Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. ל"ג, we will start 16 lines from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא here quotes from the משנה where it says, נודות עובדי כוכבים וקנקניהם. It said there that the skin bottles and earthenware flagons of גויים, so the משנה said there was a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים. רבי מאיר said that these jars that have wine of a ייד in it are אסור, and the איסור is איסור הנאה, and the חכמים say that it's not אסור בהנאה. The גמרא says here: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, נודות העובדי כוכבים, these skin bottles of גויים, גרודים, if it is scraped, which means, as רש"י says, that it has no tar in it, חדשים, and it is also new, מותרים, you're allowed to use it. And the reason is, because since it is new, obviously the גוי didn't use it for long, so there wasn't much wine that he kept in it, and also it doesn't have the tar inside. So since it doesn't have the tar, it doesn't really absorb. So the little bit that the גוי put in without tar, that doesn't really absorb, and therefore a ייד is later allowed to use it for his wine. But if it's ישנים, it's old, ומזופפין, or it has tar in it, even if it's new, אסורין, that it is אסור. And the reason is, if it is old, so the גוי kept a lot of יין נסך in it, so it absorbed, even if it wasn't made with tar. On the other hand, even if it was new, but if it had tar in the inside, tar absorbs, so therefore it absorbed even if it's new, and therefore in these two cases, אסורין, it is אסור for a ייד to use it. Then the ברייתא continues: עובדי כוכבים זיבבן, if a גוי poured the tar in, ועיבדן, and he worked on it, he straightened out, he lined it with the tar, ונתן לתוכן יין, and he put wine into it, וישראל עומד על גביו, and a ייד was standing on top of him, a ייד was standing there and watching, אינו חושש, then it doesn't matter and you're allowed to use those jars for יידישע wine. But the

גמרא asks: וכי מאחר דעובד כוכבים נותן לתוכן יין, since the case was that a גוי put the wine in, ישראל עומד על גביו מאי הוה? What does it help that a ייד stood over him? Since it was the גוי that poured the wine in, so the wine is אסור, and since it had tar, as the ברייתא said, the גוי poured the tar in, we said before that if it has tar it absorbs, and it absorbed the wine that the גוי poured in, which is אסור, so why is a ייד allowed to use it? Because another ייד watched, but what does that help? אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, what does it mean? הכא קאמרי, this is what it means: עובד כוכבים זיבבן ועיבדן, the גוי poured the tar in and he lined it, וישראל נותן לתוכן יין, but the ייד poured the wine in, וישראל אחר עומד על גביו, and there was another ייד standing over him watching, that's when we say ואינו חושש, that you don't care, you're allowed to use this jar. But then the גמרא asks: ומאחר דישראל נותן לתוכן יין, but since a ייד put the wine in, ישראל אחר עומד על גביו למה לי? Why do we have to have another ייד standing over him? It's משמע from the ברייתא that when is it good? Only if you had another ייד watching him. Now if we're explaining that the ברייתא means that a ייד poured the wine in, why should we have to have another ייד standing and watching him? So the גמרא answers, the reason is because דילמא, maybe, אגב טרדיה מנסך, while the ייד is involved, is busy with pouring the wine in, the גוי who is standing there could be מנסך, ולאו אדעתיה, and the ייד won't notice it. Therefore, you have to have another ייד standing and watching the גוי. So then there is no problem, because a ייד poured the wine in, and the other ייד made sure that the גוי didn't do anything, and that's why you're allowed to use these jars. רב זביד אמר, רב זביד said, לעולם, באמת, כי דקאמרת מעיקרא, we could say like we said before, that what the ברייתא means is, as it says, that a גוי poured the wine in. אי, the question we asked, if the גוי poured the wine in, why is it מותר even if you had another ייד standing over it? The answer is: הכא, here, בעידנא דקא שדי ליה, נחית כי זירקא דמיא לטינא. When we say the גוי poured the wine in, it just means he poured in a little bit wine so that the tar should not have a bad taste. Now that little bit of wine that he pours in, while he's pouring in, it's like a person who pours water into cement. So that water is lost, and it's not considered water anymore, and it becomes absorbed in the cement, and later on this water will never come out. The whole reason why בכלל we make אסור a כלי which absorbed non-kosher food is because later on when that כלי is going to be used for kosher food, the non-kosher taste that's in the כלי will come out into the kosher food. But if you

pour in wine while it is being tarred, so that taste of wine will never come out. Just like when you pour water into cement, that taste of water will never come out, the same thing with this wine. And therefore, even if a גוי poured the wine in, still you're allowed to use this tar. אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, שמע מינה, we are able to prove from what רב זביד said, from his פשט we're able to take out the הלכה, דהאי עובד כוכבים, that this גוי, דשדא חמרא לבי מלחי דישראל, if he threw wine into a כלי of salt of a ייד, שרי, it is מותר. Since he used the logic that since it gets burnt inside the tar and therefore this wine is not considered wine and you're allowed to use the כלי, the same thing is concerning salt. When you pour wine into salt, so then it gets absorbed and it gets lost, so then you're allowed to use this salt, even though it absorbed non-kosher wine from a גוי, but still since it is salt and it burns it up, so it is similar to the case here of the wine that is poured into the tar.

