אמר רב יוסף, and רב יוסף said: האי חלא דשיכרא דארמאי, this vinegar that the גוים make of beer, אסור, you are not allowed to drink it. And the reason is דמערבי ביה דורדייא דיין נסך, because they mix yeast of wine that was poured for עבודה זרה with it. אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said: ומאוצר שרי, but if you take it which was stored away, then it's allowed. Why? Because מיסרא סרי, for if it would have contained any mixture of יין נסך, it would have gotten spoiled. And since it's not spoiled, you know it has no יין נסך in it, and therefore in that case you are allowed to buy it from the גוים. Concerning what we said in the גמרא before, that רב said the הלכה is like רבי אלעזר who says that you are allowed to leave wine by a גוי with one seal, because there was a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and the חכמים, and the חכמים said we do suspect that he would exchange it, but רבי אלעזר said we don't suspect, and the גמרא said the הלכה is like רבי אלעזר, that in the case where there was one seal we פסקן like רבי אלעזר that we don't suspect he exchanged it, in other words it comes out that על פי הלכה, according to this גמרא, one seal is enough by wine. And תוספות says that later on in דף ס״ט עמוד ב׳, the גמרא also mentions there that והאידנא קיימא לן כרבי אלעזר, that now we פסקן like רבי אלעזר, that we are not afraid that the גוי will falsify. So again it comes out that we פסקן like רבי אלעזר that one seal is enough concerning wine.

תוספות asks a קשיא, this comes out a סתירה between the opinion of רב and where רב said something else. Here רב said that we פסקן like רבי אלעזר and one seal is enough, רב himself says later on in דף ל״ט that חבי״ת, the word חבי״ת is an abbreviation of four words: חלב, בשר, יין, תכלת, that milk and meat and wine and תכלת need חותם בתוך חותם, even with one seal it's not enough, but you must have two seals. So we see רב does פסקן by wine that you have to have two seals. And also we learned earlier on דף כ״ט, that רב אשי said that חומץ ויין מבושל, vinegar or cooked wine, you don't need a seal within a seal. And it says there because we are not afraid that he's going to pour it for עבודה זרה. אי let's be afraid that he exchanged it, since it has one seal we're not afraid he exchanged it. Is משמע there that since it's חומץ, it's vinegar, or cooked wine, that's when one seal is enough. But had it been regular wine, then one seal would not be enough, you'd have to have חותם בתוך חותם. So it's משמע that we פסקן that you must have two seals concerning wine. And also in this גמרא itself, רבא has a whole discussion what חותם בתוך חותם means. What is a seal within a seal? Is also משמע that we פסקן that you have to have a seal within a seal, because if the הלכה is that you don't need a seal within a seal, so why would the גמרא go into this whole discussion of finding out what a חותם בתוך חותם is? So that רבנו תם answered that there is a difference, that if there is a איד who we don't trust, there we have to have two seals. But by a גוי, one seal is enough. By a איד we don't trust, we need two seals because he is a איד, so he thinks in his mind that he's going to be trusted, and people won't investigate what he did. So there is more חשש that he did something wrong, therefore over there we need two seals. But in the case of a גוי who knows that he is not trusted, so there one seal is enough. And that's why he says that the case where רב said later on that you have to have two seals, that's speaking by a איד, a איד who is חשוד. Also, the דין of רב אשי that said that חומץ and יין מבושל needs one seal, which was משמע that if it's regular wine you have to have two seals, he's also talking by a איד, a איד who is חשוד. And also in our גמרא where רבא goes into the discussion what a seal within a seal is, is also talking in a case where it's a ישראל חשוד. And he says that's why we find in the גמרא that רבה בר אבוה when he used to send meat, he would cut it as a triangle, as a סימן, so that only had one סימן and not two סימנים, why was that enough? For the same reason, because there it was through a גוי, and by a גוי one סימן is enough. But it is hard to understand the פשט of רבנו תם, תוספות says, because what is his source to say that all these גמרות are talking by a איד, not by a גוי? תוספות calls it a נבואה, it is just like a prophecy to say that all these הלכות are talking by a ישראל. The פשט is all these גמרות are talking by גוים, and רב אשי before also mentioned חומץ ביד עכו"ם אין צריך חותם בתוך חותם, that vinegar by a גוי doesn't need a seal within a seal, is משמע that wine in the hands of a גוי does need. And also in ירושלמי תוספות said it comes out that we're talking by a גוי, and רש"י and הלכות גדולות they all say we're talking by a גוי. Therefore it's hard to say that we're talking by a איד. Therefore תוספות says that נראה לר"י דהפשט is like this, that באמת we are talking by a גוי. אי, how come in some places it says that one seal is enough and some places it says that we need two seals? So he says the difference is that if you send it to your friend, and you are not going to see it again, so you're not going to be there to recognize the seal that you yourself made, then we need two seals. Because since the גוי knows that you are not going to see it later, he's not going to be afraid to tamper with it, because he knows that the other איד who it's going to will not recognize which seal it was, therefore there you must have two seals. But in a case where you give it to a גוי and you're going to come back and take it, so you're going to be able to recognize the seal that you yourself put there, so then תוספות says one seal would be enough. And a ראיה for that is because we see that here רבי אלעזר mentions in his words המפקיד יינו אצל עובד כוכבים, that where רבי אלעזר holds that you have to have only one seal, he says that if you put, deposit your wine in the hands of a גוי. Now normally if you're מפקיד wine by a גוי, it doesn't mean that you're not going to see it again. You put it in his hands for a while and you're going to come back and take it. When you come back and take it, you're going to see it. That's why here one seal is enough. But רב אשי before who says that only if