Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Here it quotes from the משנה, it says: וחרס הדרייני. Amongst the things that the משנה says that it is אסור בהנאה is חרס הדרייני, the earthenware of Hadrian. The גמרא asks: מאי הדרייני? What is this earthenware of הדרייני? אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, so רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל: חרס של הדרינוס קיסר. It was the earthenware of the king הדרינוס, and that is forbidden even בהנאה. And the reason is, the גמרא says: כי אתא רב דימי אמר, when רב דימי came he said, he explained, cuz what would they do? קרקע בתולה היתה שלא עבד בה אדם מעולם, they would take virgin soil that nobody ever worked with it, so it had its full strength, ונטעו, and he would plant vines there, and the wine that would come out, ורמו ליה לחמרא בגולפי חיורי, and they would put the wine in white earthenware that wasn't painted so it's able to absorb much more, ומייצי ליה לחמרא, and it would absorb the wine, ומתברו להו לחספי, and they would break that earthenware into pieces, ודרו בהדייהו, and they would take it along with them, וכל היכא דמטו, wherever they would come, טרו להו, they would soak it, ושתו, and they would drink from it. They wanted to take along wine, but they weren't able to take so much wine, so what they would do is they would do it as it says in the גמרא here, and then the earthenware itself would absorb the wine. So later on, when they would come to a place, they would have little pieces of this earthenware, and by soaking it in water, it would give the water the taste of the wine. And therefore, these earthenware are אסור בהנאה, because it actually has in it יין נסך, wine of גוים. אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, here רבי יהושע בן לוי said: וראשון שלנו כשלישי שלהן, our first wine is as good as their third soaking. That's how good that wine was, that even if you soaked it once, and then you soaked it a second time and a third time, so the third soaking of theirs was as good as our first. And the גמרא says: איבעיא להו, there was a question asked: מהו לסמוך בהן כרעי המטה?

What is the דין? Are you allowed to use this earthenware to hold under the feet of the bed? Because we said in the משנה that this earthenware is אסור בהנאה, so you can't do anything with it. But in this case maybe you're allowed? The reason for that question is: רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר שרי או אסור? If you want the existence of the object, but you want it for a different reason, is it allowed or not? It is not because you want to use the wine, you want this earthenware to exist because you want to put it under the leg of your bed. So you are interested in keeping it, which is a kind of הנאה, but it is not because you want to have הנאה from the יין נסך which is the reason for the איסור, but you want to have הנאה for a different reason, because you want your bed to stand over it. Is that מותר or אסור? And the גמרא says: תא שמע, come and hear, I will answer your question, because de-רבי אלעזר ורבי יוחנן, this is really a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and רבי יוחנן: חד אסר וחד שרי.

One says it's אסור, and one says it's מותר. In other words, one holds that the דין of רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר is מותר, and one says that רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר is אסור. And then the גמרא says: והלכתא כמאן דאסר, the הלכה is like the one that says it's אסור. But as it says in the side of the גמרא, the גיליון, that from the רא״ש in סימן י״ז it comes out that he is not גורס these three words: והלכתא כמאן דאסר. In other words, according to him, לאו דוקא the הלכה is that it is אסור. Then the גמרא says: מיתיבי, I will ask you a question. We learned in a ברייתא: הדרדורין והרוקבאות של עובדי כוכבים, the barrels or leather bottles of גוים, ויין של ישראל כנוס בהן, and wine of יידן are inside, are gathered inside, אסור בשתיה, you're not allowed to drink it, ומותר בהנאה, but you are allowed to have benefit from it. העיד שמעון בן גודא לפני בנו של רבן גמליאל, שמעון בן גודא testified in front of the son of רבן גמליאל, על רבן גמליאל, concerning רבן גמליאל, ששתה ממנו בעכו, that he did drink from it in עכו, ולא הודו לו, and they didn't admit to him, in other words they didn't accept that this is what רבן גמליאל did. And the ברייתא continues: נודות של עובדי כוכבים flagons of גוים, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי יהושע בן קפוסאי, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said in the name of רבי יהושע בן קפוסאי, אסור לעשות מהן שטוחין לחמור, you're not allowed to make out of it a saddle for a donkey, because since it is נודות of עובדי כוכבים that they kept wine in it, so it is אסור בהנאה, and therefore you can't use it to make a saddle for a donkey from it. This is the ברייתא. But the גמרא asks: והכא, but here, דרוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר, that when he makes the saddle for the donkey out of these flagons, he is actually having הנאה from something which has יין נסך in it. But nevertheless, he wants to have it not because of its own reason, because of the wine that's in it, he wants to have it על ידי דבר אחר, for a different reason, because he wants to use it as a saddle. וקתני, and we learned, דאסור, that it's אסור. So this is a קושיא on the one that said before that it's מותר, that you are allowed to put these things under the legs of the bed, because he holds that רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר is מותר. Here we see that רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר is אסור. So he asks him back, and he says: ולטעמיך, and according to you, who wants to prove from here that you are not allowed, קנקנים של עובדי כוכבים ליתסרו למזבן, flasks of גוים, the דין should be that you shouldn't be able to sell it. מאי שנא נודות ומאי שנא קנקנים, what difference should there be between leather flagons and earthenware flasks? Now if we say here that the נודות you are not allowed to use as a saddle for a donkey, and