מתקיף לה רב אשי, so רב אשי asked a קשיא, מי דמי? What kind of comparison is it? התם כאזיל לאיבוד, in the case of pouring the wine into the tar, it gets lost. It dries up and there is no more wine there, and there is no taste left of wine in the tar either. הכא, but here in the case of putting wine into the salt, לא כאזיל לאיבוד, it doesn't get lost. Even though it dries up, but still the taste of the wine is still in the salt, so why should it be מותר? This is the way רש״י learned this גמרא. But תוספות asks on רש״י, what kind of הוה אמינא did רב פפא have לכתחילה to say that if you put wine into the salt it is מותר? And he compares it to the case of the גוי putting the wine into the tar. In the case of the wine in the tar, there is no taste of the wine left at all, but in the salt there is definitely a taste of wine. So what was לכתחילה the הוה אמינא of רב פפא to think that in a case like that you're also allowed? Therefore, תוספות says that רבינו תם says the פשט is different. The case here is not if you put wine in the salt, meaning in a כלי which has salt in it and the wine is absorbed in the salt. What it means is לבי מלחי, in the place where they make the salt. And רב פפא said that even though the גוי threw the wine in the place of the salt, still you're allowed to use the salt. Since this is in the place where you make the salt, it is hot, the salt is burning over the fire because that's where they process the salt, so since it is put in the place where it is burning, the fire burns up the wine, and that's why you're allowed. And this is compared to someone who puts water in cement, because in this case, the taste of the wine is not felt in the salt. But still רב אשי asked him a קשיא that after all it doesn't go 100% לאיבוד, it's still something there. It is not similar to the wine that is poured in the tar that's in the jars made of skin, because there the skin itself adds to spoiling the taste of the wine. But here where there is nothing else but the burning of the salt, that is not enough to say that it takes away completely the taste of the wine, and therefore רב אשי asked that it's not the same, and in this case it still should be אסור. Now לכאורה it comes out from this גמרא, since רב אשי asked a קשיא on רב פפא, so it seems like רב פפא is wrong, and we don't פסקן like רב פפא. That רב פפא said that if a גוי would throw wine into the place where you make the salt, you could eat the salt. And רב אשי asked him and said there is no comparison, so it would seem from the גמרא that we שלוגד אפ רב פפא, and the הלכה should be that you are not allowed to eat that salt. So the רבינו תם says that even though רב אשי asked a קשיא, it is only a דיחוי. All he meant to say was that you are trying to prove your דין from the דין that we said before that if the גוי pours the wine into the tar it is מותר, so he's saying there is no comparison. You can't prove it from there. But he didn't mean to say that we don't פסקן like you. Could be רב פפא is right anyway, it's just that he has no ראיה. So therefore, רבינו תם says the הלכה is like רב פפא. And that's why the רבינו תם was מתיר to eat the salt even if they put some drops of blood while it is being processed, because as the גמרא says here, that if it's done while it's processed and it's hot, then the taste of the non-kosher food that goes into it gets burnt and doesn't exist and you're allowed. So you're allowed to eat the salt in the case of the wine, and the רבינו תם also says you're allowed to eat the salt in the case of the blood. Then the גמרא continues:

בר אודי טייעא, this traveling Arab who was called בר אודי, אנס הנהו זיקי מדרב יצחק בר יוסף. He seized a jug of skin that was used for wine from רב יצחק בר יוסף. רמא בהו חמרא, he put wine in it, ואהדרינהו ניהליה, and he gave it back to him. אתא שאל בי מדרשא, so he came, רב יצחק בר יוסף came to ask the שאלה in the בית מדרש, can he use that skin bottle? אמר ליה רבי ירמיה, רבי ירמיה said to him, כך הורה רב אמי, הלכה למעשה, this is what רב אמי פסקנד. הלכה למעשה, it wasn't just he פסקנד a דין in סברא, but it was actually important for a case that actually happened. So he פסקנד למעשה that ממלאן מים שלשה ימים ומערן. You fill it up with water for three days, and then you pour out the water, and that will take out the taste of the wine that was absorbed in this skin bottle. ואמר רבא, and רבא said, צריך לערן מעת לעת. Every 24 hours you must empty it out. You have to have water in it for three days, but every 24 hours you pour out the water, and you put new water in. סברו מינה, from that we thought, הני מילי דידן, that is only if it is our bottle, which means if it was originally a skin bottle that belonged to a ייד. So it had absorbed a lot of כשר wine לכתחלה. So now when the גוי put in his wine, since the skin had in, was full of our wine, so it couldn't absorb much of the יין נסך. So therefore, in order to כשר that, it was enough just soaking it three מעת לעת in water, and emptying it every מעת לעת. אבל דידהו, but theirs, if it is לכתחלה a jug that belongs to a גוי, which means it was absorbed לכתחלה with wine of גוים, with יין נסך, so it definitely has a lot of יין נסך in it, we thought לא, you can't do that. אתא רבין, but when רבין came from ארץ ישראל, אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, he said in the name of רבי שמעון בן לקיש, אחד שלנו ואחד שלהן. Whether it is ours or it is theirs, this is what you could do. In other words, even if it was לכתחלה by a גוי, and it only absorbed יין נסך from גוים, still the way to take out the taste from inside the skin is through soaking it for three days. סבר רב אחא בריה דרבא קמיה דרב אשי למימר, so רב אחא the son of רבא was sitting in front of רב אשי, and he thought to say, הני מילי נודות, this should only be concerning skin bottles made of skin, made of leather, אבל קנקנים לא, but if these are jugs made of earthenware, then this דין doesn't apply, there you cannot כשר it by soaking it three days in water. אמר ליה רב אשי, so רב אשי said to him, לא שנא נודות ולא שנא קנקנים, makes no difference whether it is made of skin, the jug is made of skin, made of leather, or they are קנקנים made of earthenware. In all cases, even if it comes from a גוי, you're able to כשר it by soaking it three days in water and emptying the water every 24 hours. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, קנקנים של עובדי כוכבים, jugs of earthenware of גוים, חדשים, if they are new, גרודים, and they don't have the tar in it, מותרין, you're allowed to use it. And the reason is, since it is new and the גוי didn't put any יין נסך in it, so then it is כשר. And we can't suspect maybe it is really not new, maybe he did put יין נסך in, but we can't tell, because since it is גרודים, it doesn't have any tar in it, so if it would be used once, we would be able to tell. When it has tar in it, then we can't tell, maybe it was used and it looks new. But if it doesn't have the tar in it, then even if it would be used once, we would know. So it says, therefore, if it is new and there is no tar in it, then you're allowed to use it. ישנים, if they are old, ומזופפין, or even if they are new, but they have the tar in it, so ממילא we don't know whether it was used or not, אסורין, it is אסור. Because maybe the גוי did put יין נסך in it, and then it would make it אסור. Now, from the לשון, it seems as if this דין is the same as the דין we brought earlier in the גמרא. Earlier in the גמרא, we brought the דין of נודות עובדי כוכבים, and we said the same thing. We're talking about the skin bottles, the bottles made of skin, of leather. So there it said exact same thing, that the נודות of גוים, so it said if it's גרודים חדשים, if it has no tar in it, and it's new, you're allowed to use it. But if it's old, or even if it's new, but it has tar in it, it is אסור. And it's exact the same לשון as we say here concerning the קנקנים, which is the earthenware. Exact same thing, that if it's new and it has no tar in it, it's מותר, but if it's old, or it has tar in it, it's אסור. But