it's vinegar one seal is enough, which is משמע that if it's wine in the hands of a גוי you must have two seals, because there it's משמע we're talking in a case where he sends it with the גוי to somebody else and he is not going to see it. And the same is also concerning what רב said later on דף ל"ט that חביות בחותם אחד אסור, that חלב, בשר, יין, and תכלת is אסור with one seal, he's also talking in a case where you are sending it with a גוי, so then you're not going to see the seal again, so here we must have two seals. Concerning what the גמרא said later on, brought a ברייתא: השולח חביות של יין ביד כותי, that if you send a barrel of wine in the hands of a כותי, and של ציר ושל מורייס ביד עובדי כוכבים, or if you had sent ציר and מורייס in the hands of a גוי, so the דין is if you recognize the seal or the סתום it's מותר, and if not, not. And from there the גמרא wanted to prove that we always suspect that the כותי would allow a גוי to touch it. רש"י had explained, as we learned before, that when it says if you send a barrel of wine in the hands of a כותי, it is אסור unless you recognize the seal, that means כל שכן if it's in the hands of a גוי. If you send with a גוי, אוודאי און אוודאי you must have a seal, and if you don't recognize the seal it is אסור. But even in the hands of a כותי, it is still אסור, why? Because we're afraid that the כותי allowed a גוי to touch it. That is the way רש"י learned פשט in that גמרא. But תוספות says that the רבנו תם is מדקדק that since he divides it into two parts, he says השולח חביות של יין ביד כותי, and then a separate case, של ציר ושל מורייס ביד עובדי כוכבים, and the ברייתא doesn't put it together, is משמע that in the first part where it says that you sent the חביות of wine in the hands of a כותי, that means is דווקא in the hands of a כותי. But if you would have sent it in the hands of a גוי, then the דין would be different. The דין would be that then even if you have a seal it wouldn't help. Because this ברייתא goes according to the רבנן who say that one seal is not enough by wine, and therefore this דין where it says that if he recognizes the seal it's okay, that's only by a כותי, but by a גוי even recognize the seal would not be enough because one seal is not enough. But on the other hand, from here it comes out that concerning ציר ומורייס, one seal is enough even according to the רבנן, because the reason why by wine it wouldn't be enough it would have been a גוי, is because it goes according to the רבנן and one seal is not enough. Now, if the same ברייתא says that ציר ומורייס in the hands of a גוי, one seal is enough, is משמע that even according to the רבנן, by ציר ומורייס one seal is enough. תוספות asks a קשיא, if so, from here we have a קשיא to the איכא דאמרי of before. Before, the גמרא had brought a לשון that רבי אלעזר said that everything is guarded בחותם בתוך חותם, a seal within a seal, is משמע that everything needs a seal within a seal. And here we see that ציר ומורייס even according to the רבנן doesn't need a seal within a seal. And תוספות answers that when it says in the ברייתא before that everything needs a seal within a seal, it doesn't טאקע mean everything. It only means on the other things of חביות, which means חביות are four things: חלב, בשר, יין, and תכלת. So, when he says everything needs a seal within a seal, that means everything of these four. But other things, for instance, חילתית ומורייס and פת וגבינה, which is used in the abbreviation חמפ"ג, the גמרא says later on, that there one seal is enough. And since here we're talking about ציר ומורייס, that is not included in what he said before that everything needs two seals, in this case, one seal is enough. And then תוספות says that according to רש"י, that רש"י said that when it says here, if you send a חבית of wine in hands of a כותי, it means כל שכן in the hands of a גוי. And even there the דין is that if you recognize the seal it's okay, so we must say that this ברייתא goes according to רבי אלעזר, who says that one seal is enough. But on the other hand it comes out according to רש"י, that according to רבי אלעזר, even though one seal is enough, but you must later on recognize the seal. That if you send it from city to city, you must recognize the seal. And even according to the רבינו תם, תוספות says, that says that the ברייתא goes according to the רבנן, still from the רבנן we understand the opinion of רבי אלעזר. Didn't the רבנן say that by ציר ומורייס, where one seal is enough, you have to recognize the seal? So from there we understand that according to רבי אלעזר, who holds that by wine also one seal is enough, it would be the same דין as by ציר ומורייס of the רבנן. That just like according to the רבנן by ציר ומורייס, where one seal is enough, but you must recognize later the seal, so too according to רבי אלעזר, by יין, that one seal is enough, but you must recognize the seal. So therefore, he says, you have to be careful when you send wine to another איד and you yourself don't go there, that you should be able to stand and recognize the seal, that you must have then a חותם בתוך חותם. Or you should send a כתב to be מודיע him how you signed it, and you should also tell the גוי that you sent a כתב to the איד to tell him how you sealed it. So then one seal is enough, because the גוי, knowing that the other איד who it's going to knows how it's sealed, then he will be afraid to be מזייף, to falsify the seal. רבינו תם, however, says, that according to רבי אלעזר, who is not afraid בכלל, doesn't suspect that it will be exchanged, you don't have to recognize the seal. And even if you don't go along there to recognize the seal and you don't send him a letter telling him how it was sealed, you're still allowed according to רבי אלעזר with one seal, which is not like the פשט of רש"י and the פשט that we said before. And he brings a ראיה. Since the גמרא says later on, והשתא דקיימא לן כרבי אלעזר דלא חייש לזיופא, אמאי לא משדרינן חמרא ביד עכו"ם? which means the גמרא asks that if since we פסקן like רבי אלעזר, why can't we send wine in the hands of a גוי? is משמע that according to רבי אלעזר, you're allowed to send in the hands of a גוי even if you are not there to recognize the seal. And תוספות says בדיעבד you could rely on the פסק of the רבינו תם.