we said this proves that it is אסור even if it's רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר, so too the דין should be that you shouldn't be able to sell earthenware flasks of גוים, and nevertheless we know the דין is that you are allowed. Now what is the פשט in this ברייתא then, where it says that you are not allowed to use these נודות to make them into שטוחין for a חמור? And the גמרא says: אלא אמר רבא, therefore רבא said, here there is a different reason. When he said in the ברייתא that you are not allowed to make a saddle for a חמור, that is because גזירה שמא יבקע נודו, we're afraid that if he's going to have it as a saddle, now his own נוד might break that he has wine in it, ויתלנה, and he will take that, ויתפרנה על גבי נודו, and he's going to sew it to his נוד. And that is definitely אסור, because this נוד is absorbed with יין נסך. Now if he's going to sew it to his נוד where he has his own wine in it, the taste of the יין נסך will go into his wine, and that is אסור. And that is the reason why you are not allowed to make it as a saddle for a חמור. But other types of הנאה, which there is no גזירה that you might actually eat from it, then you are allowed. Then the גמרא asks: ולמאן דאמר רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר אסור, now according to the one that actually does hold that if you want it to exist for a different reason it's still אסור to have הנאה from it, and that's why he said you're not allowed to take this חרס הדרייני and put it under the legs of your bed, the question is: מאי שנא קנקנים דשרו, why are you allowed to sell the קנקנים, the flasks? It is also absorbed with יין נסך, and it is also רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר, it should also be אסור! אמר לך, he will tell you: התם ליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה. There in the case of the קנקנים, the איסור is not בעין. The איסור is not any substance, and therefore it is מותר. הכא, in this case, in the case of the חרס הדרייני, איתיה לאיסורא בעיניה, the איסור, the יין נסך is there בעין, it is substance. And therefore, in this case it is אסור even if it's רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר. Then the גמרא continues: We

learned a ברייתא before that שמעון בן גודא testified in front of the son of רבן גמליאל that רבן גמליאל drank from it in עכו, ולא הודו לו, and they didn't admit, they didn't accept that this is what רבן גמליאל did. The גמרא says: ורמינהו, I will ask you a question. We learned in a ברייתא: יין הבא בבורקביות של עכו"ם, wine which is contained in leather bottles of גוים, אסור בשתיה, you're not allowed to drink it, ומותר בהנאה, but you are allowed to have הנאה from it. העיד שמעון בן גודא לפני בנו של רבן גמליאל על רבן גמליאל, so שמעון בן גודא testified on the, to the son of רבן גמליאל concerning רבן גמליאל, ששתה ממנה בעכו והודו לו, that he drank from it in עכו and they did admit to him, they did accept it. So it seems like a contradiction between two ברייתות: In the previous ברייתא it says that שמעון בן גודא testified in front of the son of רבן גמליאל that רבן גמליאל drank from it and they did not accept it, and in this ברייתא it says that שמעון בן גודא testified in front of the son of רבן גמליאל that רבן גמליאל drank it and they did accept it. And the גמרא says: There's no contradiction. מאי לא הודו לו, what does it mean that they didn't accept it? דכי אמר התם, what he said in that ברייתא, it means כל סיעתא, the whole group, that all the other people did not accept it. אבל בנו, but his own son, which means the son of רבן גמליאל, מודה לו, he did accept it. So the ברייתא before was speaking about the other people, and this ברייתא is speaking about the son of רבן גמליאל himself. איבעית אימא, or if you want I can give you a different תירוץ: גודא with an אלף לחוד is separate, and גודע with an עין לחוד is separate. In the previous ברייתא, the גמרא brings that שמעון בן גודא testified, and it's spelled גימ״ל ו״ו דל״ת אל״ף. שמעון the son of גודא who spells it with an אלף at the end. In the second ברייתא it says that שמעון בן גודע testified, and there his name is spelled גימ״ל ו״ו דל״ת עי״ן. So what we're saying now is maybe they were two different people. There was one שמעון בן גודא with an אלף, and when he testified they טאקע didn't accept it, but later, when שמעון בן גודע, the other שמעון בן גודע testified, that his father spells his name with an עין, so since he also testified, so when they heard it a second time from somebody else, that's when they did accept it. Who is this son of רבן גמליאל that the גמרא is talking about here? So תוספות says, לכאורה it's משמע that this is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. If it is רב שמעון בן גמליאל, so he is the one that accepted that his father did drink from it. In other words, he holds that it's מותר. But לכאורה this contradicts what it said in the previous ברייתא that רב שמעון בן גמליאל said in the name of רבי יהושע בן קופסאי that you're not allowed to use it for a saddle for a חמור. But here he accepted the fact that his father drank from it, in other words he holds that you're even allowed to drink from it. So תוספות says that what the גמרא would mean according to this, that he accepted that his father drank from it, but it doesn't mean that he has to hold that way. So his father he accepted held that it's מותר, but he himself held that it's אסור. That's one פשט תוספות says. Or תוספות says that רבן גמליאל here is a different רבן גמליאל, it's רבן גמליאל who was the grandfather of רבי. He had another son, רב חנינא בן גמליאל, and he was a brother of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל who was the father of רבי. So when it says here that they testified in front of the son of רבן גמליאל, it doesn't mean רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, it's רבן שמעון בן גמליאל's brother, it's רב חנינא בן גמליאל. So he טאקע accepted that his father drank from it and he held that it's מותר, but his brother רבן שמעון בן גמליאל held that it's אסור, and that's why he פסקנ'ט that you're not