nevertheless, רש''י says that there is a difference between what we mean new and old concerning the bottles of skin, or what we mean new and old concerning the bottles of earthenware, because רש''י says that כלי חרס is בולע, earthenware absorbs much faster. So therefore רש''י says that concerning the דין of the earthenware, when we say new, it means new, it was never used. If it was even used once, already it is no good. Why? Because even from once it absorbs enough that it should make it אסור. So when it says in the גמרא that we are learning now that concerning earthenware there's a difference between new and old, new would mean it was never used, old means even if it was used once, it is already אסור. But in the case before, when it spoke about the bottles made of skin, made of leather, there new and old means different. New means if it was used only a little bit by גוים, because since it's made of skin, and if it's used a little bit without having the tar in it, it doesn't absorb very much, and therefore you're allowed to use it. While if it is old, old means if it is used a lot by גוים. But if it was used just a little bit, it's still considered new. This is the way רש''י learns the פשט in this גמרא. But תוספות asks many קושיות on this, and תוספות brings two different פשטים. Then the גמרא continues: עובד כוכבים נותן לתוכו יין, if these are the jugs that a גוי put wine in it, ישראל נותן לתוכו מים, a איד should put water in it. As we said before that in order to כשר it, the way to do it is by putting water in it and soaking it for three מעת לעת, and then you could use it. עובד כוכבים נותן לתוכו יין, another דין, if the גוי put wine in it, still ישראל נותן לתוכו ציר ומורייס, a איד is allowed to use it to put in ציר ומורייס, juice from fish or מורייס, this is a kind of pickled stuff. And since, the reason is, since these are sharp, so they would take away the taste of the wine if it was put in, ואינו חושש, and he doesn't care. He's allowed to do that. If you want to put other things in, for instance wine, which is not sharp, you must first put water in to כשר it, as we said before. But if you want to put ציר ומורייס in, you're allowed to put it in right away without kashering. איבעיא להו, then they ask the question: לכתחילה או דיעבד? When we say that you're allowed to put ציר ומורייס in, is it לכתחילה, that you're allowed to go ahead and do it, or if you put it in, it doesn't make it אסור? The גמרא says תא שמע, come here, I will answer your question.

דתני רב זביד דבי רבי אושעיא, because רב זביד דבי רבי אושעיא learned: הלוקח קנקנים מן עובדי כוכבים, if someone buys these earthenware jars from גוים, חדשים, if they are new, נותן לתוכן יין, you could put wine in לכתחילה. If they're new, they were never used, so they're כשר jugs and you could put your wine in. ישנים, if they're old, נותן לתוכן ציר ומורייס לכתחילה, you're allowed to use it for ציר ומורייס לכתחילה. Wine you can't put in, you got to כשר it, but ציר ומורייס you could put in לכתחילה. So here we see clearly that it's not only בדיעבד that you're allowed to use it for ציר ומורייס, but even לכתחילה you're allowed to use it for ציר ומורייס. But לכאורה one might ask a קשיא, what was the גמרא's question, whether it's לכתחילה or בדיעבד? If you look at the לשון of the ברייתא, it says clearly that it is לכתחילה. It says בפירוש there: עובד כוכבים נותן לתוכו יין, if a גוי put wine in it, ישראל נותן לתוכו ציר ומורייס ואינו חושש, a איד is able to put into it ציר ומורייס and he doesn't care. So the לשון of the ברייתא

says clearly that you're allowed to לכתחילה put in ציר ומורייס. So what is the גמרא's question now, is it לכתחילה or בדיעבד, when it says clearly here לכתחילה? Another question that is there that תוספות asks: soon in the גמרא we will see that the גמרא takes it for granted as a accepted fact that if you put ציר ומורייס in a כלי, it burns out the taste of the food that's in the כלי from before, and therefore afterwards it is כשר. Where does the גמרא take it from? Where do we see clearly that ציר ומורייס burns out the taste that's absorbed originally in the כלי? So תוספות says that there is another גירסא that we have in the ברייתא that we brought, not as we had it, that a גוי puts wine in it, then a איד could put מורייס in it ואינו חושש, but there it said different. There it said like this: that if a גוי put wine in it, and then a איד put ציר ומורייס in it, then a איד is allowed to use it לכתחילה for wine. So according to this גירסא, it didn't say clearly that if a גוי put wine in it, a איד is allowed to put ציר ומורייס. מורייס in it. All it said was that if a גוי put wine in it, and then a ייד put ציר ומורייס in it, so then he's לכתחילה allowed to put wine in it. And that's why the גמרא has a שאלה, that is a ייד allowed to לכתחילה put the ציר ומורייס in it? Or, the פשט in the ברייתא is that if בדיעבד he put ציר ומורייס in it, it burned out the taste of the יין נסך, and that's why he's allowed to use it for wine? But according to our גירסא, it's טאקע not understood what the גמרא שאלה is, whether it is לכתחילה or בדיעבד, when according to our גירסא it says clearly לכתחילה. But according to the other גירסא, it doesn't say לכתחילה, it just says that if a ייד put ציר ומורייס in it, it could be used for יין, and the גמרא שאלה is, can he do it לכתחילה? And also we see here, from this ברייתא, that ציר ומורייס burns out the taste, because it says that if you put ציר ומורייס in, then you're allowed to use it for wine. So this is where the גמרא takes as an accepted fact that ציר ומורייס burns out the taste that was put inside. Then the גמרא says,