allowed to make a saddle for a donkey from it. And תוספות continues and says that in the first פרק of נדה it's טאקע משמע that רב חנינא בן גמליאל was the uncle of רבי. Then תוספות asks a קשיא, לכאורה there is a contradiction to this, because it says in the end of the second פרק of סוטה that רב שמעון בן גמליאל said on him the פסוק עיני עוללה לנפשי, and he said that there were a thousand children בבית אבא to his father's house, but none of them were left, just he says, me here, and the son of my father's brother in אסיה. It's משמע that he had no brother. And now we're saying that רב שמעון בן גמליאל had a brother who was רב חנינא בן גמליאל. And תוספות says that that רב שמעון בן גמליאל there is a different רב שמעון בן גמליאל. That's רב שמעון בן גמליאל הזקן, the father of רבן גמליאל דיבנה who was the grandfather of רבי. But the רב שמעון בן גמליאל here that we're saying had a brother רב חנינא בן גמליאל, that's the other רב שמעון בן גמליאל. So when it says here that רבן גמליאל's son did accept that רבן גמליאל drank from it, that is רב חנינא בן גמליאל, and when it says רב שמעון בן גמליאל held that you're not allowed to make a saddle for a donkey from it, that is his brother and he argued against him. Then the גמרא continues, it

said in the משנה עורות לבובין that you're not allowed to have הנאה from skin which has a hole in the place of the heart. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, איזהו עור לבוב, what is considered a skin that has a hole in the place of the heart that should be אסור? So he says, כל שקרוע כנגד הלב, if it is torn at the place across next to the heart, וכדור כמין ארובה and is round like circular aperture. יש עליו קורט דם, and if it has a drop of blood, אסור, it is אסור. אין עליו קורט דם, if it doesn't have a drop of blood, מותר, it is מותר. Because the way they used to do it is that if they wanted to take out the heart for the עבודה זרה, then they would take it out while it was still alive. So if it has a drop of blood, then we know it was taken out while it was still alive, and that's why it's אסור. But if it doesn't have a drop of blood, then we assume it was taken out after it died, so then we know it wasn't done because of עבודה זרה, and therefore this skin is מותר because it's not part of a קרבן to עבודה זרה. אמר רב הונא, that Rav Huna said, לא שנו, this was not said, אלא שלא מלחו, that he didn't salt it. אבל מלחו, but if he salted it, אסור, it is אסור. Why? אימא, I could say, מלחא הוורתיה, that the salt took it off, that really it did have a drop of blood, but the salt took it away. Therefore, if it was salted, then even if it doesn't have a drop of blood, it is also אסור. Then the גמרא quotes from the משנה. It said in the משנה, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said, בזמן שהקרע שלו עגול, that when the tear is round, אסור, it is אסור, because then we know it was taken out while it was alive, and that's why it got round, because since it was alive still, so the skin around the hole shivered together and it became round. משוך, but if it's long, מותר, it's מותר, because then it probably wasn't taken out while it's alive. ממילא, we know it wasn't done for עבודה זרה. So the גמרא says, אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יוסף said in the name of רב יהודה in the name of שמואל, הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him, הלכה? Since you say the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, מכלל, that proves דפליגי, that there is a מחלוקת. In the משנה we don't find a מחלוקת. In the משנה it just says that עורות לבובין are אסור, that this skin, the leather which has a hole in the place of the heart, is אסור. And רבן שמעון בן גמליאל came to explain that this is only if the tear, if the hole is round, but if it's straight, it's מותר. Now, בפשטות, we would think that there is no מחלוקת. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל is just explaining when it's אסור, but no one argues. But since he said the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, is a ראיה that the חכמים do argue. So he asked him, is it true? Do the חכמים argue or don't the חכמים argue? אמר ליה, so he said to him, מאי נפקא לך מינה, what do you care? What difference does it make whether they argue or not? לפועל ממש, the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל anyway. So even if the חכמים argue, we have to follow the opinion of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. So what do you care whether there is no מחלוקת or there is a מחלוקת? אמר ליה, so he said to him, גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא? You want us to learn גמרא and that it should go like a song? If you say the word הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, you want us just to follow the words and not understand the meaning, like we would sing a song, singing a song? It's not so. We have to understand exactly what is being said. So since you said הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, obviously you hold that there is a מחלוקת in the משנה against רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, and you פסקן like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. But תוספות asks a קשיא, that בכלל we have a כלל that כל מקום ששנה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במשנתנו הלכה כמותו, that wherever we have an opinion of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל in the משנה, the הלכה is like him. Now, if we accept this כלל, then there is no reason to say in our specific case הלכה like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, because there is a general rule that all over the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. So תוספות says we must say that these אמוראים in this גמרא here don't accept that כלל that wherever רבן שמעון בן גמליאל is mentioned the הלכה is like him, and therefore, in this case they had to say specifically the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. Then the גמרא continues to quote from the משנה. It said in the

משנה, בשר הנכנס לעבודת כוכבים מותר, that meat that is brought into the place of עבודה זרה is allowed. If it was taken out from there, then it's אסור, because we assume that it was done as a קרבן for עבודה זרה, but before it went in, so then it is still מותר. So the גמרא says, מאן תנא, who's the תנא that holds that before it went into the עבודה זרה it's מותר? אמר רב חייא בר אבא אמר רב יוחנן דלא כרבי אלעזר. So רב חייא בר אבא said in the name of רב יוחנן that it's definitely not רבי אלעזר. דאי כרבי אלעזר, if it was to follow the opinion of רבי אלעזר, הא אמר, doesn't he say, סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים, that סתם מחשבה, סתם thought of a גוי is for idol worshipping? And therefore, the meat before it even went into the place of עבודה זרה should also be אסור, because when he שחט it, we assume that he שחט it for עבודה זרה. So why should the דין be that since he didn't take it inside, it is מותר because we assume it's not עבודה זרה? We should assume, according to רבי אלעזר, that it is עבודה זרה because when he שחט it, מסתמא his מחשבה was for עבודה זרה as רבי אלעזר holds. So therefore we must say that our משנה that says that the meat before it went into the עבודה זרה is מותר to have הנאה from, obviously this does not follow the opinion of רבי אלעזר. But תוספות asks a קשיא: why did the גמרא say it concerning this? Why didn't we say it concerning other things? We just learned before that עורות לבובין are אסור, that skin that has a hole in the place of the heart is אסור because that is a ראיה that it was used as a קרבן for עבודה זרה, is משמע that if it wouldn't have the hole in that place, then it is מותר and we don't assume it was געשחט for עבודה זרה. So there too we should have said that is does not follow the opinion of רבי אלעזר, because according to רבי אלעזר, anytime a גוי שחט's an animal, we assume it's for עבודה זרה. And the same is concerning the cheese. We said that גבינות of בית אונייקי is אסור, but any other cheese is מותר. Now according to רבי אלעזר, it should all be אסור, because we assume that everything that a גוי does is for עבודה זרה. So we should say there too that this does not follow the opinion of רבי אלעזר, and the גמרא doesn't say it. So תוספות says that באמת, that even according to רבי אלעזר, the skin that doesn't have the hole against the heart is מותר, and other cheeses are also מותר. Why? Because he doesn't mean סתם מחשבת עובדי כוכבים לעבודה זרה, that whenever a גוי does anything, his mind is for עבודה זרה. He only means in the case of שחיטה. When a גוי actually שחט's a בהמה, then he has in mind for עבודה זרה. But everything else that he does, when he makes cheese, we don't assume he makes it for עבודה זרה. Or even when he kills an animal by choking or by other some other way of killing, we don't say that he had in mind for עבודה זרה. And that is the reason why the גמרא is מדייק only here where it says בשר הנכנס, that meat that was brought into עבודה זרה, it's מותר

because it didn't go in yet. Here we're מדייק it does not fit according to רבי אלעזר. Because when we say meat that was going into עבודה זרה before it went in, it's מותר, this is only meat that was through שחיטה. Because the custom was that they would only take in meat that was געשחט'ן through שחיטה into the עבודה זרה. And that's why the משנה says that the same meat that was געשחט'ן, but as long as it didn't go in yet, it's still מותר. That's what the גמרא says that there's nothing this doesn't go according to רבי אלעזר, because according to רבי אלעזר, since it was געשחט'ן it should be אסור because סתם מחשבה of שחיטה of a גוי is for עבודה זרה. But in other places where it didn't come to שחיטה, for instance the skin that doesn't have the hole against the heart, doesn't mean it was from an animal that had שחיטה, it could be from an animal that was killed. So there רבי אלעזר would also admit that it is not for עבודה זרה. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, והיוצא אסור מפני שהוא כזבחי מתים, that meat that comes out from the place of עבודה זרה is אסור, because this has a דין like קרבנות of מתים, which means it has a דין like קרבנות of עבודה זרה. Because קרבנות of עבודה זרה is the same as a מת, as the גמרא said earlier. And the גמרא says מאי טעמא, what is the reason? Because אי אפשר דלית בה תקרובת עבודת כוכבים, that it's impossible that since it was inside that it didn't have a connection to an offering to a קרבן to עבודה זרה. Then the גמרא says מאן, who's the תנא that said this דין? Who's the one that compares קרבנות of עבודה זרה to מתים, to זבחי מתים as the משנה says? רבי יהודה בן בתירא. This is רבי יהודה בן בתירא. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר, רבי יהודה בן בתירא says, מניין לתקרובת עבודה זרה שמטמא באהל, how do we know that a קרבן to עבודה זרה is מטמא if you are under one אוהל? The דין is that a מת, a dead body, makes a person טמא באהל. Not only if you touch the dead body you become טמא, or if you also carried the dead body you become טמא, but it's also מטמא באהל. If you stand under one roof with the dead body, you become טמא. Or if you are מאהיל on the dead body, you become the roof of the dead body, that means that you bend over it, you become טמא טומאת אוהל. Or if the dead body is מאהיל over you, is your roof, then you become טמא טומאת אוהל. So רבי יהודה בן בתירא says, that how do we know that a קרבן to עבודה זרה has the same טומאה as a מת, that would also be מטמא באהל? שנאמר, because the פסוק says concerning the ייִדן who worshiped the עבודה זרה of בעל פעור, says in תהילים, ויצמדו לבעל פעור, they got connected to the בעל פעור, ויאכלו זבחי מתים, and they ate from קרבנות of dead bodies. So פסוק refers to קרבנות of עבודה זרה as זבחי מתים. So we learn out, מה מת מטמא באהל, just like a dead body makes a person טמא under one roof, אף תקרובת עבודת כוכבים מטמא באהל, so too the קרבן of עבודה זרה makes a person טמא באהל. And this is the opinion of רבי יהודה בן בתירא. So when it says in the משנה that the meat that came out from the place of עבודה זרה is אסור because it's like זבחי מתים, that fits to the opinion of רבי יהודה בן בתירא.