בעו מיניה דרבי יהודה נשיאה מרב אמי, רבי יהודה נשיאה asked a question of רב אמי. And תוספות says that it seems like this רבי יהודה נשיאה was not the same רבי יהודה נשיאה which is mentioned someplace else. We know that there is a person called רבי יהודה נשיאה who is known as the one that was מתיר משחא. At one point the גמרא says later on, they אסר'ד oil, שמן of גוים, and רבי יהודה נשיאה was מתיר, and he is called the שרי משחא, that he was מתיר the משחא, the oil. So תוספות says that this רבי יהודה נשיאה is not the same as that one, because that רבי יהודה נשיאה was the grandson of רבינו הקדוש, of רבי יהודה הנשיא who made the משניות. And he's even mentioned in the ברייתא sometimes. So it couldn't be the same person who asked a question from רב אמי. Therefore, תוספות says it must be the the grandson of that רבי יהודה נשיאה. And it seems like it's the same one that's mentioned in מועד קטן. So רבי יהודה נשיאה asked a question of רב אמי: החזירם לכבשן האש ונתלבנו מהו? What if you put them back into a furnace and they become heated, what is the דין? Is that enough to consider it being כשר'ד or not, that you should be able to use it?

אמר ליה, so he said to him, ציר שורף. If ציר burns and takes out the taste that was absorbed inside, אש לא כל שכן. So fire, certainly. And therefore, if you put it back into the furnace, you're allowed to use it. איתמר נמי, אמר רבי יוחנן, and we also learned that רבי יוחנן said, ואמרי לה אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן, and some say it was רב אסי who said it in the name of רבי יוחנן, that קנקנים של עובדי כוכבים, these earthenware jars of גוים, שהחזירן לכבשן האש, that you put them back into the furnace, כיון שנשרה זפתן מהן, as soon as the tar goes off, falls off it, מותרן. They are מותר. Because if you put it in and it gets that hot that the tar falls off, then this heat is strong enough to take out the taste that was absorbed. אמר רב אשי, and רב אשי said, לא תימא don't say עד דנתרון till they actually fall off, it doesn't have to get that hot that the tar actually gets removed, אלא אפילו רפויי מרפי, even if it just gets loose, it's enough. אף על גב דלא נתר, even if it's not removed. Then the גמרא says, קינסא.

What happens if it's heated up not through the furnace, but it's heated up through little pieces of wood, which means that you take little chips of wood and you put it inside the jar and you light it up, and that makes the tar fall off? Is that enough that we should be able to consider it כשר'ד or not? So the גמרא says, פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא, there's a מחלוקת in it between רב אחא and רבינא. חד אסר וחד שרי. One says it's אסור, it's not considered כשר'ד, and one says it's מותר. והלכתא, the הלכה is כמאן דאסר, like the one that said it's אסור. And it's not the same as if you would put it into the furnace. And as רש''י explains, the reason is because in the case where you put it into the furnace, since the fire is from the outside of the כלי, so the fire gets that hot till the inside of the כלי where the tar is, it falls off. So that shows that the fire penetrated through the whole כלי, and therefore the taste that was in the כלי definitely got burnt and is not there anymore. But in the case where you put the little chips of wood inside the כלי, and that's what caused to remove the tar, this doesn't prove that the fire penetrated into the כלי to burn the taste that's inside. And this is the הלכה that this is not enough. And from here, רש''י takes out that when you want to כשר a כלי, whether it's a חביות or a קנקן, these jars that are used לקיום, meaning that גוים put stuff inside to last there for a long time, so they definitely absorb the taste of the non-כשר food that they put in, so you can't just כשר it from the inside. רש''י says from here we see, whether you're going to burn it, or you're going to pour hot water inside, It won't be enough. Since the גמרא here says that the הלכה is that כנסה, which means that you put actually a fire inside, nevertheless, it's not enough, certainly if you're gonna pour water that was heated up with fire inside, it's certainly not enough. So the

only way to כשר it is, if you're gonna heat it up from the outside, so hot that it gets hot inside too, or if you put it into water for three מעת לעת and you change the water every מעת לעת, or you're gonna hold it for 12 months as the גמרא will discuss that later. From רש״י it also comes out that there's another way to do it. If you're gonna heat it up inside טאקע, but that it'll be so hot that if you would have had tar on the outside, it would have also melted, it would have also been removed, this is also good enough, cuz the whole reason why it's no good is because we have no ראיה that it penetrated throughout the whole כלי to say that it burned the taste inside. So we understand that if you heated it up inside, but it got so hot that it penetrated through the כלי up to the outside, so then this would be considered a good כשרינג. That's the way it seems from רש״י. But תוספות says that the רבינו אלחנן doesn't accept that, because we could still be afraid maybe חס עליה דילמא פקע, that maybe he won't really put in enough fire because he'll be afraid it might crack. And the דין is that whenever there is a חשש that maybe you will not כשר it properly, so even if you do it properly, it is no good. The רבנן don't allow you to do it even properly, as a גזירה you might not do it properly. As we find in the גמרא in פסחים דף ל׳ where it says a person should not fill up pots with hot coal, and that's how that he should כשר it, because we're afraid that he's not gonna put in enough because he'll be afraid that the pot will crack. So if we're afraid by pots that they might crack, and therefore the חכמים said do not כשר it that way, certainly by חביות which is made of earthenware, certainly it's able to crack, and certainly a person would be careful not to put in too much, it shouldn't get burned, so therefore you should not be able to כשר it by putting the fire inside because we're afraid that he will not put in enough fire. And then תוספות says that the רבינו משה מקוצי writes that even though we פסקן the הלכה here in the גמרא that it's אסור, that if you only put the fire inside it is אסור and you can't כשר a כלי that way, still if you take a חביות and you turn it over over a fire, if the fire is very strong and very big from the inside and on the outside if you touch it, it'll be יד סולדת which means your hand will get burned, you will automatically remove your hand from it, that is considered like הגעלה and it is okay. And then