תוספות asks a קשיא. Here it comes out that it is only רבי יהודה בן בתירא that holds that a קרבן of עבודה זרה has a דין like a מת. But the חכמים obviously don't hold that way. They don't compare a קרבן of עבודה זרה to a מת. And so is it משמע also in the first פרק of חולין, where it says ויש לך אחרת שמטמא במשא ואינו מטמא באהל, that we have something which is מטמא if you touch it, but it's not מטמא באהל, if you stand under one roof with it you don't become טמא. And that is תקרובת עבודה זרה. And the גמרא says there that this does not fit according to רבי יהודה בן בתירא בתירא, because he holds that is מטמא באהל. But it goes according to the רבנן. So there too we see that the רבנן hold that a קרבן of עבודה זרה is not like a מת. But תוספות asks the קשיא, that it says earlier we learned, דף כ"ט עמוד ב', the גמרא asks יין נסך מנלן, how do we know that יין נסך is אסור בהנאה? And the גמרא says that we compare יין נסך to a קרבן of עבודה זרה. And then the גמרא asks וזבח גופיה מנלן, how do we know a קרבן of עבודה זרה itself, how do we know it's אסור בהנאה? And the גמרא says that we compare it to מתים. Since the פסוק says זבחי מתים, so we compare a קרבן of עבודה זרה to a מת. And just like a מת is אסור בהנאה, so too is a קרבן of עבודה זרה אסור בהנאה, and so too is wine of יין נסך אסור בהנאה. So לכאורה, the גמרא there should have also said that הא מני, that ר' יהודה בן בתירא, that it goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא. And since the גמרא doesn't, is משמע that that goes according to everybody. Is משמע that everybody, even the רבנן, hold that a קרבן of עבודה זרה is compared to a מת. And in this גמרא, in the גמרא of חולין, is משמע that it's only ר' יהודה בן בתירא holds like that while the חכמים argue. And another קשיא תוספות asks, שלל the גמרא is מדייק here that בשר הנכנס is מותר because it's לא כר' אלעזר. The גמרא before said that when it says in the משנה that the meat before it went into the place of עבודה זרה, it's מותר. And the גמרא said it doesn't fit to the opinion of ר' אלעזר, who holds that סתם מחשבה of a גוי is for עבודה זרה. לכאורה, what's the ראיה? Maybe באמת I could tell you it does fit according to ר' אלעזר, but this goes according to the רבנן who argue against ר' יהודה, and they don't hold that we compare to זבחי מתים, and therefore they say that it's מותר בהנאה. If you hold that it's compared to זבחי מתים, it's אסור בהנאה. But if we hold it's not compared to זבחי מתים like the רבנן hold, as it's משמע here, so according to them, since קרבנות of עבודה זרה is not compared to a dead body, it's not אסור בהנאה. So maybe when it says in the ברייתא that meat before it went in to the עבודה זרה it's מותר, maybe it fits according to ר' אלעזר, and we do accept that סתם מחשבה of a גוי is for עבודה זרה, and nevertheless it's מותר, because it goes according to the חכמים who hold that a קרבן of עבודה זרה is not אסור בהנאה because we do not compare it to a מת. Since from here is משמע that there is a מחלוקת in this. And we can't answer that since the סיפא, the second part where it says that היוצא is אסור because it is זבחי מתים, goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא. So therefore the first part of the משנה, where it says בשר הנכנס עבודה זרה is מותר, also has to fit according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא. Because if this is what the גמרא meant, the גמרא should have said it. The גמרא should have brought a ראיה that why must we say that that goes not according to ר' אלעזר is because since the סיפא goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא, so the רישא must also go according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא, who holds it's אסור בהנאה if it is עבודה זרה. So therefore we must say that it doesn't go according to ר' אלעזר who holds that סתם מחשבה is for עבודה זרה. And since it doesn't say it, obviously it's not dependent on the fact that the סיפא goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא. Now if it's not dependent on that, לכאורה, what is the ראיה that the רישא doesn't go according to ר' אלעזר because he holds that סתם מחשבת עכו"ם לעבודה זרה? Maybe it does go according to ר' אלעזר, and סתם מחשבת עכו"ם is לעבודה זרה, and nevertheless בשר הנכנס לעבודה זרה is מותר because it goes according to the רבנן who say בכלל that בשר עבודה זרה of a קרבן of עבודה זרה is מותר. And רבינו תם answers that תקרובת which is כעין פנים, any קרבן for עבודה זרה which is similar to a קרבן that they use in the בית המקדש for regular קרבנות, for instance זביחה and קיטור and ניסוך, here the רבנן agree that we learn it out from a מת, that just like a מת is אסור בהנאה, so that קרבן is also אסור בהנאה. And therefore in the גמרא earlier where the גמרא says that יין נסך is אסור בהנאה, and we learn it out from a קרבן of עבודה זרה, and the קרבן itself the גמרא says we learn out from a מת, the גמרא doesn't say this goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא because it also goes according to the רבנן, because the רבנן admit that such a קרבן of עבודה זרה we do compare to a מת and it's אסור בהנאה. But such a קרבן which is not כעין פנים, which is brought as a קרבן not in the same way as they bring קרבנות to the מזבח, that's where they have a מחלוקת. And therefore, in our case where it says בשר היוצא, this only goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא, because here we're talking by a piece of meat. It wasn't געשחט'ן for the עבודה זרה, but you take the piece of meat, they used to take it and bring it inside as a present to the עבודה זרה. This is not a form of קרבן the way we do it by the מזבח. Now here the רבנן תאקע argue and say that this is not אסור בהנאה. And therefore the גמרא says that when it says in the משנה that it is אסור בהנאה, So לכאורה, why does it say it is כזבחי מתים, like a קרבן of מתים? It should have said, it's אסור because it is זבחי מתים. It is a קרבן for עבודה זרה, too. But the reason is because it wasn't brought as a regular קרבן, it was only brought as a present to the עבודה זרה. And then תוספות says that the

ר״י gives a different reason, a different פשט: that it depends whether we're talking about איסור אכילה and איסור הנאה, or we're talking about the טומאה. Concerning whether a קרבן for עבודה זרה is אסור באכילה, you can't eat it, and it is אסור בהנאה, you can't derive any benefit from it, there there is no מחלוקת. The רבנן also agree that anything that was turned into a קרבן for עבודה זרה is אסור בהנאה. And that we learn out from the פסוק, where the פסוק says it's called זבחי מתים, the תורה compares a קרבן to עבודה זרה to a מת. And we say just like a מת is אסור בהנאה, so is a קרבן אסור בהנאה. The מחלוקת between ר' יהודה בן בתירא and the חכמים is concerning טומאה, whether it is מטמא באהל like a מת. ר' יהודה compares it to a מת even concerning טומאה, while the חכמים say that concerning טומאה it is not compared to a מת. And a ראיה to that is from the fact that ר' יהודה בן בתירא doesn't mention איסור, but just mentions the word טומאה. לכאורה, ר' יהודה בן בתירא should have said, מניין לתקרובת עבודת כוכבים שאסורה כמת, that how do you know that a the קרבן of עבודה זרה is אסור like a מת? But what does he say? How do you know that תקרובת עבודה זרה is מטמא באהל like a מת? Because the whole מחלוקת is only by טומאה. Concerning איסור, ר' יהודה בן בתירא doesn't have to say it, because everyone agrees that the קרבן of עבודה זרה is אסור בהנאה like a מת. The only חידוש of ר' יהודה בן בתירא where he argues against the חכמים is concerning the דין of טומאה. But then לכאורה we could ask, if it is only concerning טומאה that he's talking about, how does it fit in here? From our משנה we do not see that it becomes טמא like a מת. In the משנה it just says היוצא אסור מפני שהוא כזבחי מתים, that the meat that comes out from the עבודה זרה is אסור like זבחי מתים. So we're talking about איסור. So how is the גמרא מדייק that this goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא who holds that it is מטמא like a מת? לכאורה, concerning the איסור, it has nothing to do with ר' יהודה בן בתירא, that would be according to the רבנן also. תוספות says the דיוק in the גמרא is like this: Since it says that בשר היוצא is אסור, so why does it have to mention the words כזבחי מתים? It should have said in the ברייתא that היוצא from the עבודה זרה is אסור. What do we gain, or why did the משנה have to add the words that it is כזבחי מתים? Obviously, it has come to tell us that not only is it אסור, but it also has another comparison to a מת, that it's מטמא. So, therefore, the גמרא says, if the משנה is trying to tell us that it's also מטמא like a מת, then obviously the משנה goes only according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא who holds that תקרובת עבודה זרה is מטמא like a מת. And תוספות in חולין דף י״ג עמוד ב׳ adds that the whole ראיה that it goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא is only because the words כזבחי מתים are extra. But if these words wouldn't be extra, then we wouldn't have a ראיה. In other words, לכאורה, we could say that the ראיה is that this is מטמא באהל is from the fact that he calls it זבחי מתים. Since he compares it to זבחי מתים, is a ראיה it's מטמא באהל כמת, not because the words are extra. But the עצם fact that it's like a מת, and he calls it זבחי מתים, is a ראיה it's מטמא באהל. So תוספות says that is no ראיה. You could compare it to זבחי מתים and still not mean that it's מטמא, but mean that it's אסור כזבחי מתים. The fact that it's extra words, that's why we use it as a ראיה. And תוספות proves there that from the expression itself it is no ראיה, because we see later on in the second פרק of חולין, דף מ׳, concerning the דין of השוחט לשם הרים שחיטתו פסולה, it says there that if someone שחט a בהמה לשם הרים, having in mind for the sake of the mountains, the שחיטה is פסולה. So the גמרא says there, from here is משמע that פסול it is, but זבחי מתים it's not. It has no דין of תקרובת עבודה זרה. And then the גמרא asks a קשיא, we learn in a different place that if someone שחט לשם הרים, it is also זבחי מתים. לכאורה, what is the גמרא's קשיא? We could have answered very simple: that one place goes according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא, the place where it says it's like זבחי מתים, that is according to ר' יהודה בן בתירא, and in the place where it's משמע that it's only פסול, but it's not זבחי מתים, goes according to the רבנן. Is a ראיה that since it is אסור בהנאה, you could call it זבחי מתים even if it's not מטמא באהל, even according to the רבנן. And therefore, there the גמרא couldn't answer that the place where it says that it's not זבחי מתים, that it goes according to the רבנן, because the רבנן could also call it זבחי מתים. Therefore, we must say that when it says in the גמרא here that from the words זבחי מתים we bring a ראיה that it is also מטמא, that is because the words זבחי מתים are extra, since it already says it is אסור. From this we prove that probably he also means that it is טמא, and that's why the גמרא says it goes according to רבי יהודה בן בתירא. And then תוספות there says that even though we're saying now that according to the רבנן it is not מטמא באהל, what it means is that it's not מטמא באהל מדאורייתא, but מדרבנן there is a טומאה. And תוספות brings a ראיה from the discussion later on here in מסכת עבודה זרה דף נ״ב, if you're מבטל a קרבן of עבודה זרה. But we know there is such a thing as ביטול for עבודה זרה, and the גמרא discusses whether the ביטול helps concerning the איסור and then concerning the טומאה, and the גמרא uses the לשון טומאה דרבנן, so we see there that there is a טומאה מדרבנן. But this is according to the רבנן, but according to רבי יהודה it is מטמא טומאת אהל מדאורייתא. Then תוספות there asks a קשיא: it says later on here in the גמרא in עבודה זרה דף מ״ח עמוד ב׳, that you should not go under a tree which is connected to עבודה זרה, and it says אם עבר, טמא, if you passed by under the tree, you are טמא. And the גמרא explains why: because אי אפשר דלית בה תקרובת, because it's impossible that there is no תקרובת, no קרבן for עבודה זרה there. That goes according to רבי יהודה בן בתירא who says that תקרובת עבודה זרה is מטמא טומאת אהל like a מת. And in the same משנה it says in the סיפא that אם היתה גוזלת את הרבים, טהור, if that tree, the branches of the tree were taking away space from the public place, then it is טהור. Now, the question is if we're going to say that according to רבי יהודה בן בתירא the טומאת אהל of תקרובת עבודה זרה is מדאורייתא, so how could the דין be that if it's taking away space from the public, it is טהור? How can we say that concerning a טומאה דאורייתא? If it would be a טומאה דרבנן, then we could say in a case where it takes away space from the public place, the רבנן didn't make a גזירה. But we're saying that according to רבי יהודה בן בתירא, it is a טומאה דאורייתא, so how could the דין be that if it's taking away space from the public, then you are טהור? The תוספות says the reason is because there we are not sure that we have תקרובת עבודה זרה, and that's why it is only a חשש, and since a חשש, the רבנן were מקיל in a case where it's taking away space from the public. But if we would have ודאי תקרובת עבודה זרה, according to רבי יהודה בן בתירא, it is מטמא באהל מדאורייתא. And now we