תוספות says that בכלל concerning הגעלה, which is the normal way of כשרינג, the רבינו תם was מתיר to כשר a חביות, to make it כשר from יין נסך, enough if you opened up one of the ends and you put hot water into it, and then you just take the water and you put it all over the כלי, that is enough. Even though by other איסורים this is not considered כשרינג, because this is not even considered עירוי כלי ראשון. By כשרינג we know that there are a few stages. You have a way of כשרינג that you take the טריפה כלי, the כלי that absorbed non-כשר food, and you immerse it in boiling water. That water is considered כלי ראשון because it's boiling water that is a כלי ראשון. Now there is a second stage, which in some cases is okay, if you take that boiling water that was burned over the fire and you pour the water over the non-כשר כלי, so that is considered עירוי כלי ראשון. But the case that we just said now is not even עירוי כלי ראשון, because what he did was, he poured the hot water in it, and then he takes that hot water and puts it all over the כלי, which is even less than עירוי כלי ראשון. So by a regular איסור, if you wanna כשר it that way, it wouldn't help. But in the case of יין נסך the רבינו תם was מתיר. And he said why? Because usually יין נסך are used for cold as the גמרא says, and therefore, since the way it was absorbed was only through cold, therefore this would be enough to כשר it. And he brings a ראיה from the גמרא later on, where it says that רבי יוסי said concerning this דין that חולטן במי זיתים, that you could even put over it water that comes from olives, which by other איסורים this wouldn't help, so we see that in this איסור it is much easier. Then תוספות says that the ר״י said that it's a מצוה מן המובחר, it would be a הידור, it would be very good if a person would כשר every piece of wood separately. In other words, he would take the כלי apart, and take every wood separately, and pour on every wood from the כלי ראשון itself. That would be enough. Even though the boiling of the כלי, of the water that's in the כלי would stop when you take it off the fire, and when you pour it, nevertheless, in this case it would be enough. Then תוספות says that what some people would do is, that they would take a מחבת, a pan, and fill it up with water, and put it on the fire and have it heat up till it boils, and then have a plate over it that the boiling ing water would overflow into the plate, and the water of that plate would be used to כשר. So the ר"י was מסופק, he was in doubt whether this helps like a כלי ראשון or not, whether the water that overflowed into the plate is considered a כלי ראשון, has the same heat as water that was boiled up over the fire or not. And therefore, since it was a ספק, he was מחמיר, and he said that you shouldn't use this water to כשר, because this is considered like a כלי שני. Also concerning the מחלוקת here that we have between רב אחא and רבינא whether you're allowed to כשר with the כיסנא, also on this גמרא where we had a מחלוקת between רב אחא and רבינא concerning כיסנא, if you take the little pieces of wood and you put it inside the jar, whether it is enough to כשר it or not, and it said one said אסור and one said מותר, and the הלכה is that it's אסור. Now here it doesn't say which one says מותר and which one says אסור. So תוספות says, in the whole תורה usually רבינא was always the one that was מיקל, and רב אחא was always the one that was מחמיר. And always the הלכה is like רבינא who goes לקולא, as the גמרא says in פרק גיד הנשה in חולין דף צ"ג. So תוספות says this is the reason why here the גמרא has to say clearly דהלכתא כמאן דאסר, the הלכה is like the one that makes it אסור, because this would be an exception to the rule. Because usually the הלכה would be לקולא, so therefore here the גמרא has to specifically say that הלכה is like the one that is אסר, because to tell us that this is an exception to the general rule. Then the גמרא says איבעיא להו, there was a question asked: מהו ליתן לתוכו שכר, what is the דין, can you put beer into this כלי that came from a גוי? In other words, the כלי that absorbed יין נסך from the גוי, so we said before you're allowed to put into it לכתחילה ציר ומוריס, because the taste of the ציר ומוריס, the sharpness of it will burn out the taste of the יין נסך. So the question is: what is the דין, can you put beer in it? רב נחמן ורב יהודה אסרי, רב נחמן and רב יהודה said it's אסור. ורבא שרי, רבא said it's מותר. רבינא שרא ליה לרב חייא בריה דרב יצחק למימר ביה שכרא, רבינא allowed רב חייא the son of רב יצחק to put beer in it. אזל רמא ביה חמרא, so he went and he put wine in it. When he heard that you're allowed to put beer in it, he thought you're allowed to put wine in it also, and he went and put in wine. ואפילו הכי לא חש לה למילתא, and still he did not care, because לכאורה רבינא should have seen that since he allowed to put beer in, he went and put wine in, so לכאורה this should have been a reason for him to say that you shouldn't put beer in either as גזירה that if you put beer in, then other people will put wine in, as he actually saw it happen. Still he didn't care and this didn't make him change his mind and make גזירה and אסר to put beer in. אמר, he said: אקראי בעלמא, it just happened. It wasn't something that happens very often, it just happened once. So from there is no ראיה that this is something that could happen very often, that it should be a reason that you should make גזירה, and therefore he still didn't make a גזירה and he still said that you are allowed to put beer in. רב יצחק בר ביסנא הוו ליה הנהו מאני דפחוסנא, רב יצחק בר ביסנא had these כלים, גויישע כלים that were made of פחוסנא, which means of clay and ordure, מלינהו מיא, he filled it up with water, as we said before that the way to כשר a גויישע כלי is by filling it up in water and letting it soak for three days, and then אנחינהו בשמשא, he put it in the sun. He wanted to do an extra thing afterwards, put it in the sun to dry. פקעו, they cracked. אמר ליה רבא, רבא said to him: אסרתינהו לנפשך איסורא דלעולם, now you made it אסור forever, now you can't use it, because had you not have done it, then you would be able to use it, but now that you did it, you made it אסור for yourself forever meaning it now you spoiled it, because he really didn't have to do it. אימר דאמור רבנן, what did רבנן say? מלינהו מיא, that you have to fill it up with water. אנוחי בשמשא מי אמור? Did they say that you should put it into the sun? So you didn't have to do it, and since you did it, you spoiled it for yourself. Then the גמרא says, אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן, רב אסי said in the name of רבי יוחנן: כלי נתר, a כלי made of נתר, אין לו טהרה עולמית, you could never כשר it. מאי כלי נתר, the גמרא asks: what is the meaning of כלי נתר? אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין, so רבי יוסי בר אבין said: כלי מחפורת של צריף, a כלי, a vessel made of crystals coming from an alum mine. Then the גמרא continues: דבי פרזק רופילא, there were some people from פרזק who was the second to the king, אנס הני כובי מפומבדיתא, they seized some vessels from פומבדיתא, from some יידן of פומבדיתא, they were wine casks from the יידן of פומבדיתא. רמו בהו חמרא, they put wine into it. אהדרינהו ניהלייהו, and they gave it back to them. אתו שיילוהו לרב יהודה, so the owners of these vessels came to ask רב יהודה whether they're allowed to use it or not. אמר, he said, דבר שאין מכניסו לקיום הוא, that this is a case of vessels that were only taken for temporary use. It wasn't that they put the איסור in לקיום for a permanent use, but they just put it in for a temporary use. So then the דין is משכשכן במים והם מותרין. All you have to do is rinse it with water and they are permitted. אמר רב אויא, רב אויא said: הני חצבי שחימי דארמאי, these jugs of גוים made of dark clay, כיוון דלא בלעי טובא, since they don't absorb a lot, משכשכן במים ומותרין. All you do is rinse it with water, it's enough. And there was special כלים that were made with very hard clay and didn't absorb a lot, so then you don't even have to כשר, you just have to rinse it and it's מותר. אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said: הני פסווסא דבי מיכסא, or as a גירסא said on the side of the גמרא, הני כלי פסווסא דבי מיכסא, which means these earthenware of the place called מיכסא, כיוון דלא בלע טובא, since they don't absorb a lot, because they were also made of hard clay, so it didn't absorb a lot, משכשכן במים ומותרין, you are just to rinse it in water and they are allowed. Then the