will continue with the גמרא. The גמרא quotes from the משנה, it says ההולכין לתרפות, אסורין לשאת ולתת עמהן, those who worship idols who are going on their pilgrimage, it is forbidden to have any business transactions with them. אמר שמואל, שמואל said עובד כוכבים ההולך לתרפות, a גוי who worships idols, who's on the way to this pilgrimage, to the place of עבודה זרה, בהליכה אסור, on the way there, you are not allowed to do any business with him, because דאזיל ומודה קמי עבודת כוכבים, because he's going to go and thank his עבודה זרה for the profit that he makes. But ובחזרה, but on the way back, מותר, you are allowed to do business with him. And the reason is because מאי דהוה הוה, what was, was. He already finished with the עבודה זרה, that's all over, now he's on the way back, so now when you do business with him, it has nothing to do with עבודה זרה. But this is only if it was a גוי. ישראל ההולך לתרפות, if a איד is going on this pilgrimage to the place of עבודה זרה, בהליכה מותר, on the way there, you are allowed to do business with him, because דלמא הדר ביה ולא אזיל, because maybe he'll have חרטה, he'll change his mind, he'll do תשובה and he won't go. בחזרה, on the way back, אסור, it is forbidden, because כיון דאביק ביה, since he is so connected to the עבודה זרה, he is tied with it, then מהדר הדר ואזיל, he's going to go back for sure. Now, if he's going to go back for sure, he's going to thank the עבודה זרה for the business that he did even though it was on the way back from the last time, that's why you're not allowed to do. Then the גמרא asks a שאלה: ותניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, ישראל ההולך לתרפות, a איד who goes to this pilgrimage for עבודה זרה, בין בהליכה בין בחזרה אסור, whether it's on the way there or on the way back, it is forbidden to do business with them. So this is a contradiction to what שמואל had said that by a איד, on the way there you're allowed to do business with him.

אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said כי תניא ההיא, when was that ברייתא said? בישראל מומר, by a איד a מומר, a person who is known בדוקא that he goes against מצות and he does עבודה זרה. דודאי אזיל, there we know for sure he's going to go. The whole reason that שמואל said why if a איד goes you're allowed to do business with him on the way there, because maybe he won't go, but a ישראל מומר for sure will go, and therefore he is no better than a גוי לגבי this דין. Just like with a גוי, you're not allowed to do business on the way there, you're not allowed to do business with this ישראל מומר either on the way there, and the way back, you're also not allowed to do, because since a איד is אביק so much with עבודה זרה, he's definitely going to go back. So therefore, you're not allowed to do business with this ישראל מומר, not on the way there, and not on the way back. Then the גמרא says: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, עובד כוכבים ההולך ליריד, a גוי, a person who worships idols, who is going to the יריד, to the marketplace, and the יריד at those times, their marketplaces were connected with the festivals that were for the עבודה זרה. בין בהליכה בין בחזרה מותר, whether he's on the way there or he's on the way back, you're allowed to do business with him. וישראל ההולך ליריד, but if a איד is going to that יריד, to that marketplace which is connected to עבודה זרה, בהליכה מותר, on the way there, you're allowed to do business with him, בחזרה, on the way back, אסור, it is forbidden. And the

גמרא asks: מאי שנא ישראל דבחזרה אסור? Why is a איד different, that we said that on the way back, you are not allowed to do business with him? And the reason should be because דאמרי, we could say, עבודת כוכבים זבין, he sold an עבודה זרה. דמי עבודת כוכבים איכא בהדיה, and therefore, he probably has money of עבודה זרה with him, since we suspect maybe he sold an עבודה זרה at the יריד. So the money that he got for that עבודה זרה is also אסור. So now that we're going to do business with him, we might have this money of עבודה זרה, and that's why you're not allowed to do business with him on the way back from the יריד. עובד כוכבים נמי, concerning a גוי also, נימא, let us say, עבודת כוכבים זבין, that he sold an עבודה זרה, and דמי עבודת כוכבים איכא בהדיה, so he has money of עבודה זרה with him, and we shouldn't be able to do business with him on the way back. And the גמרא answers: אלא the reason is, because עובד כוכבים, concerning a גוי, אמרינן, we say, גלימא זבין, he sold a coat, חמרא זבין, he sold a donkey. In other words, even though this יריד was connected to עבודה זרה, but he didn't only sell עבודה זרה there, many other things were sold. So when this גוי went to the יריד, we don't assume that he sold an עבודה זרה, and the money he has with him is money of עבודה זרה, but we say maybe he sold other things, he sold a coat, he sold a donkey, and that's why you are allowed to do business with him even on the way back. But the