גמרא says: כסא, what about cups? Cups which are used for יין נסך, but they're only used to drink, they're not used to store יין נסך in it. Can you use them or not? רב אסי אסר ורב אשי שרי. רב אסי said it's forbidden, and רב אשי said that it's מותר. And the גמרא explains it: אי שתו בהו עובדי כוכבים פעם ראשון, if a גוי just drank from it the first time, which means that when it was new, the first drink that was used was used by a גוי for יין נסך, כולי עלמא לא פליגי, no one argues, everyone holds דאסור, that it's אסור, because since nothing was absorbed in it yet, and the first thing that was absorbed was the wine of the גוי, so that is definitely אסור. כי פליגי, where do they argue? בפעם שני, if the גוי drank from it the second time. First it absorbed כשר things, then the גוי drank from it. The שאלה is, is this considered also that it absorbed יין נסך and it should be אסור or not? איכא דאמרי, some say פעם ראשון ושני כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסור, that concerning the first or second time, everyone agrees that it's אסור, because even the second time we know for sure that it absorbed. If it only was used once before and then the גוי used it, it definitely absorbed the יין נסך from the גוי, and it is אסור. כי פליגי, where do they argue? בפעם גימ״ל, concerning a third time. The first two times that it was used was used for כשר things, then the third use was done by a גוי. That's when the question is whether it is אסור or מותר. והלכתא, and the

הלכה is פעם ראשון ושני אסור, and if it was used by the גוי the first or even the second time, it is אסור. גימ״ל, if it was used by the גוי the third time, מותר, then it's מותר. This is the way רש״י learns פשט in this גמרא. But תוספות asks a קשיא on רש״י that it says later on in דף ע״ד that מודה רבי מאיר בקנקנים שהן אסורים, that רבי מאיר says that קנקנים, these earthenware jugs, are אסור because מכניסן לקיום, because the גוים store wine in it. It's משמע that the only reason it is אסור and you must כשר it is because the גוים store wine in it. But if not for this reason that they store wine in it, but it would be a כלי that is just used temporary, then it would be enough just if you dry it, if you just rinse it once. But here it comes out that even if it's a כלי which is not made לקיום, like the cups here which are not used to store the wine in it, just to drink in it, nevertheless it says the דין that if the גוי was the first one to use it for wine, or the second time even if he used it for wine, the דין is that you must כשר it. When there it says that the only reason you must כשר it is because they are קנקנים, they are jugs that the גוי would store the wine in it, but if not for that, if it would be just used temporarily, then you could take it from the גוי and you don't have to כשר it, you just dry it. Therefore, the רבינו תם learns a different פשט here concerning the meaning of first time, second time, or third time. He says that here we are talking by cups, and it makes no difference whether they are old or new, and even if the גוי drank a lot of wine in it many times, the whole שאלה in the גמרא is, since they are only cups, it was only used temporarily, it wasn't used to store the wine in it, the שאלה is do you have to כשר it or don't you have to כשר it? And when the גמרא says the לשון that there's a difference between a first time and the second time or the third time, it doesn't mean whether the גוי was the first one to use it, or the גוי was the second one to use it, Or the third one. It means how many times must you rinse it in order to make it כשר. So when the גמרא says that everyone agrees that concerning the first time it's אסור, it means that when you buy or take a cup from a גוי that he used, so one thing is for sure, once you must rinse it. מחלוקת is, must you rinse it twice? And then the איכא דאמרי says that even twice everyone agrees you must rinse it. The מחלוקת is whether you must rinse it three times. And the הלכה is that פעם ראשון ושני אסור, which means that two times is not enough, the third time, if you rinse it three times, it's enough, because we assume since it didn't really absorb much, because it was only used to drink, not to store, so by rinsing it, it takes out the taste from the כלי. So once and twice if you rinse it, it's not enough, but when you rinse it a third time, it definitely takes out the taste from the כלי. And תוספות brings a ראיה to this לשון from the גמרא in זבחים. There it says חרסון של זב וזבה, if you have a חרסון, which means a כלי where the זב וזבה do their needs, they put their מי רגלים there, so it says that מים ראשונים ושניים טמאים. First and second water is still טמא, because the liquid of a זב is טמא. So it says the לשון that the first or second time of the water, it is still טמא, the third time is טהור. What does that mean there? It means that after you take the כלי and you rinse it. So after you rinse it the first time, it is still טמא, because we are still afraid that a little drop of the מי רגלים of the זב or זבה is still there, and it's still טמא. The second time again means if you even rinse it the second time, it's still טמא, because you're still not sure that all the מי רגלים of the זב or זבה are taken away. The third time it's טהור. When you rinse it the third time, then we know for sure that there is nothing left. And the same thing is here also: the first or second rinsing is not enough, but the third rinsing, that's when it is okay. And תוספות brings another ראיה, that it says in מדרש on מגילת אסתר, when המן had a טענה and he said to אחשורוש, ישנו עם אחד, that there is this one nation that their laws are different than all other nations. So it says that one of the things he said to אחשורוש was that if a fly would fall into a cup of one of them, he would just take the fly out, pour the fly out, and he would drink the wine. But if you yourself, the king, would touch it, then what would he do? He would

throw it to the ground, he would pour out the wine, and not only that, that he wouldn't even use the cup that the wine was in it, but he would rinse the cup three times. So we see that you have to rinse the cup three times. And this is what the גמרא means here, that פעם ראשונה ושניה אסור, by rinsing once or twice it's still אסור, if you rinse it the third time, that's when it becomes מותר. And תוספות says this is only if they are cups of חרס, of earthenware. But if they are cups of wood, or of metal, or of glass, then you only have to rinse it once. On the other hand, תוספות says that we do find different places in the גמרא where it says the word כוס סתם, and it doesn't explain what kind of כוס, and it doesn't necessarily mean a כוס of earthenware, it could mean of metal or of glass. So according to that, when it says in our גמרא that כוסות you have to rinse three times, it could be that it doesn't mean only כוסות of earthenware, could be it means also כוסות of glass or of metal. Therefore, תוספות says it is good to be מחמיר, and if you take a glass from a גוי, you should even rinse it even if it is not made of earthenware, if it's made of some other material, because maybe this is what the גמרא means. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב זביד, רב זביד said, האי מאנא דקוניא, if you have these כלים made of earthenware, but they are covered with lead, חיורי ואוכמי, the white ones and the black ones, שרי, are allowed. ירוקי, אסור. The green ones, they are אסור. And the reason is משום דמצריף, because it contains a certain material in it which comes from a certain sand, that this makes it absorb a lot, and therefore, the green ones are אסור. ואי אית בהו קרטופני, if it has cracks, כולהו אסירי, they are all אסור. Since it has cracks, so through the cracks it gets absorbed, and it goes into the כלי חרס, because under the lead you have חרס, you have earthenware, that's why it's אסור. דרש מרימר, מרימר דרש, קוניא, the כלים made of earthenware covered with lead, בין אוכמי, בין חיורי, בין ירוקי, whether it is black, or white, or green, שרי and is מותר. But then the גמרא asks, מאי שנא מחמץ בפסח? Why should this be different than concerning the דין of חמץ on פסח? Because we know דבעו מיניה ממרימר, there was a question asked of מרימר, of the same מרימר that said here that they are all מותר, whether it is black, white, or green, but he was asked a question, like האי מאנא דקוניא, these כלים made of earthenware covered with lead, מהו לאשתמושי בהו בפסחא? What is the דין, can we use it on פסח? פסח, they were חמצדיקע כלים that absorbed חמץ, the question was, can we use them on פסח? And they said to him like this: ירוקי לא תיבעי לך, green ones we don't ask you, דמצרפא בלעי, since they have this material over it, in it, that makes it absorb, so that we don't even ask, ואסירי, we know for sure it's אסור. כי תיבעי לך, what was our question? חיורי ואוכמי מאי, the white ones and the black ones, what is the דין? And they said even more: כי אית בהו קרטופני, if it has cracks, לא תיבעי לך, we're not asking you, דוודאי בלעי, that definitely absorbs, ואסירי, it is for sure אסור. כי תיבעי לך, when do we ask you? דשיעי, if it's smooth and has no cracks, מאי, what is the דין? אמר להו, so he said to them, אנא חזינא להו דמדייצי, I saw these כלים and they sweat. וכיוון דמדייצי, since they sweat, ודאי בלעי, certainly they absorb, ואסירי, and they are אסור. Because since they sweat by having the liquid inside and they sweat outside, that shows that the liquid goes through the כלי, so obviously it absorbs. Now since it absorbs, there's nothing you could do with it. You can't even קשר it. Because inside is כלי חרס, is earthenware, and earthenware you cannot קשר. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? התורה העידה על כלי חרס שאינו יוצא מידי דופנו לעולם. The תורה testified that whatever is absorbed in a כלי חרס will never come out. Where did the תורה testify? The תורה says that if a כלי חרס absorbed איסור, ישבר, it should be broken. And there is nothing you could do with it, just break it. So that shows that it'll never come out from the walls, from the כלי, and therefore this cannot be קשר'ד. But the question is: מאי שנא מיין נסך דדרש ליה מרימר כולהו מאני דקוניא שרי, why is this different than the same כלים concerning יין נסך, that the same מרימר said that they are all מותר? Here we see that he said they are all אסור. Concerning חמץ בפסח, he said you can't use it on פסח, and you can't even קשר it. And concerning the case of יין נסך, he דרש'נד that all of them, whether they are black or white or green, they are allowed. וכי תימא, and if you'll tell me the difference is because חמץ דאורייתא and יין נסך דרבנן, because the איסור of חמץ is an איסור דאורייתא, and therefore he was מחמיר there, but here we're talking about יין נסך, meaning not real יין נסך that was poured in front of עבודה זרה, because that is also דאורייתא, but we're talking about סתם יינם that the חכמים אסר'ד, as a גזירה to יין נסך or as a גזירה to חתנות not to intermarry, which is only a דין דרבנן, and therefore he was מקיל, but that is not a good enough answer, because we know the כלל: והא כל דתיקון דרבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון. Anything that the רבנן were מתקן, any דין that the רבנן made, they made it similar to דאורייתא. And therefore, if in the same case, by a דין דאורייתא it should be אסור, then by a דין דרבנן it should also be אסור, because the רבנן is similar to דאורייתא. And the גמרא answers, difference is: זה תשמישו בחמין וזה תשמישו בצונן. This one is used in hot, when you use the כלי for חמץ, it is also used for hot, so it absorbed through hot, and therefore there you cannot use it and you can't even קשר it. But here, concerning יין נסך, it only absorbed through cold, because it's only used in cold, so even though it does absorb, but still could use it because since it absorbed in cold, it didn't absorb it that much, and therefore you could use it. Concerning this כלי that we are discussing here, which the גמרא calls קוניא, so as we said before, רש״י learns that this is covered with lead. תוספות asks that in גמרא זבחים it says concerning the מזבח