גמרא's question is: if so, ישראל נמי, concerning a איד also, נימא, let us say, נימא גלימא זבין, חמרא זבין, that he sold a coat, or he sold a donkey, and ממילא we should be able to do business with this איד even on the way back. The גמרא answers: concerning a איד it's different, because אי איתא דהוה ליה, if this איד would have had a coat to sell or a donkey to sell, הכא הוה מזבין ליה, he would have sold it here. Concerning a גוי we don't say it, because a גוי doesn't sell it דווקא to אידן, he לכתחילה goes to the marketplace and that's where he sells. But a איד, if he would have things that he knows אידן would buy from him, he would have sold it here to the אידן. Since he didn't sell it here, he went דווקא to that יריד to sell, obviously he sold something he knew that אידן wouldn't buy, and that's why we suspect he sold an עבודה זרה, and the money he has is money of עבודה זרה. That's why the דין is that on the way back you're not allowed to do any business with this איד. Then the גמרא continues, it says in the משנה: והבאין מותרין, those that are coming from the pilgrimage of the עבודה זרה, you are allowed to do business with them. אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, רבי שמעון בן לקיש said: לא שנו, this was not said, אלא שאין קשורין זה בזה, only if they are not tied together, which means they're not coming back in groups, they're coming back individually. אבל קשורין זה בזה, but if they come back tied together, meaning they come back in groups, אסורין, it is אסור to do business with them even on the way back. אימא, I'll say, דעתו לחזור, probably he has in mind to return. If he goes back individually, then we say he left and that's it, but if they go by groups, that shows that they're going to return, and therefore, we're not allowed to do business with them on the way back the same as we're not allowed to do on the way there. Just like on the way there we say you're not allowed to do because he's going to go and thank the עבודה זרה, the same thing on the way back, since he's going to go back again, he's going to thank the עבודה זרה later for the business he did now on the way back, and therefore, it is אסור. At this

point, we have to make clear: what is the difference between the case of הולכין לתרפות, which is when they go to the pilgrimage, and the case of a גוי who goes to the יריד? Concerning the case of הולכין לתרפות, we said that the whole שאלה is because he might thank the עבודה זרה, but there, we don't find in the גמרא that we should worry about the money for the עבודה זרה that he sold. And concerning the דין of יריד, we see that we don't worry about the fact that he's going to thank the עבודה זרה, but we're worried about the money of עבודה זרה. And the difference is פשוט, as the חשק שלמה explains it here, that concerning the תרפות, they're not going to sell anything, they're going as a pilgrimage to עבודה זרה, so there we're not afraid of money of עבודה זרה. The only thing we're afraid there is that he might thank עבודה זרה. And that's why if a גוי goes there, on the way back, it is אסור to do business with him because the גמרא says, since he is connected to עבודה זרה, he's definitely going to go back again. So the whole חשש is about going back and he will thank עבודה זרה for the business that he did on the way. But in the case of the יריד, there he doesn't go back because the יריד finishes and that's it. There we're afraid that since he goes there to sell things, that maybe he's going to sell an עבודה זרה, and where we will do business with him, we will have הנאה from עבודה זרה. But these are two separate ענינים altogether, and that's why the חששות in these two places are different חששות.

It's also interesting to note concerning the שאלה before in the גמרא, that the גמרא asks when whether רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר is אסור or not, that this חרס הדרייני that we said in the משנה which is אסור, can you use it to put under the steps, the foot of a bed? And there was a מחלוקת in the גמרא that between רבי אלעזר and רבי יוחנן, one said it is אסור, one said it is מותר, and the הלכה was that it is אסור. So on the side of the גמרא on the גליון, first there is a quote, a מראה מקום to טור שולחן ערוך, and then it says there a הגהה that we don't find this in טור שולחן ערוך, and there is a question that he asks that why doesn't the שולחן ערוך bring this דין? That if you have the חרס הדרייני and you want to use it to put under the steps of your feet of your bed, you are not allowed because it is רוצה בקיומו על ידי דבר אחר. The many מפרשים here say that they don't understand the צורך עיון that they ask on the גליון here, because the ר"ן answers the question, because the רי"ף doesn't bring this דין either. And the רי"ף usually brings from the גמרא all those things which are נוגע להלכה. And the ר"ן explains because this is something which is not מצוי, something which is not common. It is not common for us to have this חרס הדרייני, so therefore it is not important for us, and that's why the רי"ף doesn't bring it. Now if that's the reason the רי"ף doesn't bring it, this is also the reason why the טור, שולחן ערוך don't bring it. Another thing that's interesting to note here that תוספות asks why does the משנה mention the דין of those people who go to pilgrimage, whether you're allowed to do business with them on the way there, on the way back, etc.? Why does the משנה put it here? The משנה starts off by saying these are the things of עובדי כוכבים that are אסור, and איסורן איסור הנאה, and he mentions the things which are אסור בהנאה, and then he mentions the בשר that went into the עבודת כוכבים, before it went in it's מותר, after it comes in it's אסור. But it's all concerning things which are אסור בהנאה or מותר בהנאה. And then right after that, it goes back to נודות עובדי כוכבים וקנקניהן and the wine, whether it's אסור בהנאה or not אסור בהנאה, מחלוקת רבי מאיר and the חכמים. And in between it's put in the דין that those גוים who go לתרפות, who go to this pilgrimage, you're not allowed to do business with them at that time, at this time, etc. Why is the משנה put this in in between? לכאורה this belongs in the place where the משנה talks about doing business with גוים, but not in the place where the משנה is talking about things which are מותר בהנאה or אסור בהנאה. And תוספות answers because since right before that it mentioned the דין of בשר הנכנס לעבודת כוכבים, that meat that went into the place of עבודה זרה, that before it went in it's מותר and after it went in it's אסור, so there we're talking about things which are אסור or מותר בהנאה, but still we're talking about things that went in. So therefore, right in the המשך to that, he brings also another case which is similar to that: that those גוים who are going to the עבודה זרה, whether you could do business with them or not. And even though we're talking about another ענין, whether you could do business with them or not, and not concerning איסור הנאה, היתר הנאה, but still, since we're talking about a דין concerning those who go in and those who come out, which is similar to the case of the בשר who went in and goes out, that's why the משנה brings it here.