a לשון that סיד וקוניא. Now if קוניא means lead, then the גמרא should not have used the לשון קוניא, but a לשון אבר. Because usually in the גמרא the לשון is אבר, as we find other places it says פסילא של אבר, so it should have said אבר not קוניא. And also, why should a כלי which is covered with lead be worse than if it's completely made of lead? And another question: here in the גמרא it says that the green ones are אסור because they do absorb, דמצרף, because they have that mixture in it. So תוספות says, we see our כלים that they have the green lead and they're not מצרף. So therefore תוספות says that here it doesn't mean covered with lead, but it means glazed, covered with glass. Not real glass, but glass that's taken from sand, and it's not completely finished, and they cover the כלי. So here, since it comes from sand, it is similar like a כלי חרס. Because כלי חרס is made of sand, and glass is also made of sand. Now normally, a כלי זכוכית, glass, doesn't absorb. But here, since the whole כלי is not made of glass, it's just covered with the glass that's glazed, this the גמרא says does absorb. So according to תוספות, it's not a כלי covered with lead, but it's a כלי covered with glass. Then concerning what we learn in the גמרא, that the תורה testified that a כלי חרס, whatever was absorbed inside will never come out, לכאורה what's the פשט it'll never come out? תוספות asks, we know that if you put it back into the oven, into the furnace, then you could use the כלי. As the גמרא says in פרק דם חטאת in זבחים דף צ״ו, it says concerning the כלי חרס of the מקדש, so it says there that the reason why we can't use the כלי חרס over again and put it into the furnace because אין עושין כבשונות בירושלים, because we were not allowed to make furnaces in ירושלים. But if not for that, in other words, if you could make furnaces in ירושלים, then by putting it into the furnace, whatever was absorbed would go out. So we see from that גמרא that even by a כלי חרס, if it's put into the כבשון, then it takes out whatever was absorbed inside. So how come the גמרא says here that the תורה testified that whatever is absorbed in a כלי חרס will never come out, but it will come out through being put back into the כבשון? And the רבינו תם answers that that is not considered that it comes out of the כלי חרס, because it is considered as if it's a new כלי, or we say is פנים חדשות באו לכאן. If you put it back into the furnace, there's a new face, it's like a new כלי. What the גמרא says here is that to remain the same כלי and to do something to take out what is absorbed in the כלי, that we don't find. But to turn it into a new כלי, that is something else, and that you could do. But then תוספות asks: Since we do consider it like a new כלי, then why is the דין תנור וכירים יותץ, that if an oven became אסור, it says you should break it, and these are ovens made of clay, made of כלי חרס. Why should you break it? Why does the תורה say you have to destroy it? Why can't you put it back into the כבשון, and then it'll become מותר? תוספות says that the רב שמשון משאנץ says that by pots of חרס, which is not normally used in fire, so here by putting it back into the furnace, you could say that now it is a new כלי. Normally it is not used in the fire; when you heat it up in a such a strong fire like the furnace, that brings it, makes it into a new כלי. But a תנור וכירים, an oven, which is always used with heat, and the way it became אסור is also through heat, the איסור that was absorbed in the כלי will not come out even if you put it into the furnace, and it would not be considered like a new כלי. But the ב״ח brings here that in פרק דם חטאת is משמע from תוספות that תוספות hold that when we say that by a תנור וכירים heating up doesn't help, only if you heat it up from the inside. But if you're going to heat it from the outside, which would be the same way as was originally made, because when they originally make it, they put the whole thing into the כבשון, into the furnace, and it is burnt from the inside and the outside, so if you would do that to the תנור וכירים, it would help even in the case of תנור וכירים, because then it would be considered that it is a new כלי. Concerning the תוספות that we mentioned before, that תוספות learns that the כלי קוניא that we're talking about here is not covered with lead as רש״י learns, but covered with glass. And one of the קושיות that תוספות asked was that if it means covered with lead, why should it be different than if the whole כלי is of lead? If the whole כלי is of lead, it is okay, why shouldn't it be good if it's just covered with lead? And תוספות learned that it doesn't mean that it's covered with lead, but it's covered with glass. And even though normally a כלי made of glass does not absorb because it's smooth, but if it's only covered with glass, it could absorb. Now לכאורה תוספות contradicts itself, because תוספות doesn't understand why should there be a difference if it's covered with lead than if the whole כלי is lead, and then תוספות in their own פשט come and say the same thing, that there's a difference whether it's made only of glass or if it's just covered with glass. So the מהרש״א explains that it's not the same. If you learn that it means it's covered with lead, so then we assume that just like a כלי of lead doesn't absorb, a כלי covered with lead shouldn't absorb either. But according to תוספות that it's covered with glass, so here, since the כלי is a כלי חרס, and חרס is made of earth, of sand, and glass is also made of sand, so here, if the whole כלי is of glass, טאקע it's different, then it doesn't absorb. But if the whole כלי is made of חרס, and just the covering is of glass, which is the same מין, the same general material as the חרס, so here it makes sense to say that if it's just covered, so the חרס would absorb through the glass, because glass and חרס is the same thing. But if you learn that it means covered with lead, then there is no reason to say that if it is just covered with lead, it should be different than if the whole כלי is lead. That's why תוספות asked the קשיא on רש״י, but according to תוספות's own פשט, it is understood.